RESILIENCE AS AN ORGANISATIONAL CAPABILITY: A STUDY OF HOW FIRMS SURVIVE AND OUTPERFORM IN DISRUPTIVE TIMES

Abstract

An environment, in which volatility and deep uncertainty represent the leading paradigm, pressures firms to focus their attention on adapting to disruptive environmental conditions. Although scholarly attention in the firm-level resilience construct has increased over the years, a number of important issues remain underexplored. To advance progress in the field, research is needed on the dimensions of resilient response formulation and enactment, the dimensions of the disruptive environment and situational factors as well as resilience as a latent outcome variable. Based on an in-depth, systematic review of the received literature, this thesis aims to extend the firm-level resilience literature by offering two distinct views of how firms develop, nurture and sustain firm-level resilience: One, the conceptual model of resilience capacity proposes a dynamic capability view of the dimensions and capabilities that underpin resilience capacity, thereby informing the capability literature on the capabilities essential to firm-level resilience. Two, the empirical study yields an inductive-contingency-based model of resilience that informs literature on the processes, dynamics and behaviours that underpin resilience response formulation and enactment contingent upon situational factors as well as characteristics of disruptiveness by detailing the dynamic, recursive and reciprocal nature of the relationships within the inductive model. In combination, these two views may provide useful insights to inform scholarship and managerial practise.

Full text

RESILIENCE AS AN ORGANISATIONAL CAPABILITY:
A STUDY OF HOW FIRMS SURVIVE AND OUTPERFORM IN DISRUPTIVE TIMES
DIETMAR KAPPEL
SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
2021

Resilience as an Organisational Capability:
A study of how firms survive and outperform in disruptive times
Dietmar KAPPEL
Submitted to Lee Kong Chian School of Business
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business (General Management)
Dissertation Committee:
Gerry GEORGE (Supervisor, Chair)
Lee Kong Chian Chair Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Singapore Management University
Daniel Z. MACK
Assistant Professor of Strategic Management
Singapore Management University
Andreas B. EISINGERICH
Professor of Marketing
Imperial College London
SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
2021
Copyright (2021) Dietmar KAPPEL

I hereby declare that this PhD dissertation is my original work
and it has been written by me in its entirety.
I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information
which have been used in this dissertation.
This PhD dissertation has also not been submitted for any degree
in any university previously.
Dietmar KAPPEL
16 April, 2021

Abstract
Resilience as an Organisational Capability:
A study of how firms survive and outperform in disruptive times
Dietmar KAPPEL
An environment, in which volatility and deep uncertainty represent the leading
paradigm, pressures firms to focus their attention on adapting to disruptive
environmental conditions. Although scholarly attention in the firm-level resilience
construct has increased over the years, a number of important issues remain
underexplored. To advance progress in the field, research is needed on the dimensions
of resilient response formulation and enactment, the dimensions of the disruptive
environment and situational factors as well as resilience as a latent outcome variable.
Based on an in-depth, systematic review of the received literature, this thesis aims to
extend the firm-level resilience literature by offering two distinct views of how firms
develop, nurture and sustain firm-level resilience: One, the conceptual model of
resilience capacity proposes a dynamic capability view of the dimensions and
capabilities that underpin resilience capacity, thereby informing the capability literature
on the capabilities essential to firm-level resilience. Two, the empirical study yields an
inductive-contingency-based model of resilience that informs literature on the
processes, dynamics and behaviours that underpin resilience response formulation and
enactment contingent upon situational factors as well as characteristics of
disruptiveness by detailing the dynamic, recursive and reciprocal nature of the
relationships within the inductive model. In combination, these two views may provide
useful insights to inform scholarship and managerial practise.
Keywords: Organisational Resilience, Resilience Capacity, Dynamic Capability Theory,
Contingency Theory, Systematic Literature Review, Grounded Theory, Business Dynamics
& System Thinking, Theory development

i
Table of contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1: Resilience in the literature ......................................................................................................... 3
Prior literature – systematic review .........................................................................................................................8
Past research on organisational resilience............................................................................................................ 11
Prior conceptualisations and dimensions .............................................................................................................. 17
Prior definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2: Reconceptualisation of resilience capacity ................................................................................ 22
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Dimensions of RESCAP ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Sensing ......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Exploring ...................................................................................................................................................... 30
Seizing .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Transforming ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Potential and realised RESCAP .............................................................................................................................. 36
A conceptual dynamic capability model of RESCAP .............................................................................................. 38
Antecedents ................................................................................................................................................. 39
Amplifying (moderates) ............................................................................................................................... 44
Integrating (moderates) .............................................................................................................................. 47
Outcomes..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Leveraging (moderates) ............................................................................................................................... 55
Discussion .............................................................................................................................................................. 58
Future research ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 3: Inductive study ........................................................................................................................ 64
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 64
Research methods ................................................................................................................................................. 64
Theoretical sampling ................................................................................................................................... 67
Theoretical saturation ................................................................................................................................. 68
Data collection ............................................................................................................................................. 69
Data analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 72
Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 77
Disruptiveness (A) ........................................................................................................................................ 78
Sensing (B) ................................................................................................................................................... 87
Exploring (C)................................................................................................................................................. 90
Buffering (D) ................................................................................................................................................ 93
Reconfiguring (E) ......................................................................................................................................... 98
Situational Moderators (F) ........................................................................................................................ 103
Resilience (G) ............................................................................................................................................. 109
An inductive-contingency-based view of Resilience ............................................................................................ 114
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 117
Limitations and future research .......................................................................................................................... 121
Concluding remarks of the thesis ............................................................................................................ 123
Limitations of the thesis and future research .......................................................................................... 124

ii
References ............................................................................................................................................. 130
Back matter ........................................................................................................................................... 173
Appendix A – list of studies reviewed (Chapter 1) ............................................................................................... 173
Appendix B – literature review details (Chapter 1) ............................................................................................. 182
Appendix C – propositions summarised (Chapter 2) ........................................................................................... 224
Appendix D – comparing conceptualisations and definitions (Chapter 2) .......................................................... 226
Appendix E – questions for interviews (Chapter 3) ............................................................................................. 227
Appendix F – list of interviews (Chapter 3).......................................................................................................... 229
Appendix G – emerging concepts (Chapter 3) ..................................................................................................... 230
Appendix H – codebook (Chapter 3) .................................................................................................................... 250
Appendix I – analysis of coding per interview (Chapter 3) .................................................................................. 252
Appendix J – secondary data for triangulation (Chapter 3) ................................................................................ 253
Appendix K – approach, summary and results (Chapter 2 & 3) .......................................................................... 254
Appendix L – contributions and limitations (Chapter 2 & 3) ............................................................................... 255
Appendix M – contingency theory in Strategic Management ............................................................................ 256

iii
List of tables
Table 1 – resilience conceptualisation and measurement (selected works) ........................................................ 14
Table 2 – past conceptualisations of organisational resilience ............................................................................ 21
Table 3 – resilience capacity: main dimensions and capabilities, reconceptualised ............................................ 28
Table 4 – moderators: amplifying, integrating and leveraging ............................................................................. 50
Table 5 – resilience outcomes ............................................................................................................................... 50
Table 6 – group names and description ................................................................................................................ 71
Table 7 – overview of data sources....................................................................................................................... 71
Table 8 – general future research directions ...................................................................................................... 129
Table 9 – studies reviewed, by year of publication ............................................................................................ 173
Table 10 – literature review summary ................................................................................................................ 182
Table 11 – propositions: summary of propositions ............................................................................................ 224
Table 12 – comparing prior and new conceptualisations and definitions.......................................................... 226
Table 13 – list of interviews ................................................................................................................................ 229
Table 14 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Disruptiveness .................................................. 230
Table 15 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Sensing .............................................................. 235
Table 16 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Exploring ........................................................... 236
Table 17 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Buffering ........................................................... 238
Table 18 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Reconfiguring .................................................... 241
Table 19 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Situational moderators ..................................... 244
Table 20 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Resilience .......................................................... 247
Table 21 – qualitative study: codebook from data analysis ............................................................................... 250
Table 22 – analysis of coding per interview ........................................................................................................ 252
Table 23 – secondary data examples (inductive study) ...................................................................................... 253
Table 24 – summary of approach, theoretical lens, results across papers (Chapter 2 & 3) ............................... 254
Table 25 – summary of contributions, limitations and future research (Chapter 2 & 3) ................................... 255
List of figures
Figure 1 – timeline of important works (selected works and contributions) ....................................................... 12
Figure 2 – conceptual RESCAP model reconceptualised (own illustration) .......................................................... 38
Figure 3 – inductive research process (own illustration) , ................................................................................... 74
Figure 4 – inductive data structure (own illustration) .......................................................................................... 76
Figure 5 – an inductive-contingency-based model of resilience (own illustration)............................................ 114

iv
Acknowledgements
Words cannot express the gratitude I’d like to convey for my supervisor and the chair
of my dissertation committee, Dean Gerry George. I feel profoundly humbled and privileged
to count Gerry as my mentor on this journey, who always had the patience to endure my
learning. Gerry taught me to think, read and write, and always pushed me (and this work) to
be better. Most of all, I’d like to thank Gerry for giving me the opportunity to embark on this
journey and for patiently teaching me to think differently. I want to thank Gerry for boosting
my confidence to pursue this stream of research. I will remain truly indebted to him.
Likewise, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the other members of this
dissertation committee, Assistant Prof. Daniel Mack and Prof. Andreas Eisingerich for their
continuous support, encouragement, insightful comments, questions and advice to further
improve the quality and the intended contribution of my work as well as their time invested
at different stages in this journey. I will remain ever so grateful for their continued support.
To all of my interview participants, who, all in senior positions in their organisations,
took the time out of their busy schedules to contribute to this journey by readily giving their
time to share their experiences, expertise and insights. Their wealth of experience and deep
knowledge have formed a key part of the empirical work done in this thesis.
To my family and friends, who, regardless of where they are in the world, always offered
a word of encouragement and their support, and helped me endure the ups and downs of
this journey. With your help, I was able to start this next chapter in my life.

v
Dedication
To Sarah, who never allowed me to give up and without whose unconditional love and
support, I would not be who I am today.

1
Introduction
The issue of firm survival in disruptive times increasingly attracts scholarly attention
across several fields. In the field of strategic management, this paper joins the conversation
on how some firms are able to survive and even thrive in disruptive times while others do not
(van der Vegt et al., 2015). More precisely, this dissertation outlines two distinct views of firm-
level resilience: a dynamic capability view of resilience capacity and a contingency-based view
of how firms formulate and enact responses under disruptiveness. Prior work in this domain
has generated important insights, expressed through a number of different perspectives,
definitions and views. With a significant portion of the academic conversation being
conceptual, scholars have taken a variety of perspectives such as a system equilibrium
(Holling, 1973; Meyer, 1982), a capability-based (Coutu, 2002; Duchek, 2020) and a resource-
based (Linnenluecke, 2017; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) view. Despite disagreement on a variety
of issues, this stream of research concluded on several essential features of resilience such as
the resilience outcomes being indirectly observable as a latent outcome variable (DesJardine
et al., 2019; Hayward et al., 2010; Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana & Bansal, 2016) and that resilience can
be nurtured (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).
However, because of the idiosyncratic perspectives and approaches taken by scholars
hitherto, we lack a coherent and systematic understanding of resilience in the management
domain, which in turn constrains the theoretical development of resilience as a generalisable
organisational construct. Indeed, our current understanding of resilience of the firm is shaped
by diverging construct-definitions, by differing theoretical conceptualisations, by inconclusive
measurements and by deviating empirical research approaches. Scholars furthermore tend
to disagree on the dimensions and capabilities that constitute the resilience capacity of the
firm (Conz & Magnani, 2020; Hillmann, 2020; Linnenluecke, 2017). Aspects of the

2
organisational resilience framework such as the dimensions of resilient outcomes and
boundary conditions that moderate the relationships within the focal theory, have thus far
received little attention.
The purpose of this thesis is to address these aforementioned gaps in the received
literature by exploring how firms survive and outperform under disruptiveness through two
distinct lenses: the dynamic capability perspective and the contingency theoretical
perspective. This thesis proposes a reconceptualised theory of firm-level resilience that
endorses a more nuanced view of the antecedents and the environmental conditions that
characterise disruptive times, the underlying dimensions and capabilities of firm-level
resilience, the boundary conditions that moderate the relationships within the theory, and
resiliency measured as outcomes. The conclusion of this thesis is that both the dynamic
capability view and the inductive-contingency-based view of firm-level resilience offer
important insights for the firm-level resilience literature by informing how firms develop and
deploy essential capabilities and how firms formulate and enact responses contingent upon
environmental and situational variables. While observing the same phenomenon across both
studies, these two distinct views may provide a richer and more nuanced understanding of
how firm-level resilience is developed, achieved and sustained in disruptive times.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the received literature on firm-level resilience
through a systematic literature review. The conceptual effort in Chapter 2 proposes a
reconceptualised model of firm-level resilience capacity through the dynamic capability
theoretical lens (Figure 2), while Chapter 3 summarises empirical findings from the inductive
study through the lens of contingency-theory, yielding an inductive-contingency-based model
of firm-level resilience (Figure 5). A brief summary, findings and contributions as well as
limitations of these studies and potential future research directions conclude this thesis.

3
Chapter 1: Resilience in the literature
The capacity of a firm to be resilient describes firm behaviours and processes that foster
a variety of capabilities, allowing firms to sense threats and explore opportunities, seize and
transform assets, enabling firms to survive and even thrive in the face of disruption.
Understanding how firms build and retain competitive advantage “in regimes of rapid
change” (Teece et al., 1997, p. 510) has been at the centre of attention in the dynamic
capability theory. Seeking an explanation for firm-level success and failure (Teece et al., 1997)
in disruptive times, this paper adopts a dynamic capability view of firm-level capabilities
critical to sustained competitive advantage and superior firm performance in disruptive
times. At the core of the dynamic capability perspective rests the notion that sustained
competitive advantage is a result of how a firms’ dynamic capabilities enable the
management and reconfiguration of its asset and skill base (Teece et al., 1997).
Adopting a dynamic capability perspective in the investigation of firm-level resilience is
useful for a variety of reasons. Routed in the resource-based view of the firm and
incorporating notions of Schumpeterian innovation-based competition and rents, the
dynamic capability view emphasises managerial flexibility in environments characterised by
deep uncertainty (Teece, 2019). Traditional approaches to explaining firm-level differences in
performance “assume relatively predictable environments” and equate uncertainty with risk
(Teece, 2019, p. 17). In contrast, the dynamic capability view explicitly acknowledges deep
uncertainty (Teece, 2014a, 2017, 2019). Deep uncertainty often manifests through events
that had not been anticipated in environments that demonstrate rapidly evolving disruptive
dynamics driven by a variety of external and internal factors.
While prior work in-part adopted a capability-perspective of firm resilience (Darkow,
2019; Duchek, 2020, 2014), empirical findings on the dimensions and capabilities that

4
constitute resilience capacity as a dynamic capability of the firm remain inconclusive. The
dynamic capability perspective offers a particularly informative approach to explaining
differences in firm-level performance, competitive advantage and the formulation of
responses in disruptive times (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Teece et al., 1997). The exceeding utility
of the dynamic capability theory for this study rests on the emphasis of strategy, the what,
over operational excellence and efficiency, the how, in disruptive times where environments
demonstrate increased levels of volatility (Teece, 2019). Eisenhardt & Martin (2000) note that
in high-velocity markets, dynamic capabilities resemble fragile and simple processes that yield
uncertain outcomes, idiosyncratic and firm-specific in nature. The capabilities critical to
sustaining competitive advantage in disruptive times reside at the individual-, team-, in
particular the top management team, and firm-level (Teece, 2019). The dynamic aspect of
dynamic capabilities emphasises the habitual renewal of skills such that effective responses
can be formulated by the firm in accordance to constantly changing environmental dynamics
(Teece et al., 1997). This paper suggests an extension to the dynamic capability view in that
resilience capacity includes an explorative dimension emphasising the inherently
entrepreneurial notion of opportunity seeking.
Important to the development of resilience capacity as a dynamic capability of the firm
is the assumption that the firms’ policy choices interdepend and evolve over an extended
period of time, or longitudinally, that is in contrast to viewing managerial choice as a cross-
sectional phenomenon at a specific point in time (Ghemawat & Cassiman, 2007). Earlier
scholarship emphasises both organisational learning in building dynamic capabilities of the
firm (Teece et al., 1997) and path dependency of choices in strategically dynamic
environments (Ghemawat & Cassiman, 2007; Sterman et al., 2007; Teece, 2007; Teece et al.,
1997) of disequilibrium. This paper emphasises the notion of disequilibrium and the

5
capabilities that are essential to value creation and appropriation during such time (Sterman
et al., 2007) as the focal environmental condition.
The concept of capability lifecycle stages offers valuable insights on how capabilities
develop and evolve over time (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003, 2015) thereby informing scholarship
on how resilient capabilities come to exist and that disruptive environments do in fact exert
influence on the development and deployment of resilience capacity. This narrative is
particularly important for the application of the dynamic capability theory to disruptive times,
where the absence of dynamic capabilities ex ante represents a disadvantage when entering
disequilibrium induced by disruption. Thus, resilience capacity as a dynamic capability of the
firm shall be viewed strategically. The essence of what constitutes a capability also
reemphasises the importance of capability development paths and learning. That is, a
capability requires a minimum reliability in its deployment and repeatability of the activity to
constitute a capability (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). As dynamic capabilities cannot be acquired,
they have to be built through development and nurturing within the firm (Teece, 2019). This
notion further emphasises the importance of fostering an understanding of which capabilities
are important during times of disruption and how they can be developed.
Extending a neo-Schumpeterian view of the firm, scholars argue that dynamic
capabilities “directly engender rents” (Zott, 2003, p. 120). The dynamic capability view holds
that rents flow from “the firm’s ability to reconfigure and transform” (Teece et al., 1997, p.
524), emphasising the role of a firms’ capabilities to develop and deploy its (strategic) assets.
While previous scholarship emphasised an equilibrium view of Porterian and Ricardian rents,
more recent work highlights a disequilibrium perspective in which action is emphasised over
possession and position, and entrepreneurial rents are pursued (Keyhani et al., 2015; Teece,
2007).

6
While prior scholarship in part offered a multi-dimensional view of resilience measured
as latent outcome variable (Ma et al., 2018; van der Vegt et al., 2015; Winn et al., 2011),
extant opinion continues to remain ambiguous as to what these dimensions are and how
those should be measured. Following the dynamic capability view developed earlier
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat & Peteraf, 2003; Teece et al., 1997), this paper proposes
two-dimensional view of resilience outcomes. The external measure of resilience outcomes
is operationalised as sustained competitive advantage, consequently leading to superior firm
performance (Newbert, 2008; Powell, 2001) or herein expressed as performance reversion.
The internal measure of resilience outcomes is expressed through the notion of enhanced
flexibility and adaptability of the firm to its changing environmental conditions (Hamel &
Välikangas, 2003; Teece et al., 1997). The two-dimensional view of resilience outcomes
enhances the utility of the emergent theory as both the external measure of superior
performance, and thus the short- and long-term survival of the firm, as well as adaptability of
the firm are explicitly acknowledged.
Prior scholarship remains largely inconclusive on the events, dynamics and
environmental conditions that characterise disruptions. Insights from prior work on
environmental dimensions (Dess & Beard, 1984; Hitt et al., 1998; Keats & Hitt, 1988) offer a
valuable perspective to inform resilience capacity research in that environmental conditions
can serve as a means of characterising disruptions. Building a more nuanced view of what
constitutes disruption informs both literature and practise by inferring conditional utility of
the discrete (sets of) capabilities of resilience capacity contingent upon particular
environmental conditions. Earlier work on environmental categorisation emphasised a
multidimensional view of the firm-environment relationship (Keats & Hitt, 1988; Romanelli &
Tushman, 1986).

7
The Environment-Organization Interface model by Keats & Hitt (1988) offers a fertile
grounding for a categorisation of the environment and a more nuanced view of what
constitutes disruptive times for the firm. An emphasis on transformative and distributive
action within the RESCAP framework bears its grounding in the firm-environment literature
(Keats & Hitt, 1988; Romanelli & Tushman, 1986) and the organisational adaptation literature
(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Levinthal, 1997). While a focus on risk-reduction in disruptive
environments through increased diversification might seem intuitive (Amit & Livnat, 1988;
Ansoff, 1958; Rugman, 1976), prior work points to a more nuanced view in which contingent
upon the prevalent environmental conditions the focus lies on the reduction of uncertainty
through simplification of the organisation rather than risk reduction through diversification
(Keats & Hitt, 1988, p. 587). This encourages increased focus on the contingent utility of the
capabilities that underly RESCAP, to form a dynamic capability of the firm, consistent with
changing environmental conditions.

8
Prior literature – systematic review
The systematic literature review below shall serve as the basis for further study and
conceptualisation of how firms survive and outperform in disruptive times. That is, the focus
is on how firms adapt to disruptive environmental conditions through formulation and
enactment of resilience responses.
Data collection and cleaning. Reviewing the extant understanding of resilience in the
business and management research field represents a complex and significant task.
Therefore, a multi-dataset and multi-step process of reviewing the current literature is
warranted. As a first step, two separate database providers were targeted for the initial data
collection: Web of Science (WOS) and EBSCOhost (EBSCO).
Web of Science (Clarivate, 2020). In search 1 a Boolean search for the terms
organisational resilien* or organizational resilien* or enterprise resilien* or resilient
enterprise or resilient firm in title, abstract, key words limited to the contributions in English
in the Web of Science Categories (WC) Business or Management was conducted. This search
yielded 189 contributions. In search 2 a Boolean search for resilien* across all available WOS
fields in the WCs Business or Management for contributions in English yielded 3959 results.
The results from search 2 were ranked by WOS citation count and the top 100 articles by WOS
citation count were selected for this review (result = 100). Merge search 1 and search 2: the
results from searches 1 and 2 were subsequently merged. After removing duplicates from the
merged dataset, 281 unique contributions remained in the Web of Sciences dataset (8
duplicates were removed in the merged dataset from the WOS searches).
EBSCOhost (EBSCO industries, 2020). A third search (search 3) in the Academic Search
Ultimate, Open Dissertations and Business Source Ultimate databases within EBSCOhost

9
(EBSCO) for the same search terms as above in the All Text (TX) and Abstract (AB) field within
the Subject Terms (SU) Business and Management yielded 173 unique contributions.
Merging search 1, 2 and 3. The results from the WOS searches and the EBSCO search
were further merged to arrive at a combined dataset of WOS and EBSCO searches (n = 452).
After duplicates among the merged dataset were removed (n = 43), the merged list was
cleaned for non-English-language contributions (n = 3), incomplete records and irretrievable
contributions (n = 21), a total of 378 contributions were considered for subsequent
categorisation. Little overlap between the two search sources could be observed (n = 43),
leading to assume a rather fragmented view of organisational resilience within the
management research field.
In step 2, after an initial review, the exclusion criteria, for the merged and cleaned
dataset of 378 contributions, were defined. Using the initial review process of the
contributions as a guide for exclusion criteria formation, such criteria were defined as follows
(resulting exclusions n in brackets): 2 – use of the term without relevance to focal research (n
= 69), 3 – no use of the phrase (n = 30), 4 – engineering, system and infrastructure resilience
(n = 15), 6 – supply chain management research (n = 45), 7 – use of the phrase without explicit
elaboration of the concept (n = 52), 8 – psychological capital (PsyCap) organisational
behaviour (n = 9). The initial review process covered the reading of each article to gather an
overview of the field of study.
For example, through exclusion criteria 2, use of the term without relevance to focal
research, contributions were excluded where the term resilience was used, however those
papers did not use the term in a form relevant to the focal research questions. Exclusion
criteria 3 was defined to exclude articles where the term was not used in either one of the
sections of the papers. Through reason 6, focus on supply chain, papers were excluded due

10
to their sole focus on supply chain management or operations management, considered a too
narrow focus for this paper. 19 manual additions were made during the course of the detailed
literature review process based on cited references and important contributions to the field
that were not listed in the initial search results.
Applying the above exclusion criteria to the merged and cleaned dataset of 378
contributions, manually adding cited reference works and important contributions and
further excluding works after a more detailed review, yielded a final dataset of 168
contributions
1
(452 initial contributions, less 303 exclusions in total, plus 19 manual additions,
yields a final dataset of 168 articles). The detailed review process comprised of an in-depth
analysis of each contribution (n = 168) which included multiple readings of each paper as well
as summaries of each papers’ theoretical underpinnings, conceptualisation,
operationalisation and measurement, and outcomes – further details of each paper review
are outlined in the back matter contained in Appendix B.
1
A list of studies that have been analysed in detail is shown in Appendix A

11
Past research on organisational resilience
While academic interest in organisational resilience has continuously grown in recent
years (Conz & Magnani, 2020; Duchek, 2020; Linnenluecke, 2017), an obligation remains to
establish conceptual and empirical clarity, to foster consensus on what aspect constitute,
define and describe the resilience construct, which capabilities a firm must possess to survive
disruptive events and periods, what are the antecedents of the resilience capacity, which are
moderating factors to the relationships within the conceptualisation and what are the
consequences, i.e. outcomes. Research on resilience in the business and management
context has attracted growing attention from scholars across diverse fields of study, as well
as across multiple levels of analysis.
Evolution of resilience research. Further analysing the above mentioned WOS dataset
as an indicator shows the growing interest of research on the resilience construct in Business
and Management literature over time. Using publications in the WOS dataset as an indicator,
one can observe the uptick in number of research articles published from 2011 onwards. In
the years between 2000 and 2010 a total of 17 papers were published, while the period
between 2011 and 2020 (by June 2020) produced 172 published articles. Figure 1 gives an
overview of selected works over time important to the progress in the field.
Prior reviews. Dedicated literature reviews of research on the organisational resilience
construct have been published repeatedly (e.g. Annarelli & Nonino, 2016; Barasa et al., 2018;
Bhamra et al., 2011; Hillmann, 2020; M. K. Linnenluecke, 2017; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007) with
some more recent works focussing on reviews of organisational resilience in specific domains
such as entrepreneurship (Korber & McNaughton, 2018) and dynamic capabilities (Conz &
Magnani, 2020). The systematic literature review presented in this paper builds upon prior
reviews, however, also critically examines extant opinion across a diverse set of levels of

12
analysis, theoretical lenses, viewpoints and conclusions as well as prior conceptualisations
and frameworks.
Figure 1 – timeline of important works (selected works and contributions)
The resulting conceptualisations from prior reviews are frequently subject to an overly
narrow focus, inflexible viewpoints and are limited in either methodological approach or
scope. Past reviews have commonly focussed on one dimension of analysis, by, for example,

13
focussing on a limited number of theoretical underpinnings (e.g. Linnenluecke, 2017) or
conceptualisations based on relative periods of time (e.g. Conz & Magnani, 2020) while to
some degree failing to account for the a multiplicity of levels of analysis, various lenses and
theoretical conceptualisations that the research of the resilience construct, in fact,
necessitates.
Research domains. Research on resilience has spun across a variety research domains
such as psychology, individual psychology, psychological capital (Avey et al., 2008; Luthans et
al., 2008), ecology (Folke et al., 2010; Holling, 1973; Walker et al., 2004), engineering (Holling,
1996; Hosseini et al., 2016) and operations management (Ali & Gölgeci, 2019; Sheffi & Rice,
2005). The wide spread of research domains on the one hand implies great interest in the
construct across fields and a level of dispersion and divergence of opinion on the focal
construct on the other hand.
Level of analysis. Table 1 offers an overview of selected past works focussing on various
levels of analysis, covering the country or societal level (Carmeli & Markman, 2011; Dalgaard‐
Nielsen, 2017), organisational (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Teixeira
& Werther, 2013), team (Barton & Kahn, 2019; Weick, 1993) and the individual level (Hayward
et al., 2010; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).

14
Table 1 – resilience conceptualisation and measurement (selected works)
Unit of
analysis
Study
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome
Country,
society
Dalgaard‐
Nielsen
(2017)
interviews with 12
Danish national security
bureau CEOs
Resilience as the guiding principle to
manage complex and dynamic threats
Resilience competes
with fiscal austerity,
resilience and
accountability
Prioritisation of fiscal
austerity, accountability
over delegation and
experimentation
The structure and way of public
policymaking hinders resilience-
building in such organisations
Carmeli &
Markman
(2011)
Historical data from
1000 years history of
Rome
Capture strategy, governance strategy
(p. 324 -329) as well as four supporting
tactics: saving power, maintaining a
stronhold base, isolating adversaries
and creating forward outposts (p. 332)
Resilience as an
outcome of the pursuit
of capture and govern
strategy (outcome)
Integration of capture
and govern strategies as
well as corresponding
tactics
Strategy-tactic framework of
capture and govern, the
interaction between those and
four corresponding tactics to
sustain overall resilience; research
based on ancient history of Rome
Organi-
sation
Sutcliffe
& Vogus
(2003)
Conceptual
In the presence of processes that foster
enhanced competence, growth and
efficacy, resilient responses of the
organisation, group or individual
(compared with rigid responses)
ultimatively lead to positive
adjustment of the organisation and
thereby strenthening such capabilities
to yield enhanced future responses to
adverse events (i.e. organisational
learning)
Resilient response
(outcome) as the
behaviour (capacity)
manifested as broader
information processing,
loosening of hierarchy
controlled decision-
making and slack
capabilities
Structures and
behaviours of the
organisation when being
faced with adverse
obstacles – responses can
be rigid or resilient
Reconceptualised view of
resilience counters the earlier
threat-rigidity view (formulated by
Staw et al., 1981); comparing views
of resilience from OT perspective
(recover and restore) compared
with development perspective
(rebound, become resourceful and
strengthened in the process);
Lengnick-
Hall &
Beck
(2005)
Conceptual
Adaptive fit assumes a return to
equilibrium (longer term) whilst robust
transformation (consciously
temporary) focusses on the constant
change of the firm and its environment;
different levels of applicability for
adaptive fit and robut transformation
(p. 740-743, 748)
When firms face
uncertainties, resilience
capacity (capacity)
enables a firm to decide
which responses are
required, such that the
firm decides between
adaptive fit and robust
transformation
Robust transformation:
alterations in control sys-
tems, dynamic
capabilities; resilience
capacity by measuring
mindfulness,
sensemaking
Extension of extant view of
adaptive fit towards a more
dynamic view of robust
transformation; introduction of
resilience capacity operationalised
as cognitive, behavioural and
contextual resilience (validity for
both new constructs is however
only proposed, not tested)

15
Table 1 – resilience conceptualisation and measurement (selected works) (continued)
Unit of
analysis
Study
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome
Organi-
sation
Teixeira &
Werther
(2013)
50 companies over 60
year period
Competitive advantage is achieved
through a firm culture that enables
continuous re-creation of competitive
advantage based on innovation;
anticipatory innovation as the key
driving force of competitive advantag
Resilience is achieved
through the way and
process of firms
managing innovation
(contin-uous innovation
as capability, resilience
as outcome)
The level and frequency
of constant renewal
creates the competitive
edge and hence the
resilience (p. 341)
The authors somewhat place the
sustained competitive advantage
in the same dimension with
resilience; adaptive innovation
enables the achievement of
compe-titive advantage and as
such forms a resilient firm
Teams
Weick
(1993)
Observations via
statistical reports,
statements, court
reports, photographs
Loss of cohesion of role structure and
organisational sensemaking in the face
of a crises by virtue of leadership
failures to maintain such structure in
the event of crises
Resilience as an
indication for the
(minimal) organisations
ability to make sense
and adapt (capacity)
Bricolage, virtual role
system, wisdom and
respectful interaction
Four potential sources of re-
silience making teams “less
vulnerable to disruptions of
sensemaking; firms only have a
restricted view of challenges
Barton &
Kahn
(2019)
Conceptual, framework
Group relations theory; relational
perspective on how adversity triggers
anxiety in teams and how this affects
organisational resilience
Adversity-triggered
anxiety forces indi-
viduals on either one of
two paths which then
impacts overall
resilience (outcome)
Conceptual
Two intragroup behaviour
trajectories are conceptualised:
brittle (defensive patterns,
vulnerability) and resilience
(defuse and mitigate adversity)
Individual
Youssef &
Luthans
(2007)
2 studies with one 1032
employees from 135
and two 232 employees
from 32 US midwestern
firms
The impact of positive organisational
behaviour capacities (hope, optimism
and resilience) on “work-related
employee outcomes” (p. 774)
Resilience (capacity,
input variable) as one of
three criteria
determining positive
organisational
behaviour (POB)
Impact of psychological
resource capacities on
performance, job
satisfaction, work
happiness, commitment
Hope seems to more significantly
contribute to job-related
outcomes than optimism and
resilience
Hayward
et al.
(2010)
Conceptual, Modeling
Behavioural decision theory, theory of
positive emotions and hubris theory;
Resilience through failure
Emotional, cognitive,
social and financial
resilience indirect out-
come of
overconfidence
(outcome, indirect)
Overconfidence as a
predictor of subsequent
startup success in
response to initial failure
Indirect measurement of
resilience; conceptual outline of
relationship between
overconfidence in one’s abilities
and the startup success of
entrepreneurs

16
From the in-depth systematic review of prior works, it can be observed that earlier
contributions employed a great variety of theoretical lenses underpinning their
conceptualisations. Lenses range for example from notions which see resilience as a leading
principle to manage threats on a country-level (Dalgaard‐Nielsen, 2017), to the idea of
positive adjustment during crises, later yielding stronger future responses of the organisation
through learning (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003), to a firm-culture that enables continuous re-
creation of competitive advantage through anticipatory innovation (Teixeira & Werther,
2013), to resilience as a guiding principle based on behavioural decision theory (Hayward et
al., 2010).
Treatment, measures and outcomes. Scholars have employed a number of different
measures in their studies on organisational resilience. Table 1 provides an overview of
selected works, showing that researchers thus far have used different treatments and
measures to conceptualise and examine the organisational resilience construct. Moreover, a
great variety of examined outcomes can be observed: differences due to indirectly (Hayward
et al., 2010) and directly (Morais-Storz et al., 2018) measurable outcomes are visible in prior
works. Even though a number of scholars construct their studies and framework so that
resilience is an input variable (e.g. Bullough et al., 2014; Youssef & Luthans, 2007), the
majority of prior studies view resilience as an indirectly measurable outcome (Bhamra et al.,
2011; Hayward et al., 2010; Herbane, 2010; Holling, 1973; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Meyer,
1982; Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003), nonetheless the
operationalisation of the outcome seems divergent across studies.
Conceptual differences such as resilience being positioned similarly to competitive
advantage (Teixeira & Werther, 2013) and the extension of earlier threat-rigidity views to the
notion of robust transformation (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005) further contribute to

17
scholarship meandering away from a potential point of convergence its views of the concept.
Despite the observable implicit concurrence amidst prior work on the indirect measurability
of resilience as an outcome, construct definition and operationalisation of such still seems to
be in disagreement among scholars.
Prior conceptualisations and dimensions
Table 2 presents a synopsis of prior conceptualisations of organisational resilience,
indicating exemplary studies. Prior research has produced a variety of conceptualisations,
with, in part, inconsistent theoretical approaches.
A notion borne from the seminal works of Holling (1996), Meyer (1982) and Staw et al.
(1981) respectively, is the notion of equilibrium-disequilibrium, which emphasises a firms
movement in and out of equilibrium due to disruptions that the firm faces. In their early work,
Staw et al. (1981) explicate the notion of threat-rigidity in which the organisation is assumed
to yield a potentially rigid response to a threat due to restricted information as well as
organisational structure that constrict control. Contradicting the notion of threat-rigidity firm
behaviour, Meyer (1982) explicates that organisations react to environmental jolts by
increased organisational learning in combination with first- and second-order changes. The
author further reasons that adaptation, ideological and strategic variables better predict
resilience than slack resources do. The writings of Meyer (1982) and Staw et al. (1981)
respectively show a divergent approach to researching the resilient responses by
organisations from the beginnings of this research stream in business and management.
A second group of scholars view organisational resilience from a capability-based
perspective, in which the focus is laid on the capabilities that a firm ought to possess and
nurture to survive the impact of disruptions. Such capabilities include, albeit are not limited
to, absorption of shocks (e.g. Riolli & Savicki, 2003), ambidextrous and dynamic capabilities

18
(Ingram & Bratnicka-Myśliwiec, 2019), sensemaking (Tisch & Galbreath, 2018; Weick, 1993)
and being flexible in behaviour and organisational responses (Sheffi & Rice, 2005; Vogus &
Sutcliffe, 2007).
A third perspective, the cognitive perspective, focusses on managerial cognition
relative to a variety of domains, where resilience is viewed as a latent outcome variable (e.g.
Hayward et al., 2010) as well as moderating variable (e.g. Bullough et al., 2014). Scholars
employing a cognitive perspective in the study of organisational resilience focus on a variety
of notions, such as the impact of resilience on entrepreneurial intentions (Bullough et al.,
2014) or resilience as the reason for venture-success post preceding venture-failure (Hayward
et al., 2010).
The resource-based perspective in organisational resilience research addresses a
variety of resources, the utilisation, deployment, re-allocation of which are theorised to
enable firm survival in times of disruption. Resources discussed in prior works include slack,
financial, personal, family, structural, cognitive, relational and emotional. Sullivan-Taylor &
Branicki (2011) for instance base their conceptualisation of resilient SMEs on financial,
physical, human and organisational resources (p. 5567; following Barney, 1995) while
Richtnér & Löfsten (2014) focus their underlying reasoning on structural, cognitive, relational
and emotional resources.
Last, resilience in some instances is viewed as a multidimensional construct, covering
a variety of properties (Hamel & Välikangas, 2003; Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005) and related
notions such as business model innovation (Buliga et al., 2016), in which the re-combination
of resources and capabilities is seen as the key to firm survival, or the multi-level and multi-
dimensional construct of sustained competitive advantage (J. H. Lee et al., 2013; Teixeira &
Werther, 2013). Conz & Magnani (2020) conceptualise a multi-dimensional, temporal view of

19
organisational resilience, in which they outline resilience as a proactive, adaptive, reactive
and dynamic attribute of the organisation. Duchek (2020) outlines a processual view in
combination with a focus on resilience capabilities to arrive at her conceptualisation of the
organisational resilience construct (p. 224).
Prior definitions
The current understanding of construct definition too varies considerably. As the
résumé in Table 2 shows, scholars have employed a number of different viewpoints to the
study of resilience, which yield in-part contradictory construct definitions. Early definitions of
organisational resilience include notions of resilience as an outcome of “. . . responses [that]
create negative feedback loops that absorb jolts’ impacts” (Meyer, 1982, p. 520). Staw et al.
(1981), failing to mention the term resilience in their paper, offer a threat-rigidity view, which
postulates that when firms are faced with disruptions, threats, the individual, team or
organisation resorts back to rigid behaviours in which information processing and control are
restricted. The authors do however offer a definition of “corporate collapses can be viewed
as failures to alter response in the face of environmental change” (Staw et al., 1981, p. 501),
somewhat reaffirming a definition of resilience as an outcome.
Later work expanded the focus on “[t]he skill and the capacity to be robust under
conditions of enormous stress and change” (Coutu, 2002, p. 52) or “the ability to dynamically
reinvent business models and strategies as circumstances change” (Hamel & Välikangas,
2003, p. 53). Such definitions denote a shift towards a capability or capacity focussed views.
Taking a capabilities perspective, a number of scholars used different definitions as a basis for
their conceptualisations, for example Sutcliffe & Vogus (2003) refine resilience as “. . . (a) the
ability to absorb strain and preserve (or improve) functioning despite the presence of

20
adversity (both internal adversity […] and external adversity […]), or (b) an ability to recover
or bounce back from untoward events” (p. 96).
While scholarship had already described resilience as a capacity (e.g. Hamel &
Välikangas, 2003, p. 55), Lengnick-Hall & Beck (2003, 2005, 2009) were arguably the most
prominent to firstly express an explicit definition of resilience capacity as “. . . a unique blend
of cognitive, behavioural, and contextual properties that increase a firm’s ability to
understand its current situation and to develop customized responses that reflect that
understanding” (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005, p. 750). Later work followed the capacity-view,
while taking slightly differing viewpoints in definitional terms (Conz et al., 2017; Duchek,
2018; Kantur & Iseri-Say, 2012; M. K. Linnenluecke et al., 2012) with some work focussing on
the capacity for resilience residing in the individuals within the organisation (Luthans et al.,
2010; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Subsequent work employs divergent conceptualisations of
resilience capacity. Some scholars focus on the “firm’s capacity for developing organizational
resilience” (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011, p. 248). Scholars in this group view the deployment of
capabilities and changes in organisational resource allocation as the capacity and resilience
as the outcome. Other scholars however either do not make their definitions of resilience as
a capacity explicit or use slightly diverging definitional bases for their conceptualisations. The
main views, definitions and conceptualisations are summarised in Table 2 below. What
remains however, is the lack of definitional clarify and ambiguity relative to theoretical
underpinnings, conceptualisations, constructs and measurement.
The below reconceptualisation of RESCAP utilises a blend of earlier notions to arrive at
a converging idea of RESCAP, that shall foster progress in academia as well as increase the
relevance for practicing managers.

21
Table 2 – past conceptualisations of organisational resilience
Conceptualisation, definition
Dimensions
Exemplary studies
Equilibrium vs. disequilibrium
time needed to restore prior
levels of service
(Meyer, 1982, p. 521)
“Resilience is the property of
the system and persistence or
probability of extinction is the
result” (Holling, 1973, p. 17)
Threat-rigidity (Staw et al., 1981)
Resilience or retention, adapting to
environmental jolts (Meyer, 1982)
Ecological perspective: pre-crisis
equilibrium versus multiple equilibria
(Holling, 1996)
Absorption of continuous change
(Riolli & Savicki, 2003)
(Castellacci, 2015; Coutu,
2002; Gilly et al., 2014; Gittell
et al., 2006, 2006; Holling,
1973; Meyer, 1982; Riolli &
Savicki, 2003; Sheffi & Rice,
2005; Staw et al., 1981; Vogus
& Sutcliffe, 2007)
Capability-based perspective
“The skill and the capacity to
be robust under conditions of
enormous stress and change”
(Coutu, 2002, p. 52)
“survive in, adapt to, bounce
back . . . often thrive”
(Ma et al., 2018, p. 253)
Absorption, adaptation, ambidexterity,
anticipation, continuous adaptation,
flexibility, dynamic capability,
entrepreneurial, experimentation,
sensemaking capabilities
A dynamic, ambidextrous capability
(Ingram & Bratnicka-Myśliwiec,
2019)
(Annarelli & Nonino, 2016;
Buliga et al., 2016; Coutu,
2002; Darkow, 2019; Duchek,
2020, 2014; Ingram &
Bratnicka-Myśliwiec, 2019;
Mamouni Limnios et al.,
2014; Manfield & Newey,
2018)
Cognitive perspective
“enables an organization to
notice, interpret, analyse, and
formulate responses in ways
that go beyond simply
surviving” (Lengnick-Hall &
Beck, 2005, p. 750)
Entrepreneur-overconfidence as
predictor of subsequent venture
success (Hayward et al., 2010)
Interpreting “uncertain situations
more creatively” (Lengnick-Hall &
Beck, 2005, pp. 750–751)
Conscious of change and judge impact
(Hamel & Välikangas, 2003)
(Bhamra et al., 2011; L. J.
Branicki et al., 2018; Bullough
et al., 2014; Hamel &
Välikangas, 2003; Hayward et
al., 2010; Ingram & Bratnicka-
Myśliwiec, 2019; Korber &
McNaughton, 2018; Tikkanen
et al., 2005)
Resource-based perspective
“identification of relevant
resources and capabilities
that enable an organisation
to prepare for, and respond
to, extreme events” (Sullivan-
Taylor & Branicki, 2011, p.
5567)
Slack or redundancy, financial,
personal, social, family resources
Financial, physical, human and
organisational assets (Sullivan-Taylor
& Branicki, 2011, p. 5567)
Structural, cognitive, relational, and
emotional resources create capacity
(Richtnér & Löfsten, 2014, p. 140)
(Buliga et al., 2016; Gittell et
al., 2006; Hamel & Välikangas,
2003; M. K. Linnenluecke,
2017; Sheffi & Rice, 2005;
Sullivan-Taylor & Branicki,
2011; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003)
Resilience viewed as a
multidimensional concept
“resilience as firm attribute
that evolves in time” (Conz &
Magnani, 2020, p. 401)
“a multidimensional variable
consisting of psychological
and dispositional attributes,
such as competence, external
support systems, and
personal structure” (J. H. Lee
et al., 2013, p. 269)
Cognitive, behavioural, contextual
(Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005),
dynamic properties (Hamel &
Välikangas, 2003)
Business model innovation as
adaptability (Buliga et al., 2016)
Processual view on resilience across
different stages (M. K. Linnenluecke
et al., 2012; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003)
Temporal view: Proactive, absorptive
or adaptive, reactive, or dynamic
attribute (Conz & Magnani, 2020)
(Ambulkar et al., 2015; Buliga
et al., 2016; Conz & Magnani,
2020; Hamel & Välikangas,
2003; Lee et al., 2013;
Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005,
2009; Linnenluecke et al.,
2012; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003;
Teixeira & Werther, 2013)

22
Chapter 2: Reconceptualisation of resilience capacity
Introduction
The organisational resilience construct to date suffers from incoherent theoretical
conceptualisations, diverging definitions, measurements and operationalisations. Thus,
advancement in studying resilience in the business and management domain is hampered.
Through the analysis of prior works, one can identify ambiguity in construct definition,
antecedents and consequences of the construct, critical to stimulate progress in the field.
Advances in this research domain ought to be based on a solid construct definition, more
detailed and refined conceptualisation, transparent measurement and unambiguous
operationalisation of the construct, antecedents and consequences. To arrive at a firm
grounding, in definitional terms, one ought to explicitly consider the multi-faceted and multi-
dimensional nature of the focal construct. The conscientious scholar ought to scrutinise
resilience capacity, or RESCAP, by integrating a variety of angles and by making provisions for
a multifariousness of theoretical underpinnings of the construct.
Definition. Resilience capacity of the firm, RESCAP, is reconceptualised as the
capacity of a firm to recover from disruptions through the development and
deployment of sensing, exploring, seizing and transformative capabilities to
produce a dynamic capability of the firm.
The underlying conceptualisation maintains notions based on three aspects, below
referred to as first, recovery from disruption, second, the underlying dimensions or
capabilities and third, RESCAP as a dynamic capability.
First, RESCAP represents the capacity of a firm to recover from disruptions. Recovery in
this context refers to multiple aspects. Resiliency as such is seen as the latent outcome as a
measure of performance. Some authors describe resiliency as the ability to recover and

23
bounce back to prior levels of performance or equilibrium (Meyer, 1982; Sheffi & Rice, 2005;
Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003), while other scholars emphasise the ability of the firm to emerge
more strengthened and resourceful in the process with references to new equilibria or new
and better levels of performance compared with levels prior to disruption (Annarelli &
Nonino, 2016; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Turgeon, 2019; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). Another
perspective that scholars use to refer to recovery is such of the continuous adaptation to
environmental changes or disruptions (Ates & Bititci, 2011; Duchek, 2020; Hamel &
Välikangas, 2003; Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). Additionally, a different group of
scholars depict recovery as superior competitive advantage and the firm’s ability to thrive
despite disruption (Conz et al., 2017; J. H. Lee et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Smallbone et al.,
2012; Teixeira & Werther, 2013).
Consequently, this paper employs a multi-dimensional view of recovery, in that
resiliency as an outcome does not merely connote ideas of bouncing back to prior levels of
performance. One ought to additionally consider notions of a more strengthened and
resourceful firm (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007), the continuous adaptation of the firm to
disruptions (Hamel & Välikangas, 2003) and the superior competitive advantage of the firm
(Teixeira & Werther, 2013). It seems obvious that recovery refers to the rebound of a firm to
previous levels of performance or equilibrium. Recent scholarship has however also
suggested an extension of this notion to a broader and more nuanced view of the various
dimensions of recovery. Following earlier conceptualisations, as summarised in table 2,
RESCAP essentially combines a set of capabilities to ensure both the firm surviving a
disruption and the firm thriving to ensure future competitive advantage during times of
adversity. The notion of future strength and future competitive advantage are an important
emphasis, often ambiguously conceptualised in earlier work. Therein lies a potential paradox:

24
a firm might survive disruptions with a focus on the deployment of cash reserves or other
slack resources (Teece, 2019). In that process however, the firm might not develop the
necessary capabilities to ensure future competitive advantage. Consequently, the firm might
ensure short-term survival, however medium- to long-term not be able to create and retain
sustained competitive advantage. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic that impacts firms
and supply chains around the world, does not simply put short-term strain on to firms through
dramatic reduction of demand (e.g., travel and hospitality sector), but also inflicts a potential
permanent shift in consumer behaviour. A company might survive the direct effects through
exploitation of current resources; however, it might not put emphasis on explorative
capabilities that allow firms to plan for an underlying change in consumer purchasing power
and customer behaviour. This paper views recovery as resilience measured as performance
outcomes, competitive advantage which leads to superior-performance and adaptation.
Second, the reconceptualised definition of RESCAP refers to four dimensions, each of
which represent capabilities that are both distinct from each other as well as combinative in
nature. Distinct insofar as those dimensions constitute clear and firmly established theoretical
constructs and combinative as those dimensions are theorised to not yield superior
performance outcomes on their own, but through a combination of such capabilities. RESCAP
is seen as the capacity to recover through the development and deployment of those
dimensions, positioning resilience as a measure of outcome of those underlying capabilities.
The definition above based on the analysis of prior conceptualisations leads to reason that
the dimensions of RESCAP are also combinative in nature. Combinative insofar as the
underlying capabilities build on each other to produce a dynamic capability of the firm that
enables resilience as a measure of superior performance outcomes. This is important as
earlier conceptualisations of the resilience construct stringently cluster the utilisation of

25
specific capabilities for example by a temporal dimension or stages (e.g. Conz & Magnani,
2020; Duchek, 2020). The below capabilities are not deployed in a constant manor
simultaneously, and thus a temporal clustering of RESCAP to some degree seems reasonable.
However, the capabilities necessary to survive a disruptive event and to emerge more
strengthened from such crisis can certainly be developed, deployed, optimised and
strengthened throughout, prior and post disruption in a non-linear way by moving back and
forth between different equilibria and stages of the disruption. The utilisation, development
and deployment of the numerous capabilities of course varies and can be contingent upon
the presence of disruptions and related dynamics.
The experiences that the firm, teams and individuals gather during a crisis will
subsequently impact the development pre- and deployment during the next disruption.
Disruptions in most cases cannot be unambiguously and unquestionably identified,
categorised and attended to as both opportunities and threats are in a constant state of flux
(Teece, 2007). As Teece (2007) notes “most emerging trajectories are hard to discern” (p.
1322). A firm understanding of opportunities and threats that can be easily recognised and
those that cannot be easily distinguished ought to be fostered to make provisions for the
ambiguity, variability and unpredictability of disruptions. Thus, the combinative, multi-
faceted and multi-dimensional nature of the RESCAP construct demands a level of analysis
which accounts for the dynamic, volatile, vulnerable and varied characteristics of disruptions.
Third, RESCAP is conceptualised to produce a dynamic capability of the firm. Prior
scholarship has extensively elaborated on the difference between capabilities and dynamic
capabilities (Teece et al., 1997; Zahra & George, 2002). The understanding of this
differentiation is important to form a coherent definitional basis in the discussion of RESCAP.
This paper essentially takes a dynamic capabilities perspective, where such capabilities “are

26
geared toward effecting organizational change” (Zahra & George, 2002, p. 188) and are
essential to response activation when firms face high impact disruptions (Burnard & Bhamra,
2011). Resilience capacity, seen as a dynamic capability of the firm, innately incorporates
capabilities that ensure both the short- and long-term recovery and survival of the firm, and
by doing so, contribute to building, fostering and protecting sustained competitive advantage,
in particular in times of disruption. While ordinary capabilities advocate a focus on “doing
things right” operationally (Teece, 2017, p. 696), dynamic capabilities focus on “doing the
right things” (p. 696) strategically (Teece, 2007, 2014b, 2017, 2019).
The reconceptualised view of RESCAP in table 3 assimilates prior definitions and
conceptualisations to form a sound basis for further empirical study. The conceptualisation
presented in this paper is neither ambiguous nor tautological. It is grounded in views
expressed in earlier work and in firmly established frameworks, subsuming ideas developed
over the last four decades of research, and by doing so, yielding a strong basis for further
empirical study.

27
Dimensions of RESCAP
Earlier work discussed the idiosyncratic nature of the capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin,
2000) relevant to RESCAP. Although the variability of such idiosyncrasy creates some
downside for the firm, e.g. limited reproducibility across firms and sectors, it also creates
upside in that it enables the creation of sustained competitive advantage (Zahra & George,
2002), that is, by virtue, unique to the firm and therefore distinct from those of other firms’
advantages. Central tenets of the dynamic capability theory are the distinctive characteristic
that allows such capabilities to engender rents and to form competitive advantage of the firm
(Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997). The quality of dynamic capabilities
stem from the replicability within the firm and the non-imitability of such capabilities by
competitors (Teece et al., 1997). While the firm aims at limiting imitability, it pursues
replicability across the organisation, which in part is contradictory in that the easier the
replication within the organisation, the easier the replication outside the firm.
The four capabilities outlined below – sensing and exploring, seizing and transforming
– present the four dimensions of RESCAP. The combination and the reconceptualisation of
these dimensions shed new light on the complex and dynamic nature of RESCAP.
Consequently, the reconceptualised view of RESCAP aims to solve the issues outlined above
and advance academic progress in this important and most relevant discussion. Importantly,
the reconceptualisation of RESCAP captures the multidimensional nature of the construct
where a firm has to simultaneously sense threats and explore opportunities as well as seize
and transform current and future assets. This multifaceted view is appropriate as it captures
the complexities and dynamics for a firm that is confronted with disruption.

28
Table 3 – resilience capacity: main dimensions and capabilities, reconceptualised
Dimension,
capability
Related constructs
Role and importance
Exemplary studies
Sensing
(cognition)
Absorptive capacity
Assimilation
(managerial) Attention
Categorisation
(managerial) Cognition
Peripheral vision
Weak signals, meaning
o Classify disruption
o Direct managerial
attention
o Managerial cogni-
tion and decisions
o Sensing of (weak)
signals
(Burnard & Bhamra, 2011; Coutu,
2002; Granovetter, 1973; Haeckel,
2004; Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2009;
M. K. Linnenluecke et al., 2012;
Ocasio, 1997, 2011; Stubbart, 1989;
Teece, 2007; Tisch & Galbreath,
2018; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007;
Weick, 1993; Zahra & George, 2002)
Exploring
(opportunity
seeking)
Business model
Experimentation
(anticipatory) Innovation
Parallel play
Pivot, Reinvention
Real options
Strategic choice
Variance increasing
o Future, long-term
competitiveness
o Innovation
o Opportunity
seeking
o Risk taking
o Strengthen the
future firm
(Buliga et al., 2016; Donnellan et al.,
2007; Gilly et al., 2014; Hamel &
Välikangas, 2003; Herbane, 2019;
Kantur & Iseri-Say, 2012; Kirtley &
O’Mahony, 2020; Lampel et al.,
2014; M. K. Linnenluecke, 2017;
March, 1991; R. McDonald & Gao,
2019; Teixeira & Werther, 2013; van
der Vegt et al., 2015)
Seizing
(asset
efficiency)
Agility
Asset efficiency
Diffusion of knowledge
Implementation
Short-term survival
Seize opportunities
Variance decreasing
o Flexible and
efficient deploy-
ment of resources
and capabilities
o Short-term and
survival
o Seize opportunities
(Clément & Rivera, 2017; Duchek,
2020; Ingram & Bratnicka-Myśliwiec,
2019; Mamouni Limnios et al., 2014;
McDonald & Eisenhardt, 2019; Ortiz‐
de‐Mandojana & Bansal, 2016;
Rhodes & Stelter, 2009; Uotila et al.,
2009; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007)
Transforming
(asset re-
distribution)
Ambidexterity
Diversification
Reduction of uncertainty
Re-organisation
Resource re-allocation
Risk reduction
Strategic flexibility
o Balancing
exploitation and
exploration
o Expansion
o New equilibrium
o Risk mitigation
o Shareholder value
(Amit & Livnat, 1988; Ansoff, 1958;
Collier, 2018; Coutu, 2002; Farjoun,
1998; George, 2005; Goetzmann &
Kumar, 2008; Jorion, 1985; Lu &
Beamish, 2004; R. McDonald & Gao,
2019; Neffke & Henning, 2013;
O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2008, 2011,
2013; Porter, 1996; Rumelt, 1982)

29
Sensing
Stemming from the capability and cognitive perspectives of earlier work (e.g. Haeckel,
2004; Teece, 2007), this conceptualisation views sensing as the firm’s ability to detect,
categorise and make sense of (weak) signals in the environment through channelling of
managerial attention, peripheral vision and through fostering managerial cognition patterns.
Some firms have developed the ability to advance and deploy superior sensing capabilities
that enable detection of environmental dynamics and potential disruptions earlier than their
peers. Haeckel (2004) emphasises the importance of the sensing capability by noting that
“expanding an organisation’s peripheral vision . . . will make meaning out of apparent noise”
(p. 181) enabling firms to do business in disruptive times. The quality and strength of the
sensing capability, both macro- and micro-environmentally, determines whether a firm
detects a disruption at which stage. As Paul Schoemaker and George Day provoke “[w]hy did
so many smart people miss the signs of the collapse of the subprime market?” (Schoemaker
& Day, 2009, p. 81). Their answer is that sensing capabilities are limited or stimulated by
individual and organisational biases (Schoemaker & Day, 2009). Biases which may, to a great
extent, impede organisational sensing and thus cause a delay in detecting a shift of dynamics
and upcoming disruptions in the environment of the firm (Shimizu & Hitt, 2004).
Scholars ought to entertain a multi-level view of sensing as one of the foundations of
RESCAP. Multi-level insofar as one ought to consider that sensing without sense-making, that
is to produce meaning important to managerial action (Schoemaker & Day, 2009), might
mislead managerial decision making in firms. Inference to the ability to transform (weak)
signals into meaning, useful and actionable for the decision making processes, ought to be
made (Haeckel, 2004). Thus, the sensing dimension within the resilience capacity framework
can intuitively be viewed as a combination of earlier capability-based and cognitive

30
perspectives, to form the cognitive dimension of RESCAP. As outlined in table 3, the sensing
dimension of RESCAP integrates the abilities of the firm to sense and make sense, to channel
managerial attention and categorise disruptions appropriately, and to expand peripheral
vision. The sensing dimension enables the firm to detect signals, by doing so, firms can
increase the probability of early signal detection of disruptive events and consequently more
quickly formulate the appropriate responses. While the sensing dimension of RESCAP includes
notions of sensing both opportunities and threats in the market (Teece, 2007), it is the
inherently entrepreneurial exploring dimension of RESCAP that specifically focusses on the
discovery, assessment of and experimentation with opportunities. The exploration dimension
extends the sensing capability to explicitly include the active, purposeful and entrepreneurial
opportunity seeking capabilities of the firm.
Exploring
While firms that are confronted by disruption intuitively prioritise survival of the firm
over other goals, such firms ought to also employ a range of explorative capabilities,
entrepreneurial in nature. Grounded in a set of diverse perspectives epitomised in table 2,
the exploration dimension describes a firms’ capability of increasing variance, discovery,
search (March, 1991; Uotila et al., 2009) through activities such as experimentation,
innovation, reinvention, increase strategic variance, pivoting, parallel play and the utilisation
of real options. As noted by March (1991, p. 85) “the essence of exploration is
experimentation with new alternatives”. The exploration dimension of RESCAP can therefore
essentially be seen as an inventory of organisational routines of active, purposeful and
entrepreneurial opportunity seeking. The assumption therefore is, that during periods of high
volatility or intense disruption firms do not just sense signals of threats but do also discover,
evaluate and assess opportunities.

31
Consequently, a reconceptualisation of the resilience capacity framework ought to
account for processes and abilities such as business model innovation (Buliga et al., 2016; Ma
et al., 2018), anticipatory innovation (Annarelli & Nonino, 2016; Teixeira & Werther, 2013),
parallel play (McDonald & Eisenhardt, 2019) and pivot (McDonald & Gao, 2019). The above-
mentioned processes and routines enable firms to both explore opportunities to bounce back
from disruption (Sheffi & Rice, 2005; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) as well as to thrive during times
of disruption (Ma et al., 2018). Further attention ought to be drawn to the opportunities that
a downturn brings (Rhodes & Stelter, 2009) as disruptions seem to bring opportunities alike.
For example, a disruption might impact customer purchasing behaviour for a particular
sector, e.g., retail, and thus severely impact short-term financial fundamentals. The same
disruption, however, might also bring opportunities through medium-term changes to
consumer behaviour, e.g., a shift to online shopping, through which companies can create
new competitive advantages by more appropriately or more profitably serving these
customers. The quality of the exploration dimension is a function of how well a firm is able to
allocate appropriate resource to exploration activities and the opportunities discovered. The
more attention and other resources a firm is able to grant its managers for opportunity
seeking and experimentation during a crisis, the more favourable opportunities will be
discovered and more likely a positive impact on the change of competitive advantage of the
firm can be observed.
The dynamic capability based reconceptualisation of RESCAP proposes the addition of
the explorative dimension as a distinct dimension of RESCAP and thus can also be seen as an
extension to the dynamic capability framework. Teece (2007, 2014b, 2019) outlined the three
distinct dimensions of dynamic capabilities as sensing, seizing and transforming, to which the
inherently entrepreneurial exploration dimension would be an addition.

32
Seizing
At the core of the seizing dimension, the notion of increasing asset efficiency drives
managerial action. Following earlier conceptualisations seizing refers to increasing efficiency
and improving short-term adaptation of the firm (He & Wong, 2004; March, 1991; Uotila et
al., 2009). Stemming from earlier perspectives of resource-based views and capability views,
the seizing dimension operationalises notions of implementation and efficiency increases
within RESCAP. Firms that are dealing with disruptions seem to be bound to increase
efficiency of resources, processes and operations while upholding customer-satisficing quality
levels. At the core of the seizing dimension of RESCAP, the focus on increasing asset efficiency
centres around agility, diffusion of knowledge, implementation of strategic choices and
options, implementation and realisation of opportunities as well as short-term survival and
variance decreasing actions taken by the firm.
In his paper on organisational learning, March (1991) relates activities such as choice,
implementation and efficiency to a notion of reduction in variability. A reduction of variability
through a focus on exploitative activities is argued to lead to a decrease in performance
variability in thus an increase in performance reliability (March, 1991). Thus, a focus on
efficiency within the seizing dimension of RESCAP seems salient. Capabilities subsumed under
the seizing dimension enable the firm to reduce uncertainty, to increase efficiency of existing
assets and to implement strategic choices, particularly important during times of disruption.
As mentioned above, activities of seizing are essential, in particular when firms face
disruptions that force increased focus on cashflow and working capital optimisation (Rhodes
& Stelter, 2009). Therein lies a managerial paradox: there is a high level of complexity within
the relationship between exploration activities, focussing on opportunity seeking, and seizing
activities, focussing on asset efficiency (Uotila et al., 2009). Notions whereby firms ought to

33
foster capabilities that enable a concurrent focus on exploration and seizing, i.e.
ambidexterity, are not new to research or practise. However, the role of ambidexterity within
the context discussed here, seems immaturely examined in prior literature. How are firms
able to satisfy both, the necessity of exploration and seizing capabilities? How can firms
optimise their cashflow and working capital to satisfy demands of efficiency and decrease in
variability while pursuing explorative activities that allow the firm to acquire additional
strategic options?
A balanced view of exploration and seizing is, according to March (1991, p. 71), essential
to [firm]-survival. A complex relationship of exploration and seizing capabilities was noted in
prior works (Gupta et al., 2006; March, 1991; Uotila et al., 2009). Complex insofar as
explorative activities in some instances seem to precede sensing activities, i.e.
implementation inherently seems to be preceded by the identification, evaluation and
decision of strategic choices, and in some instances this seems misguided. Complex also refers
to the inability of both exploration and seizing to yield impactful contributions to superior
performance autonomously (Gupta et al., 2006; March, 1991). “. . . maintaining an
appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation is a primary factor in system
survival and prosperity” (March, 1991, p. 71).
Transforming
At the centre of the transformative dimension of RESCAP, the focus lies on asset re-
distribution, entailing notions of re-organisation (Keats & Hitt, 1988), ambidexterity (O’Reilly
III & Tushman, 2013), diversification (Amit & Livnat, 1988), risk reduction and the reduction
in uncertainty (Keats & Hitt, 1988). The transformative dimension essentially takes a strategic
flexibility (Hitt et al., 1998; Sanchez, 1995) view of RESCAP, which has broadly been described
as “firm abilities to respond to various demands from dynamic competitive environments”

34
(Sanchez, 1995, p. 142). Such flexibility is made explicit through “continuous changes in
current strategic actions, asset deployment, and investment strategies” (Nadkarni &
Narayanan, 2007, p. 245). The notion of transformative capability within RESCAP ought to
include a balancing view of both exploration and seizing activities of the firm, i.e.
ambidexterity (Iborra et al., 2020; O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013). A balance that seems to be
of potentially greater importance when a firm faces disruptions, during times when firms
ought to satisfy utility functions of a diverse set of stakeholders and goals of the firm
concurrently, while under pressure for firm survival (Cruickshank, 2020; Mamouni Limnios et
al., 2014). A balance that is further expressed through a focus on appraising both the increase
and decrease of variability (March, 1991).
Additional focus ought to be granted to the notion of diversification, that is product-,
portfolio- or geographical diversification, i.e. internationalisation, of the firm (Amit & Livnat,
1988; Ansoff, 1958; Delios & Beamish, 1999; Lu & Beamish, 2004). Apart from the ambition
to appropriate additional rents through a more diversified firm portfolio, the arguably most
important aim of firms’ diversification activities in the context of disruptions is risk mitigation
(Amit & Livnat, 1988; Ansoff, 1958; Rugman, 1976). That is, mitigation through means of
dispersion among the various business units, companies, regions, product and customer
segments of the firm. Through diversification, firms expand their portfolio and are able to
actively manage better or worse performing units within the same business to absorb the
impact of disruptions. Moreover, the practicing manager will aim for a decrease in portfolio
exposure to ensure reduction of risk.
Conversely, with instability being a dominant environmental factor, firms might retreat
to simpler organisational forms to reduce uncertainty (Keats & Hitt, 1988). Consequently, one
must consider both, the reduction of risk and the reduction of uncertainty as important

35
building blocks of the transformative capability of the firm, the focus on which is contingent
upon environmental conditions. Firms do however also need to exercise caution in prioritising
risk and uncertainty reduction over diversification. Bourgeois III (1980, 1985) notes that risk
reduction runs counter to opportunity discovery and enactment. That is, a firm ought to
deliberately manage risk where a higher level of risk is acceptable based on a higher expected
probability of increased returns (Bowman, 1982). The essence of the transformative
dimension of RESCAP therefore is the re-allocation of assets in accordance with risk,
uncertainty reduction and opportunity enactment.
The quality of the transformative dimension of RESCAP is a function of speed and
efficacy of asset re-distribution or realisation of appropriate strategic options as noted within
the strategic flexibility view (Hitt et al., 1998; Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). The speed of
transformation is contingent upon the accuracy of information, which in turn is determined
by the sensing and exploration dimensions of RESCAP: the faster and more accurately a firm
senses and makes sense of a disruption and the faster a firm identifies alternative paths and
strategic choices, the faster a firm is able to re-distribute assets accordingly.

36
Potential and realised RESCAP
The reconceptualised model of RESCAP assumes that a firm is able to build potential
and realised RESCAP. That is, a firm may develop the potential through sensing and exploring
capabilities and may realise such potential through seizing and transforming.
Potential RESCAP enables the firm to sense and make sense of signals and seek
opportunities in a dynamic and volatile environment, and thus widens or narrows the scope
of search. Potential RESCAP represents a subset of RESCAP capabilities: sensing and exploring.
A combination that essentially enables the firm to sense and make sense of (weak) signals
(Haeckel, 2004; Schoemaker & Day, 2009) on the one hand, while enabling the firm to seek
and qualify new opportunities on the other hand (Gupta et al., 2006; Uotila et al., 2009).
Neither of the two concepts, sensing nor exploring, are primarily focussed on
implementation. Both are however focussed on the firms’ ability to detect disruptions early
as well as discover strategic options to increase variability necessary for short- and long-term
firm survival (March, 1991). Potential RESCAP represent the firms’ capabilities to detect
signals in the environment of the firm and to explore and qualify options for managerial
action. Additionally, the sensing and exploring dimensions ought to be viewed from a multi-
level perspective: sensing can be done for both short-term and long-term threats For
example, the impact of extreme weather events yield disruptions that impact the firm in the
short-term, while the impact of a global health crisis on consumer behaviour can be seen as
rather long-term disruption. Thus, a more nuanced view of the sensing and exploring
dimension individually as well as combinative as potential RESCAP seems appropriate.
Realised RESCAP as the second subset of RESCAP, focusses on the enactment of
managerial action and opportunities as well as transformative re-organisation. As such,
realised RESCAP incorporates notions of asset efficiency and asset re-distribution. Contrary

37
to potential RESCAP, realised RESCAP lays the focus on efficiency increases and variance
decreases (March, 1991). The realised RESCAP subset represents the firms’ capacity to
implement opportunities explored, to make changes to firm structure and that lead to
increased asset efficiency and effectiveness. Realised RESCAP further refers to changes in
asset allocation, for example changes in investment planning and execution, and asset
efficiency and structural changes to the organisation that enable appropriate response
formulation to changing environmental dynamics. Realised RESCAP thus focusses on the
enactment of managerial action and opportunities, that is increasing variance as well as
reducing risk and uncertainty through diversification.
Relationship among both, potential and realised RESCAP. Neither of the two subsets,
potential and realised RESCAP, is capable to yield resilient outcomes measured as superior
performance of the firm during disruptive times, independently. Further, neither one of the
two subsets with RESCAP independently function within, in that sensing and exploring are as
intricately linked with one another as are the seizing and transforming capabilities. While the
exploration capabilities are also somewhat contingent upon the quality and speed of the
sensing function, the increase in asset efficiency also impacts the transformative capability.
Temporal dependencies, for example an opportunity may have to be explored first
before it can be implemented, and other relations within RESCAP have to be conceptualised.
While a high level of potential RESCAP amounts to the potential for better firm performance,
it indeed does not guarantee such. Likewise, potential RESCAP is necessary but insufficient if
the realisation of the potential RESCAP cannot be guaranteed. Firms that sense signals and
explore opportunities but lack the seizing and transforming capacity to realise those
potentials are arguably less successful, similar to firms that show high levels of realised
RESCAP without the appropriate focus on the creation of potential RESCAP.

38
A conceptual dynamic capability model of RESCAP
Figure 2 – conceptual RESCAP model reconceptualised (own illustration)

39
Antecedents
Antecedents to the capabilities that form RESCAP, primarily relate to disruption-specific
attributes. While on the one hand prior scholarship has used a myriad of diverse and
heterogeneous descriptions of what constitutes a disruption, other work on the other hand
simply lacks clear and unambiguous definitions of the environmental conditions that
constitute disruptive periods. Extant works investigated the impact of a multitude of events
on firms, for example firm-external disruptions such as the impact of extreme weather events
or climate change (Ingirige et al., 2008; M. K. Linnenluecke et al., 2012; Tisch & Galbreath,
2018) and supply chain disruptions (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). Scholars have also investigated
disruptions caused by accelerated change (Teixeira & Werther, 2013) resulting in
technological discontinuities, geopolitical turbulence, changing consumer behavioural trends
and an influx of non-traditional competitors (Hamel & Välikangas, 2003), while other works
examined disruption caused by firm-internal events such as failures in high-reliability
organisations (Gifun & Karydas, 2010).
Scholars have used a variety of terms to describe disruptions. Examples of which include
environmental jolts (Meyer, 1982), adversity (Staw et al., 1981), failures (Bruneau et al.,
2003), disaster and system disturbances (Gifun & Karydas, 2010; Mamouni Limnios et al.,
2014; Weick, 1993), shocks (Mzid, 2017), adverse events (van der Vegt et al., 2015),
discontinuities and disruptions (Burnard & Bhamra, 2011), threatening and stressful external
event (Iborra et al., 2020), downturn and economic crisis (Rhodes & Stelter, 2009),
discontinuous change (Birkinshaw et al., 2016; Teixeira & Werther, 2013), turbulent
environment (Ates & Bititci, 2011) and volatile environments (Bourgeois III, 1985). While the
nomenclature outlined above has been used to describe an event or a period of time, most
definitions remain ambiguous and lack greater levels of detail. Additionally, other scholars

40
have altogether refrained from explicit definitions of what triggers volatile dynamics that lead
to shifts in equilibria. The ambiguity and lack of clarity in defining what constitutes disruptive
times, how it can be delineated from other notions such as typical competition and what shall
be included in this construct, brings additional difficulty to the discourse on RESCAP. To
facilitate progress in the field, an explicit definition of the phenomena ought to be
established.
A disruptive environment can be induced by dynamics either endogenous or exogenous
to the firm, or a combination of both. Furthermore, it might be too simplistic to assume that
only catastrophes and short-term impacts warrant the description of disruption. Consider the
case of the global health crisis started in 2019. There certainly is short-term impact visible,
but there also are dynamics that by the end of 2020 still have not passed and hence continue
to disrupt entire industries and sectors. Exogenous disruptions have been widely discussed in
the literature, for example extreme weather events (M. K. Linnenluecke et al., 2012),
environmental jolts (Meyer, 1982) or industry revolutions (Meyer et al., 1990). Such
disruptions stem from outside of the firm boundaries and in most cases affect a larger group
of firms, thus greater prevalence. Endogenous disruptions emanate for a variety of reasons,
such as operational accidents in firm daily operations or staff-strikes.
Environmental conditions play an important role in the organisational adaptation
literature. Earlier scholarship established the importance of firms’ adaptive capabilities, in
that high performing firms may more likely engage in adaptation activities and thus remain
high performers over time (Keats & Hitt, 1988; Romanelli, 1991; Romanelli & Tushman, 1986).
A number of scholars have brought clarity to the firm-environment relation and the impact
of environmental conditions (Bourgeois III, 1980; Bourgeois III et al., 1978; Hitt et al., 1998;

41
Keats & Hitt, 1988; Romanelli & Tushman, 1986) through the definition of environmental
conditions and their impact on firm and market performance.
Following earlier work (Dess & Beard, 1984; Keats & Hitt, 1988; Pfeffer & Salancik,
1978), this paper adopts a multi-dimensional view of the firm-environment: munificence,
instability and complexity (Keats & Hitt, 1988, pp. 578–579). Munificence, or environmental
capacity, describes “the availability of environmental resources to support growth” (Keats &
Hitt, 1988, p. 578), that is this dimension should therefore reflect industry growth. Instability,
or dynamism, reflect discontinuities in the focal industry in that this factor serve as an
indicator of volatility (Dess & Beard, 1984; Keats & Hitt, 1988). Instable environmental
conditions should not “reflect steady growth or predictable cyclicality” (Keats & Hitt, 1988, p.
579). Complexity refers to the structure of task-environment elements implied through
dynamic industry concentration (Grossack, 1965). The variety, distribution and number of
those elements is argued to affect the firms’ ability to acquire and process information, thus
industry concentration, i.e. monopolistic structure versus dispersed power structure or start-
up firms entering the market versus established firms, serves as an indicator for the
complexity that firms face in their task environment in that the more monopolistic the
industry-structure, the less complex it seems (Keats & Hitt, 1988).
While all three variables are a suitable description of the environmental conditional
factors that allow for an accurate account of the current environmental circumstances, the
primary focus lies with the instability dimension as it appears to be a direct indicator of
disruptive periods. This paper argues that in highly volatile markets firms ought to develop
and deploy resilience capabilities that allow them to adapt and reconfigure their asset base
to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Further, the very nature of dynamic
capabilities lends support to the notion that possibilities to learn, practise and repeat, such

42
as a disruptive environment, enable the development of capabilities (Teece et al., 1997). As
noted by Teece et al. (1997), “learning is a process by which repetition and experimentation
enable tasks to be performed better and quicker” (p. 520). Following the concept of the
capability lifecycle (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003) and the strategic aspects of capabilities (Teece et
al., 1997), it can be argued that disruptions or disruptive periods provide cause, i.e. a common
objective to be achieved (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003) and opportunity, i.e. to learn, repeat and
improve (Teece, 2019), for the firm to build and improve dynamic capabilities. Particularly in
disruptive times, dynamic capabilities are geared towards sensing, exploring and seizing
opportunities, current and future assets as well as (re-)distributing assets through
transformative action.
To answer the fundamental question, what constitutes a disruption, this paper
consequently defines the term disruption as disruptive and volatile environmental conditions
that impact firm operating performance and force the firm to adapt to the changing dynamics
and environmental conditions.
Definition. This paper defines disruptive times described by instable environments
characterised by high levels of volatility and unpredictable discontinuities induced
by dynamics and events exogenous or endogenous to the firm that have a
significant impact on firm operating performance.
Earlier scholarship views discontinuous change in opposition to incremental and
continuous change as disruptive dynamics that force firms to adapt and transform their
organisation, processes and assets (Birkinshaw et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 1990; Prahalad &
Hamel, 1994; van Notten et al., 2005).
Following the theory of dynamic capabilities, it can be assumed that disruptions will
have a positive impact on the development of potential RESCAP in that the firm is provided

43
with the opportunity to hone, learn, repeat and improve a dynamic capability that enables
flexibility and adaptability of the firm to new environmental conditions. A firm will therefore
better be able to sense threats and explore opportunities, important for the firm to develop
and retain competitive advantage as a consequence.
Proposition 1a
2
: the more instable the environment (volatile, disruptive,
turbulent), the more likely the firm will engage in the development of potential
RESCAP capabilities.
While the instability of the environment is a suitable indicator for the overall
environmental conditions at a point in time, Rudolph & Repenning (2002) argue that an over-
accumulation of less-intense disruptions may also lead to an overall increased instability and
hence volatility in the environment over time. While the firm will arguably be able to cope
with instable environments of less intensity, that are spread across a longer period of time,
the over-accumulation of such instable environmental conditions within a period time will
lead to the development of potential RESCAP.
Proposition 1b: the higher the number of disruptions over time, albeit less-
intense volatile environments, the more likely the firm will engage in the
development of potential RESCAP over time.
2
A summary of all propositions developed in Chapter 2 can be found in Appendix C

44
Moderators
To form a more nuanced and refined understanding of RESCAP, one ought to consider
moderating effects of various attributes and characteristics on the relationships between
antecedents, RESCAP and resilience outcomes as well as among potential and realised
RESCAP. The moderating effects will subsequently be clustered in three distinct groups:
amplifying, integrating and leveraging (where the factors subsumed under leveraging will in
logical order be developed after the section on outcomes below).
Amplifying (moderates)
As outlined above, the relationship between antecedents and the development of
potential RESCAP is a complex connection. Complex, that is there are multiple variables that
influence the relationship between antecedent variables and the development of potential
RESCAP.
Amplifying describes factors that influence the relationship between disruption-specific
attributes and the development of potential RESCAP. The amplifying function of prior
experience of the firm, team, individual or even region and country on the impact of
disruptions can be of great significance for the impact on the development of potential
RESCAP (Collier, 2018; Linnenluecke et al., 2012; Sullivan-Taylor & Wilson, 2009). It is through
experience with prior disruptions that learnings from such experiences can be generated. In
their study of the impact of terrorist attacks on the British travel and leisure organisations,
Sullivan-Taylor & Wilson (2009) assert that prior experiences better enable firms to classify
threats and to prioritise such. By drawing from learnings and prior experiences (Bigelow,
1992), the positive impact of disruptions on the cognitive dimension of potential RESCAP can
be amplified. Prior experience ultimately improves adaptability, in that more experienced
firms are more likely to avoid extremes, being overly cautious as well as being extremely

45
confident about what is known of the current situation and possible solutions (Weick, 1993).
While prior experiences are essential, it is the learning that is generated from those past
experiences that leads to more informed decision making (Bigelow, 1992; Lengnick-Hall &
Beck, 2009; Weick, 1993). As Lengnick-Hall & Beck (2009) argue, more experienced firms are
better able to sense and accept the true reality while questioning fundamental assumptions
that might have shifted. Therefore, higher levels of prior experience are more likely to amplify
the positive impact of disruptions on the development of the cognitive dimension of potential
RESCAP.
Proposition 2a: the higher the level of prior experience, the more the positive
relationship between disruption and the development of sensing capabilities will
be amplified.
Slack resources accumulated in times of growth (George, 2005) will more likely allow
the firm to amplify the positive impact of a disruption (Hamel & Välikangas, 2003) on the
development of potential RESCAP. As defined by George (2005) “[s]lack is potentially
utilizable resources that can be diverted or redeployed for the achievement of organizational
goals” (p. 661). While resource slack is a multi-faceted construct (Bourgeois, 1981), in the
context of disruptions slack can be argued to have an effect on the development of potential
RESCAP, in particular on the exploration dimension of RESCAP. Basing their research in the
entrepreneurial setting, Manfield & Newey (2018) argue that variability is key for firms
responding to disruptions. Such increases in variability relates to explorative capabilities, such
as innovation, experimentation and pivoting. Prior research has established the positive
impact of slack resources on innovative capabilities (Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; Nohria &
Gulati, 1996). However, arguments expressed in more recent literature hold a more critical
view of slack resources. While excess resources can be seen as inefficient and undesirable in

46
relatively stable environments (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010), this does not hold in turbulent
environments where slack is essential to variance increasing activities. Notwithstanding the
above, the managerial paradox of building and reducing slack resources remains an important
puzzle to solve. In particular, higher slack resource levels were argued to produce a negative
effect, where firms with much larger resource bases are assumed to show behaviours of
complacency and irrationality (George, 2005). Thus, a non-linear moderating effect is
expected.
Proposition 2b: low levels of slack amplify the positive relationship between
disruption and the development of opportunity seeking capabilities while high
levels of slack impede the positive impact of disruption on the development of
opportunity seeking capabilities.
Following earlier conceptualisations, top management team (TMT) attention is
described as the orientation of the TMT to what issues, category or bundles of stimuli
managers focus their attention on (Cho & Hambrick, 2006; Ocasio, 1997). Attention
orientation thus is “the degree of attention paid to some category of stimuli” (Cho &
Hambrick, 2006, p. 455). As limits to what degree attention can be focussed on sectors exist
and limit managerial attention (Cho & Hambrick, 2006), the orientation of such attention is
even more critical in disruptive times, where attention hitherto is strained. Earlier work for
example elaborated on the relative attention orientation of the CEO to scanning when faced
with higher levels of uncertainty (Daft & Weick, 1984; Garg et al., 2003). Higher relative
orientation of TMT attention towards scanning activities can thus be assumed to be important
during times of disruption for the development of the cognitive dimension of RESCAP.
Additionally, as levels of attention permit, focus on auxiliary categories such as an orientation

47
towards explorative activities will enhance the development of the explorative dimension of
RESCAP.
Proposition 2c: the higher the TMT attention orientation on sensing activities, the
more the positive relationship between disruptions and sensing will be amplified.
Proposition 2d: the higher the TMT attention orientation on explorative
activities, the more the positive relationship between disruptions and exploring
will be amplified.
Integrating (moderates)
The relationship between potential and realised RESCAP has been discussed above. The
reconceptualised view of RESCAP however holds a number of factors that impede or foster
the realisation of potential RESCAP. That is, while a firm might possess high levels of potential
RESCAP, the firm might not automatically realise this potential when faced with a disruption.
Integrating factors can therefore be characterised as notions that either promote or hinder
the realisation of potential RESCAP, thus playing a vital role in fostering resilient firm
outcomes.
While diversification forms an integral part of the transformative dimension of RESCAP,
coherence within the firm plays an important role in the relationship between potential and
realised RESCAP. Corporate coherence, described as within-firm logic that fosters parts of the
business to support and reinforce each other (Hambrick, 1997; Piscitello, 2004; Teece et al.,
1994), is of particular importance to diversification and strategic action. Teece et al. (1994)
view coherence as “a measure of relatedness” (p. 3), where higher levels of coherence among
different parts of the firm is due to a common set of characteristics that various units of the
firm adhere to. Coherence can further be detailed as “the consistency of strategic choices
across business and functional levels of strategy” (Nath & Sudharshan, 1994, p. 43). More

48
recently, Piscitello (2004) expanded earlier views to define corporate coherence as
“interconnectedness between the companies’ technological competencies and their
downstream activities” (p. 775). It can thus be argued that more coherent firms more quickly
turn actionable insights from the sensing and exploring capabilities into realised RESCAP
across the portfolio of competencies and activities.
Proposition 3a: the higher the level of corporate coherence, the better the focal
firm can realise the potential RESCAP.
Attributes of the firm, such as size, play an important role in the relationship between
potential and realised RESCAP. Firm size has long been a focal variable in the study of
diversification strategies (Keats & Hitt, 1988), where it is argued that the bigger the firm the
more diversification is aimed at reducing risk (Rugman, 1976). Firm size, however, can be seen
as more than a promoter of diversification and risk reduction strategies. Defined as total
assets of the firm (Hall & Weiss, 1967), larger firm size presumes larger financial resources
which allow the firm to promote diversification important to risk mitigation and possess larger
asset bases. Larger firms are also argued to be better positioned to “duplicate their structures,
diversify their supply chains, increase their insurance coverages or using them for
experimentation” (Iborra et al., 2020, p. 2). In the relationship between potential and realised
RESCAP, firm size enhances a firms’ capabilities to realise the potential RESCAP through
superior resource allocation possibilities and adaptability. Sullivan-Taylor & Branicki (2011)
show results of their case study research with SMEs where comparably smaller firms
experience inferior results relative to identification of threats, the prioritisation and the (re-)
distribution of assets. The notion that larger firms have greater financial resources at their
disposal, also leads to reason that such greater resources enable firms to better exploit their

49
assets to increase efficiency and better re-distribute assets. Thus, larger firm size is argued to
have a promoting effect on the positive relationship between potential and realised RESCAP.
Proposition 3b: the larger the firm, the more resources a firm can deploy and
redistribute and thus the better, quicker and more efficiently the firm can realise
its potential RESCAP.
Organisational flexibility, defined as specific firm capabilities that allow firms to adapt
swiftly and aptly to shifting environments (Hatum & Pettigrew, 2006; Krijnen, 1979; Teece et
al., 1997; Volberda, 1997), plays a particularly important role in the realisation of potential
RESCAP. Earlier work views organisational flexibility was coined by two dimensions (Hatum &
Pettigrew, 2006; Volberda, 1997), one through flexible organisational design (Ackoff, 1977;
Foss, 2003) and two through new managerial capabilities (Bahrami, 1992; Calori et al., 2000;
Volberda, 1997). In contrast to earlier selection perspectives, where organisations are
assumed to dying to make way for new organisations, Volberda (1997, p. 182) argues, that
firms with higher levels of organisational flexibility tend to be more successful. In particular
during times of disruptive changes as they are able to adapt over time to avoid extinction. It
can be argued that the higher the level of flexibility within the flexibility mix, the better the
firm is able to increase asset efficiency and re-distribute assets to realise its potential RESCAP.
Prior scholarship has defined the flexibility mix in three dimensions, operational, structural
and strategic flexibility (Volberda, 1997). Firms that are capable of swiftly and efficiently
change for example product portfolios and manage external labour (operational flexibility)
are assumed to better be able to increase asset efficiency of the firm. Focussed on the
renewal or transformation of existing processes (Krijnen, 1979), structural flexibility is
achieved through adaptation of internal and external firm structures. Increasing structural
flexibility is expressed through changes in organisational design such as amended reporting

50
structures, business unit structures, profit and loss responsibilities. Strategic flexibility is
concerned with the changes of corporate policy of the firm (Krijnen, 1979; Volberda, 1997).
The latter represents the most significant flexibility dimension as it aims at the very core of
firm policy, developing and enacting alternative courses of action (Sanchez, 1995).
Proposition 3c: the higher the level of organisational flexibility, the better the
focal firm can adapt processes, structures and strategy to better realise potential
RESCAP.
Table 4 – moderators: amplifying, integrating and leveraging
Moderators
Constructs
Role
Exemplary studies
Amplifying
Prior experience
Slack resources
TMT attention orientation
Amplifying the positive
impact of disruption on
the development of
potential RESCAP
(George, 2005;
Epaminondas Koronis &
Ponis, 2018; Sullivan-
Taylor & Wilson, 2009)
Integrating
Corporate coherence
Firm size
Organisational flexibility
Increasing the efficacy of
the realisation of potential
RESCAP
(Hatum & Pettigrew, 2006;
M. K. Linnenluecke, 2017;
Nath & Sudharshan, 1994)
Leveraging
Industry clockspeed
Industry innovativeness
Institutional support
Leveraging institutional
support and industry
characteristics to amplify
the impact of RESCAP on
resilience outcomes
(Acs & Audretsch, 1988;
Dolfsma & Velde, 2014;
Finchelstein, 2017;
Nadkarni & Narayanan,
2007; Nuruzzaman et al.,
2020; Williamson, 1981)
Table 5 – resilience outcomes
Outcome
Operationalised as
Achieved through
Exemplary studies
Performance
reversion
external
A reversion of firm-
performance relative
to pre-disruption levels
and the competition
Potential RESCAP
sense & explore
(Barney, 1991; Conz et al.,
2017; Newbert, 2008;
Teece et al., 1997; Teixeira
& Werther, 2013)
Adaptation
internal
Changes in business
model, firm structure,
diversification, risk and
uncertainty reduction
Realised RESCAP
seize &transform
(Ates & Bititci, 2011;
Hamel & Välikangas, 2003;
Epaminondas Koronis &
Ponis, 2018; Ortiz‐de‐
Mandojana & Bansal,
2016)

51
Outcomes
Although differential conceptualisations were employed in prior works, scholarship in
recent years seems to agree on viewing resilience as a latent outcome variable (DesJardine et
al., 2019; Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana & Bansal, 2016; Somers, 2009). As noted above, earlier work
has examined resiliency in the business and management domain from a number of
perspectives and consequently studied a variety of outcomes, through which resilience
manifests. Grounded in earlier works this paper conceptualises resilience of the firm as a
measure of performance outcome manifested in two main dimensions. One, the notion of
competitive advantage (Conz et al., 2017; J. H. Lee et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Smallbone et
al., 2012; Teixeira & Werther, 2013), which is viewed as an external measure of performance
outcome. Two, the notion of adaptation of the firm to the changing environment (Ates &
Bititci, 2011; Hamel & Välikangas, 2003; Epaminondas Koronis & Ponis, 2018; Ortiz‐de‐
Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). While the multi-dimensional view of resiliency outcomes has
been discussed in earlier works (Ma et al., 2018; van der Vegt et al., 2015; Winn et al., 2011),
prior scholarship has failed to clearly and explicitly elaborate on the dimensions of resilience
outcomes as a measure of performance outcomes.
Dimension one expresses resilience outcomes as sustained competitive advantage of
the firm (Conz et al., 2017; J. H. Lee et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Smallbone et al., 2012;
Teixeira & Werther, 2013). Competitive advantage is a good measure of the long-term
survival of the firm in that a firm must strive for sustained competitive advantage relative to
both current and future competition (Barney, 1991). As Teece (2019) notes that “[h]olding
cash . . . is a good hedge against positive or negative surprises, but it provides only short-term
relief” (p. 17). Thus long-term sustained competitive advantage is achieved through dynamic
capabilities (Teece, 2014a, 2014b). The dynamic capability view does not neglect the

52
significance of possession of superior resources (Barney, 1991, 1995) or the significance of
superior competitive positioning (Porter, 1980, 1996, 1998). A dynamic capability view of
sustained competitive advantage extends earlier notions to refine dynamic capabilities “as
the foundation of enterprise-level competitive advantage’ (Teece, 2007, p. 1341). In this view,
the firm must develop and deploy dynamic capabilities that allow for internal replication and
protect from external imitation to achieve and sustain competitive advantage (Teece et al.,
1997). This paper adopts a definition of sustained competitive advantage expressed in earlier
works in which sustained competitive advantage rests on the implementation of a “value
creating strategy [that is] not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential
competitors and . . . these other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of this strategy”
(Barney, 1991, p. 102). More precisely, it is the development and deployment of dynamic
capabilities that are “valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable” (Barney, 1991;
Newbert, 2007) which leads to sustained competitive advantage (Teece, 2014b). Sustained
competitive advantage is furthermore contingent on the continued heterogeniety of the
underlying dynamic capabilities (Peteraf, 1993), that is protected from replication by
competitors.
While the earlier resource-capability impact on competitive advantage and further
superior performance was contested in earlier work (Newbert, 2007; Powell, 2001), the
positive impact of superior resource-capability combinations on competitive advantage and
superior firm performance was later corroborated (Newbert, 2008). This paper therefore
argues that the development and deployment of superior dynamic capabilities, particularly in
times of disruption, leads to sustained competitive advantage of the firm and consequently
leads to superior firm-operating performance. While the dynamic capabilities that underly
RESCAP are assumed to more generally affect resilience outcomes measured through

53
sustained competitive and adaptation, a differential view is useful for further guidance. That
is, the cognitive dimension as well as the inherently entrepreneurial exploring dimension of
RESCAP primarily affect the achievment and protection of competitive advantage, thus
leading to relative superior operating performance. Earlier work argues that a firm is resilient
when it achieves a refined and reinforced competitive advantage as a response to disruptive
times (Conz et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Smallbone et al., 2012; Teixeira &
Werther, 2013). Superior sensing and exploring capabilities thus tend to enable firms to
better be able to sense underlying (weak) signals and better explore both opportunities and
threats important to the implementation of value-creating current and future strategy of the
firm and thereby ensuring sustained competitive advantage and superior performance of the
firm. Herein, firm-operating performance is operationalised through the measurement of the
change of firm-operating performance variables, such as return on equity (ROE), return on
assets (ROA) and return on investment (ROI) (Keats & Hitt, 1988) in comparison with pre-
disruption levels and competition. The focal outcome variable is viewed as a reversion of
performance, implying superior competitive advantage as the cause of such reversion.
Proposition 4a: the better developed potential RESCAP, the more the firm will
outperform competitors and prior levels of performance through enhanced
sensing and exploring capabilities. Firms with higher levels of potential RESCAP
are better able to sense (weak) signals, to sense both opportunity and threat as
well as seek new opportunities that allows for future competitive advantage.
Dimension two refers to the notion of continuous adaptation which was noted in earlier
work (Ates & Bititci, 2011; Hamel & Välikangas, 2003; E. Koronis & Ponis, 2018; Ortiz‐de‐
Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). Established work posits that firm must continuously adapt and
foster capabilities that cater for continuous shock absorption. Such continuous adaptation is

54
important to the ability of the firm to “continuously anticipate and adjust to their
environment, which facilitates the firm goal of ‘zero trauma.’ “ (Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana & Bansal,
2016, p. 1619). The ability of the firm to continuously adapt, to deploy seizing and
transformative capabilities to flexibly and efficiently redeploy and reconfigure assets allows
the firm to continuously and flexibly adapt to changing environments, which is essential in
times of disruption (Hatum & Pettigrew, 2006; Keats & Hitt, 1988; Romanelli & Tushman,
1986; Teece et al., 1997). While the competitive advantage – superior firm performance
notion expresses resilience outcomes as an external measure, the changes in firm-structure,
business model, levels of risk and uncertainty across the firm portfolio represent the internal
measures of resilient outcomes.
Proposition 4b: firms with well-developed realised RESCAP capabilities tend to
more likely adapt to changing environmental conditions shaped by instability and
disruption through enhanced flexibility and efficiency in asset (re) allocation.
Firms with higher levels of realised RESCAP tend to better be able to exploit
current and future assets as well as reduce risk and uncertainty through
transformative action.
One of the fundamental questions in business and management studies is the question
of what causes competitive advantage and intraindustry variance in performance. As scholars
have pointed out, resources and capabilities seem to be one major source of such variation
(Teece et al., 1997; Zahra & George, 2002). As pointed out earlier, and as an extension to
earlier work, firms ought to foster both potential and realised RESCAP capabilities to succeed
in a turbulent, volatile and dynamic world. Both subsets are combinative in nature, thus
attention ought to be granted to both to not simply survive disruptions but also to emerge
more strongly from such disruptions to ensure longer-term survival of the firm.

55
Leveraging (moderates)
The relationship between RESCAP and resilience as measured through performance
outcomes is impacted by a group of variables that are summarised here as leveraging. This
paper views leveraging as a firm benefiting from industry characteristics and institutional
actions to amplify the positive impact of realised RESCAP on resilience outcomes.
Faster industry clockspeed, previously defined as the fast “rate of industry change
driven by endogenous factors (technological and competitive)” (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007,
p. 244) will impact the realisation of RESCAP. Industry clockspeed was previously defined by
three facets: product clockspeed, the rate of change of products within an industry; process
clockspeed, the rate at which one process technology becomes obsolete in favour of another;
and organisational clockspeed, which refers to the rate of change relative to strategic action
and organisational structures (Fines, 1998 as cited in Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). Prior
scholarship has further identified three dimensions of industry clockspeed – rate, turbulence
and magnitude – to more accurately measure clockspeed (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). It
can be argued that a higher level of industry clockspeed will induce additional volatility in the
sector and the firm. Such additional volatility adds to the difficult situation firms face when
going through disruptive times. Arguably, the more steadily an industry seems to develop,
the more focus can be dedicated to RESCAP. Hence a negative impact of higher industry
clockspeed on the relation between RESCAP and outcomes is expected.
Proposition 5a: at lower levels of industry clockspeed, the positive impact of
RESCAP on resilience outcomes is amplified, while at higher levels of clockspeed
the positive impact of RESACP on resilience outcomes is negatively moderated as
attention is drawn away from RESCAP to satisfy demands arising from high
industry clockspeed.

56
Particular levels of industry Innovativeness are argued to amplify the positive impact
of RESCAP on resilience outcomes. Basing their work on Schumpeter’s Innovation Puzzle,
Dolfsma & Velde (2014) measure innovative output as the number of new product
announcements and industry innovativeness as the number of innovating firms within such
industry. The authors find evidence for a differential impact of firm characteristics, such as
size, on industry innovativeness. As industry innovativeness can be seen as a measure of
innovative output of an industry (Acs & Audretsch, 1988), one can assume that higher levels
of innovativeness imply more opportunity. Higher levels of industry innovativeness however
also imply greater levels of competition as more firms produce more innovative output and
the pressure for the individual firm increases. Dolfsma & Velde (2014) find that firm size is a
predictor of contribution to innovativeness of an industry, arguing that smaller firms, contrary
to prior perspectives, have a higher impact on industry innovativeness. Different measures
have been applied to examine innovativeness within an industry (Acs & Audretsch, 1988;
Dolfsma & Velde, 2014), however what seems conclusive across studies is that innovativeness
is measured as output. As such a higher level of innovativeness implies a higher level of
competition within an industry. Firms can leverage the level of industry innovativeness for
producing resilient outcomes by exploiting lower levels of innovativeness for increased focus
on RESCAP and the impact on resilient outcomes.
Proposition 5b: while at lower levels of industry innovativeness, the positive
impact of RESCAP on resilience outcomes will be amplified through increased
managerial attention being drawn to RESCAP, at higher levels of industry
innovativeness, the more the positive impact of realised RESCAP on resilience
outcomes will be negatively moderated.

57
Institutional support plays an important role in the relationship between realised
RESCAP and resilience outcomes. At different levels, institutions are agued to set the
framework for firm embeddedness, formal rules, governance and resource allocation and
employment regulations for organisations, thus influencing the portfolio of strategic choices
that firms possess (Williamson, 1981). In his study on the impact of state actions on firm
internationalisation, Finchelstein (2017) further refines the definition of institutional actions
in direct and indirect actions taken by the state to support firms. Direct action refers to the
direct involvement of institutions, for example the provision of financial support and
legislation of competition policy. Indirect action refers to provisions and policies that
indirectly affect the wider audience of firms within an ecosystem (Nuruzzaman et al., 2020).
Given that institutions can directly affect policy making and for example warrant the provision
of cheap financial resources to organisations, governmental action can be of vital importance,
particularly during times of disruption. As discussed above, organisations are better able to
flexibly reallocate resources at higher levels of organisational flexibility and with higher levels
of slack resources, firms can make changes to resource provision corresponding to
environmental demands. This effect, however, can be amplified given institutional support
that aims at the provision of for example cheap financial support for firms. While the
capabilities view of RESCAP argues that it is the capabilities that firm develops and realises, it
can be argued that the impact of realised RESCAP on resilience outcomes across dimension
can be amplified if institutional support is given.
Proposition 5c: the higher the financial institutional support, the more the
positive relationship between RESCAP and resilience outcomes will be amplified.

58
Discussion
Earlier work discussing the issue of how firms survive and outperform in disruptive
times has yielded important findings. However, to facilitate progress in this discussion, the
field ought to converge on a number of basic assumptions that allow for theoretical
advancement. By grounding its theorising in the capability-literature, more precisely the
dynamic capability view, this paper (Chapter 2) aims to inform the literature by
conceptualising firm-level capabilities under deep uncertainty (Teece, 2019). Adopting a
dynamic capability perspective is exceedingly useful in environments where managerial
decision making takes place under deep uncertainty and managerial flexibility is in focus.
Based on an in-depth, systematic review of the received literature (Chapter 1), this
paper develops the reconceptualised framework
3
of resilience capacity to inform the
literature on capability development and deployment under deep uncertainty. Routed in the
dynamic capability theory (Teece et al., 1997), this paper elaborates the capabilities that
underpin resilience response formulation through distinct dimensions as sensing, exploring,
seizing and transforming. While sensing, seizing and transforming are established constructs
in the dynamic capability view of managerial capabilities, exploring capabilities represent an
important addition. That is, the inherently entrepreneurial dimension of exploring is distinct
from sensing in that explorative capabilities purposefully seek opportunities to foster long-
term competitive advantage of the firm, while sensing is dedicated towards dynamics in the
firm-environment that can be either a threat or an opportunity. Sensing can thus be viewed
from a shorter time-horizon, while it is the entrepreneurial exploring dimension that is
developed, deployed and nurtured for a longer time horizon. The notion of seizing reframes
3
A comparison of conceptualisations and definitions with prior literature can be found in Appendix D

59
activities dedicated towards increasing the efficiency of current and future assets,
effectuating in nature, that is, focussing on implementation rather than exploring or sensing.
The transformative dimension of RESCAP focusses on the re-distribution of assets, with an
emphasis on diversification, risk mitigation and reduction of uncertainty. Interestingly,
contingent upon the environmental conditions under which a firm formulates and enacts
responses, a balance between risk and uncertainty avoidance with activities of diversification
ought to be managed conscientiously.
The theoretical model outlined in Figure 2 conceptualises RESCAP as the potential and
realised capacity to develop and achieve resiliency in disruptive times. That is, a firm can
develop the potential to form superior responses under uncertainty through sensing and
explorative capabilities. The same firm, however, ought to ensure enactment, that is the
realisation of such potential, through the capabilities distilled as realised RESCAP. The
combination of these two dimensions is of vital importance to achieve resilience outcomes
under disruptive environmental conditions.
Resilience outcomes are conceptualised as a sustained competitive advantage
expressed through a reversion of performance and enhanced firm-level adaptiveness. A
change or reversion in performance is achieved through competitive advantage, which is
driven by the sensing and exploring dimensions, alias potential RESCAP. More precisely, it is
the positive delta that is of interest. Greater levels of adaptiveness are achieved through the
development and deployment of seizing and transforming capabilities, that is, through
realised RESCAP. These dimensions of resilience, measured by performance outcome
variables, foster a more nuanced and holistic understanding of resilience as performance
outcome. Importantly, the combination of both dimensions, performance reversion and

60
enhanced levels of adaptiveness, ought to be considered when aiming to measure resiliency
as outcome.
Additionally, the conceptual model suggests moderating variables that moderate the
relationships between constructs. Amplifiers for example magnify the impact of the
environmental conditions that constitute disruption on the development of potential RESCAP,
while integrating variables moderate the realisation of potential RESCAP. Variables that
moderate the relationship between RESCAP and resilience outcomes were conceptualised as
leveraging.
This paper contributes to the received literature in a number of ways. Conceptualising
resilience capacity as a dynamic capability of the firm explicitly extends the dynamic capability
theory to environments where disruption is the leading paradigm. The categorisation of
disruptive environmental dynamics allows for theorising on capability development and
deployment honed not just toward a user-need (Teece et al., 1997, p. 517), but toward a
specific disruptive environment. It is through the focus on environmental conditions, rather
than specific events, that this view adds value. Based on earlier work (Keats & Hitt, 1988), this
paper conceptualises the environmental conditions that are disruptive in nature as disruption
by outlining how, in particular, the driving force of volatility as determining environmental
condition impacts firm-level capability development and deployment.
This paper extends earlier work on organisational resilience and dynamic capabilities by
maintaining a multi-dimensional view of resilience capacity through the illustration of
underlying capabilities as well as a multi-dimensional view of moderators and environmental
conditions. By extending the initial dynamic capability framework (Teece, 2019; Teece et al.,
1997) to include the inherently entrepreneurial explorative dimension, this view caters for

61
the purposeful shaping of the environment (Teece, 2007) and thereby acknowledges the
complex and multi-faceted reality that firms face when confronted with disruption.
By firmly grounding the reasoning in the dynamic capability theory of the firm, this
paper further extends earlier work relative to the impact of learning, path-dependency and
the emphasis on disequilibrium. While earlier work assumes rather predictable and stable
environments (Teece, 2019), this paper refocuses the discussion on firm behaviour in
disequilibrium. By outlining the distinct dimensions of RESCAP and elaborating on the way
how these capabilities are developed and deployed, this paper contributes to the issue of
how learning impacts capability development and consequently performance.
The multi-dimensional view of resilient outcomes is grounded in the theory of
entrepreneurial action, which advocates action over asset possession or competitive position
as the main driver of sustained competitive advantage in disruptive times in which the firm
engenders both Schumpeterian and Kirznerian rents. The emphasis on managerial action,
that is the development and deployment of dynamic capabilities, over possession (Barney,
1991) and position (Porter, 1980, 1996) further contributes to the growing importance of
dynamic capabilities for firm-level survival, performance and adaptiveness under uncertainty.
While this paper is firmly grounded in the extant literature and aimed at creating
theoretical contribution, these insights shall too inform managerial decision making by
outlining the capabilities critical to survival during times of disruption and explicating other
important aspects of the theory. Because of incoherence in theorising and empirical findings,
the implications of the received insights for practice thus far remain unclear. Due to this
incoherence, prior work on how firms survive and thrive in times of disruption has been
difficult to apply to managerial practise. The emphasis on dynamic capabilities as the source
of sustained competitive advantage in disruptive times over possession and structure of

62
assets is reinforced by Teece (2019) who notes that “[h]olding cash, for example, is a good
hedge against positive or negative surprises, but it provides only short-term relief” (p. 17).
This view again stresses the strategic importance of capability development and deployment,
particularly in times of disruption. While the asset base of the firm is evidently important to
firm survival, i.e. a firm holding excess cash reserves, the emphasis in rapidly changing
environments lies on the capabilities essential to develop, deploy and reconfigure those
assets to respond to changes in the environment of the firm (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Teece
et al., 1997). Earlier scholarship on dynamic capabilities advocates a set of distinct capabilities.
In particular sensing, seizing and transforming are important dimensions of a firms’ dynamic
capabilities portfolio (Teece, 2007, 2017; Teece et al., 1997).
A dynamic capability view of resilience capacity aims to introduce a refined perspective
of the capabilities critical to firm survival in disruptive times. The introduction of potential
and realised resilience capacity also indicates that resilience capacity as a dynamic capability
of the firm is a multi-dimensional construct that targets both the survival of the firm through
seizing of current opportunities and the pursuit of future competitive advantage through the
creation of new opportunities. The insights generated in this paper emphasise the multi-
dimensionality of resilience outcomes, an important extension and reaffirmation for guiding
managerial practise. This paper also informs the practising manager by providing a more
nuanced view of disruptions and the environmental conditions that lead to the prioritisation
of a set of capabilities over another.

63
Future research
Naturally, this paper is not exhaustive and represents one view of firm-level resilience
based on an extensive review of the received resilience literature. While this paper uses a
dynamic capability view to explain firm-level resilience, other views could be used to explain
firm-level resilience, and thereby expanding upon other views summarised in Table 2. While
the dynamic capability view provides a useful perspective to scenarios of deep uncertainty
and volatility, it of course has its limitations. Therefore, applying a different perspective to
the study of firm-level resilience may yield a different conceptual framework that may induce
interesting findings from various domains, such as economics or sociology.
While this paper treats resilience, expressed through adaptiveness and performance
reversion, as the independent variable of the model, a different perspective might view the
dynamic capabilities that underpin RESCAP as the independent variable. That is, disruptive
environmental conditions lead to RESCAP and the underlying dimensions as the independent
variable. Following earlier work, resilience could also be viewed as mediator to the
relationship between dependent and independent variables (e.g., Collier, 2018; Kantur &
Iseri-Say, 2012; Senbeto & Hon, 2020).
The focus of the theory paper is to develop a conceptual model of resilience capacity
through a dynamic capability lens. As such, propositions for further study are developed. The
conceptual model could be used to extend the conceptual effort to a quantitative, deductive
theory testing study. Consequently, further study focussed on quantitative theory testing
approaches can shed further light on the validity of the proposed RESCAP model of firm
resilience to further extend both the dynamic capability as well as the resilience literature.

64
Chapter 3: Inductive study
Introduction
As outlined in the above in-depth literature review, the focal research domain suffers
from incoherent frameworks, construct definitions and measurements. The inductive study
in Chapter 3 shall aim to build theory that is firmly grounded in observation of the
phenomenon in managerial practise, that is, inductive theory building through qualitative
field research, where the researcher initially is agnostic to the relationships she will observe
during the early research process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Qualitative, inductive methodologies grounded in theory are best suited for research
where novel frameworks and conceptualisations are studied (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin &
Strauss, 1990; Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt et al., 2016; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007;
Gehman et al., 2018; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 1997; Turner, 1983). An
inductive, qualitative study that is strongly grounded in theory allows for recurring
progression from and to data collection, analysis and theorising (Zeithaml et al., 2020), which
allows for continuous building of the emergent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Chapter 3 shall aim
to build an inductive, emergent theory, that is firmly grounded in observation.
Research methods
Conceptualised by Glaser & Strauss (1967), researchers who are applying a grounded
theoretical approach to building theory initiate the research project without preconception
of what they are going to see and are initially agnostic to the relationships they’re going to
observe. The emergent theory is then viewed as a bridge from inductive approaches that yield
qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). As
Eisenhardt & Graebner (2007) point out, researchers ought to justify the application of
inductive approaches to building theory as there is “ [t]he implicit assumption . . . that

65
[inductive] theory building . . . is less precise, objective, and rigorous than large-scale
hypothesis testing” (p. 26). To justify the approach used in this paper it is imperative to
address questions of why the focal research question is better studied through an inductive
approach. Conflicting extant theories alone are not a sufficient reason that warrants such an
approach (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). It ought to be noted that existing theories and
frameworks insufficiently explain the variance in firm survival and behaviour that leads to
superior performance. Methodologies grounded in theory are particularly well-suited for
studies in which the researcher aims to foster an understanding “of the dynamics underlying
the relationship, that is, the “why” of what is happening” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 542).
First, research methodologies grounded in theory, are well suited for dynamic
phenomena. That is, dynamic in nature of the phenomenon as well as the research process
(Corbin & Strauss, 1990) through which the emergent theory gains credibility, cohesiveness
and parsimony. Second, as the focal methodology is firmly grounded in the data that the
researcher is observing, the notion of determinism applies. As Corbin & Strauss (1990)
outline, actors “are able to make choices according to their perceptions, which are often
accurate, about the options they encounter” (p. 5). Methodologies grounded in theory “[seek]
not only to uncover relevant conditions, but also to determine how the actors respond to
changing conditions and to the consequences of their actions” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 5).
Building theory through inductive methods, such as qualitative research interviews, is a good
fit for the purpose of this study. On the one hand there are competing theoretical frameworks
that thus far insufficiently explain the variance in behaviour and outcomes as well as
inconclusive theoretical conceptualisation among scholars. On the other hand, the dynamic,
complex and changing nature of disruptions, how actors respond to such and the changing
environmental conditions under which actors operate warrant further theory building from

66
inductive methodology, that is grounded in theory. Challenges arising from scholars who
favour other research methodologies over inductive, qualitative methods can be met with
“precise language and thoughtful research design” (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 30). In
part, the focal paper aims to build and test theory concurrently. Testing theory that was
developed based on the in-depth literature review above and construct theory by extending,
revising and enriching earlier notions of the focal theory.
Evaluating rigor and quality. The aim of this study is to create high-impact and high-
quality contribution to the field that furthers both academic understanding and practical
action. The results from high-impact theory development yield contributions that are novel,
interesting and original (Charmaz, 2006) or as Eisenhardt et al. (2016) denote, demonstrate
“thinking big and thinking new” (p. 1119). High quality of research, among other
characteristics, manifests in high levels of rigor applied to the research. Eisenhardt et al.
(2016) outline three fundamental criteria (p. 1120), that allow for evaluation of the quality
and rigor of inductive work. First, is this a strong theory, in that the theory is internally
coherent and parsimonious? Second, are the constructs evidently grounded in the
observations? And third, “does the research provide rich and unexpected insights?”
(Eisenhardt et al., 2016, p. 1121). As is the nature with inductive methods of this kind, the
credibility and the quality of the theory development review builds over time as the research
process progresses. Particularly during the early stages of a grounded study approach,
confidence in the emergent theory and constructs as well as the underlying relationship is
increasingly built.
Prior work thus far has reached little consensus on which criteria should be evaluated
when judging inductive work, particularly in processes attempting to building theory from
qualitative methods, grounded in theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The below listed evaluation

67
criteria are not exhaustive, in particular since there seems to be no agreement among
scholars on which criteria one should focus when evaluating theory building that is grounded
in the data. Analogous to internal validity in theory-testing research, credibility evaluates
plausibility of the propositions developed within the focal theory (Zeithaml et al., 2020).
Transferability, or external validity in theory-testing, evaluates the extent to which the focal
theory holds in cases not in scope in the current sample (Zeithaml et al., 2020).
Theoretical sampling
This study adopts a theoretical sampling approach, where the researcher collects data
in a way that she “jointly collects, codes, and analyses his data and decides what to collect
next and where to find them” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 45). In further defining theoretical
sampling, Coyne (1997) notes that “in the initial stages [the] researcher must have some idea
of where to sample, not necessarily what to sample for, and where it will lead” (p. 625). This
pertains to the notion, that in a research process qualitative in nature and grounded in theory,
the sampling of informants is emerging throughout the research process.
Contrary to random sampling in deductive, theory testing work, the researcher samples
theoretically relevant data throughout the research process. As outlined by Handler (1990, p.
39), theoretical sampling might appear to be biased and uncontrolled for researchers used to
quantitative methods with samples randomly selected from the population. This, however, is
rebutted by the structure of the emergent theory, which functions as a control for the data
collection process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Contrary to statistically relevant sampling in
theory testing work, theory building relies on sampling that selects informants for theoretical,
rather than statistical reasons (Eisenhardt, 1989). Considering that the number of informants
to which the researcher is able to gain in-depth access is generally limited, the researcher
shall aim to sample informants and firms which represent polar situations (Pettigrew, 1990).

68
Polar or extreme situations (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990) can for example manifest in
low and high performing, or other variability, firms, through which the focal phenomenon can
be clearly observed. Sampling polar, in particular disconfirming, firms and informants will
further improve the emergent theory.
When the researcher samples firms and actors, where the theory likely does not hold,
she increases the quality and cohesiveness of the emergent theory. That is, if the focal theory
is reconfirmed by participants who were sampled as disconfirming, in that they’re
reconfirmation of the theory increases credibility and improves the emergent theory
(Pettigrew, 1990; Zeithaml et al., 2020). Theoretical sampling is expressed through a process
where the researcher concurrently collects, codes and analyses data and “decides what data
to collect next and where to find them, to develop his theory as it emerges” (Glaser & Strauss,
1967, p. 45). In addition, this study draws from samples of firms and participants that satisfy
categorisation into different groups through purposeful selection (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Theoretical saturation
The further the progress of the research and theory construction process, the more
important becomes the notion of theoretical saturation. In contrast with random sampling in
deductive, theory testing studies, sampling in research approaches grounded in theory do not
anticipate a predetermined sample size ex ante. Theoretical saturation is reached when
additional data collection presumably will not yield further insights into the issue, that is no
new findings can be generated through additional data collection and analysis (Zeithaml et
al., 2020). Formally expressed, saturation is reached when incremental learning through
additional observation is minimal because of the replication of findings (Eisenhardt, 1989;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and no new themes, categories or insights are expected (Zeithaml et
al., 2020, p. 46).

69
Data collection
Researchers who employ a qualitative, inductive method, are not confined to any
particular set of data sources (Eisenhardt, 1989). While qualitative studies are naturally
associated with studying qualitative data (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1981), such studies are not
restricted to solely using data of qualitative nature. Furthermore, the combination of both
quantitative and qualitative data is seen synergistic and fruitful for various purposes
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1981), where both data can complement, extend and add to each
other. Quantitative data for example can uncover relationships that were not as salient in
pure qualitative data, as well as adding insights to arrive at conclusions that potentially would
have been made differently if only qualitative data were observed and analysed (Eisenhardt,
1989). Qualitative data can both develop theory directly or give meaning to relationships
uncovered through the analysis of quantitative data (Eisenhardt, 1989; Mintzberg, 1979).
Mintzberg (1979) notes “[w]e uncover all kinds of relationships in our “hard” data, but it is
only through the use of this “soft” data that we are able to “explain” them, and explanation
is, or course, the purpose of research” (p. 587).
This study will therefore adopt a multiple data source approach where a combination
of rich, qualitative data from discussions with interview partners will be complemented with
data from secondary sources. More precisely, the in-depth Interviews
4
,
5
are semi-structured
with informants from firms across a variety of sectors and categories. Interviews last about
45-60 minutes and cover the introduction of the interview participants’ role and
responsibilities within the firm as well as questions pertaining to the focal research question.
4
Singapore Management University Institutional Review Board approval number IRB-20-155-A104(1220)
5
Informed consent was obtained from each participant during the research process. The main elements of the
informed consent process as well as content were re-iterated prior to starting each interview. Video and audio
recordings are diligently handled as per instructions outlined in the IRB approval document.

70
An overview of selected interview questions can be found in Appendix E. As part of the
research process, the interview questions were modified and extended throughout the
process (Eisenhardt, 1989; Harris & Sutton, 1986). A descriptive summary of interview
participants can be found in Appendix F.
To ensure data validity and reduce informant bias, several steps ought to be taken.
First, the utilisation of nondirective, open-ended questions and the avoidance of leading
questions during the interview was observed to enhance data accuracy (Huber & Power,
1985) and to limit recall bias (Golden, 1992; Koriat & Goldsmith, 2000). Second, multiple
informants as opposed to single-informants per firm across functional areas and hierarchies
enhance information accuracy (Kumar et al., 1993). Third, to reduce the likelihood of
retrospective sensemaking (Weick, 1993), accounts of both retrospective as well as current
data ought to be analysed. That is, because the interviews take place during a disruptive time
in combination with retrospective data, the risk of retrospective sensemaking by both the
researcher and the informant is reduced (Huber, 1985). Fourth, the triangulation of interview
data with secondary data acquired through a variety of sources increases confidence in the
emergent theory (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012). Fifth, the provision of anonymity encourages
candor among the informants (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012; Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018;
McDonald & Eisenhardt, 2019).
Additionally, this study utilises secondary data drawn from company press releases,
press articles, blogs and analyst reports to complement interview data and for triangulation
of the qualitative data (Jick, 1979). Such triangulation allows the researcher to expand
theorising to secondary data to validate informants’ views, critical for validity increases.

71
Table 6 – group names and description
6
Group
name
Segment
Type
Employees
Footprint
Inform
ants
Role of informants
BioTech
Bio-tech
Private
10-50
Regional
(2 sites)
4
CEO & co-founder, CTO & co-
founder, CPO, COO
ChemCo
Specialty
materials
Listed
20,000+
Global
(140 sites)
4
COO, Executive VP Strategy,
President Americas, President
Singapore
ServCo
Service
Intra-
governm
ent7
4000+
Global
(115 sites)
6
Head of China (Beijing), Head of
Philippines, Head of Thailand,
Head of South Korea, Head of
Hong Kong, Head of Singapore
SteelCo
Steel
Listed
50,000+
Global
(140 sites)
6
Member of the Management
Board, Head of Global
Operations, President Asia
Pacific, President North
America, Divisional Head of
Benelux, Head of Global
Marketing & Sales
Concept
Various
Various
Various
Various
5
Prof. Strategic Management,
CEO, Partner, Manager,
Founder
Table 7 – overview of data sources
Data source
Type
Purpose
Description
Interviews
Primary
Primary source of
qualitative data
In-depth, semi-structured interviews
conducted online (45-60 minutes)
Annual reports
Secondary
Triangulation8
Annual reports retrieved online (where
applicable, as not all firms are publicly listed)
Earnings call
transcripts
Secondary
Triangulation
Retrieved from the firms’ website and other
media outlets (where possible)
Press releases
Secondary
Triangulation
Retrieved from the firms’ website and other
media outlets (where possible)
Research memos9
Analysis
Written record of
analysis
Memos keep record of the analysis done as
part of the research process, depicting the
thinking, conceptualising and theorising
6
Group refers to a group of informants, i.e. the same firm, however, these do not represent cases
7
ServCo serves as an intragovernmental organisation that provides services for companies from a specific
country in their export-import and internationalisation efforts globally.
8
Triangulation of data refers to the use of multiple methods in analysing the data to increase consistency,
reliability (within-method) and external validity (between-method) (Bouchard, 1976; Glaser & Strauss, 1967;
Jick, 1979)
9
Memos are distinct from interview notes as memos are a record of the analysis process where the researcher
records thought processes, emergent concepts, conceptualisation and theorising as part of the research
process (Corbin & Strauss, 2015)

72
Table 6 provides an overview of the groups of informants, i.e., firms, from which
participants for the interviews were sourced. These firms were purposefully sampled across
sectors, sizes and firm type to increase parsimony of the emergent model. That is,
heterogeneous samples of firms and informants may help to build a more holistic and
nuanced inductive model of firm-level responses during disruption.
Table 7 provides an overview of the data sources used in the inductive study. Examples
of secondary data sources can be found in Appendix J. These secondary data were particularly
helpful in the later stages of the research process, where relational meaning between
concepts and constructs was established to form the emerging model of firm-level resilience
in disruptive times.
Data analysis
The data analysis followed a multiple-step approach, in which the emergent theory is
constructed iteratively, by moving back and forth between data and analysis (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990; Eisenhardt, 1989; Zeithaml et al., 2020). The thinking, conceptualising,
theorising and the emerging of concepts, categories and themes are documented in research
memos, which represent a “written record of analysis” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 106). Note
that memos are distinct from interview or observation notes in that memos focus on the
analytical process and the emergent theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). By firmly grounding the
analysis in the data, a close linkage of the emergent theory with the data can be pursued
(Kyratsis et al., 2017). Importantly, the analysis strategy relies on initial in-vivo coding, that is
using participants’ wording for concept definition, allowing for identification of patterns and
common meaning across interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
Figure 3 illustrates the inductive research process that is based on the in-depth
literature review. It is, however, distinct from the conceptual paper in Chapter 2.

73
First-order concepts were developed in the early stages of the research process by
exploring the open coding of interview transcripts. These unrefined early first-order concepts
were in-vivo interpretations of informants’ anamnesis of firm behaviour in disruptive times.
Through the process of open coding
10
of interview transcripts, it is possible to arrive at early
definitions of emergent concepts. The repeated reading of the transcripts allows for
familiarisation with the data and context. The transcribed interview data was anonymised,
and relevant data were redacted to maintain full anonymity of the informants. The initial
open coding of interview data is exploratory in nature and aims to arrive at descriptive
concept definition. The tentative character of the initial concepts calls for a rather dynamic
view of those early concepts, that is these early concepts are not static and might change as
the research process progresses. Furthermore, the initial concepts may not necessarily be
lower-level concepts as they might later manifest as second-order concepts or constructs.
The initial concepts might also be dimensions or properties of the emergent concepts. The
use of memos is essential, to be able to refer to the initial thoughts accompanying early
conceptualisation and interpretation (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). As the research process
progresses, the use of constant comparison of emergent concepts with earlier and later data
further validates early concepts within- and across interviews.
Second-order concepts were developed and categorised as the research process
progressed and the focus was on further clarifying the meaning of first-order concepts and
finding conceptual relations between those concepts to define preliminary second-order
concepts. Here the focus is on conceptual meaning and thus the relationship among lower-
level concepts. While the emergent early concepts become clearer and second-order
10
Upon importing the transcripts to NVIVO (Release 1.4; QSR International), the coding and analysis was done
in the same program. References, codes and coverage statistics were calculated by the program

74
concepts are developed, an important aspect is the identification of dimensions of concepts,
that is how concepts manifest in the data. At this point in the research process, the focus on
contextual, that is relational, meaning shifts the focus from individual interviews to constant
comparison across interviews. Here, first- and second-order concepts are re-evaluated and
their fit across statements is being assessed. Through the constant evaluation of
interpretations against data, the emergent concepts gain further validity, i.e., fit with the
data. Constant comparison allows for salient questions in the analysis process such as “What
is being said or done? Who is doing it? Why?” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 87). Consequently,
early concepts are further validated and emergent categories and refined.
Constructs. The next steps in the analysis process emphasises the contextual and
relational meaning of lower- and higher-level concepts to arrive at constructs (Kyratsis et al.,
2017). By triangulating the interview data with secondary data, the first- and second-order
concepts and constructs gained further validity against the data.
Figure 3 – inductive research process (own illustration)
11
,
12
11
The structure of the research process illustrated above is based on ideas published by Harrison & Rouse (2014)
12
The double-sided arrows represent the bidirectionality and dynamism in the research process. That is, in
addition to moving across tasks (collection, analysis, literature), the research process re-iterated at certain
steps to ensure optimal fit of the model to the data, thus remain firmly grounded in the data. An overview
of exemplary secondary data used for triangulation can be found in Appendix J, Table 23.

75
The bidirectionality in Figure 3 shall indicate the ability of the researcher to move
between data collection and analysis throughout the process. Towards the end of the
research process, revisiting the accompanying literature allows the researcher to apply the
appropriate theoretical lens to the emergent data structure. That is, while the emergent
model gains maturity and theoretical saturation is achieved, the applied theoretical lens
allows for explanation of the relational connections within the model.
The result of the research process is discussed in the findings below. Figure 4 gives an
overview of the emergent first- and second-order concepts and emerging constructs as well
as the conceptual relations within these. These first-, second-order concepts and emerging
constructs were modified throughout the research process to increase fit of the emergent
model with the data
13
.
Further details on the emerging concepts are given in Appendix G, in tables 14 – 20,
where the lower-level concepts are outlined, described and exemplary quotations are added
for illustrative purposes. First-, second-order concepts and constructs were revised
throughout the research process to better fit the data. Additional secondary data was
analysed to first, validate initial constructs and relational findings and second, to bridge
conceptual and relational gaps in the emerging model. Importantly, the conceptual interview
transcripts, that are memos, were particularly useful for providing further details on the
relationship between concepts and categories as well as supplying ideas for further research
avenues.
13
A detailed outline of the emergent codebook including files and references as well as explanations can be
found in Appendix H. The codebook was exported from NVIVO including all three levels of concepts. Statistics
on the number of files and references per code were calculated by the program both in detail and cumulative.

76
Data structure
Figure 4 – inductive data structure (own illustration)

77
Findings
The focus of this analysis was on the characteristics of disruptiveness, firm-level
responses to said disruptiveness, the contingent effects of firm-, market- and firm-ecosystem
factors and the consequences of firm-level responses. The results from the inductive study
allow for a conceptualisation of an emergent model of firm resilience, illustrated in figure 5.
The analysis and interpretation of the data reveal seven main constructs, each
explained by a number of underlying dimensions second-order and first-order concepts. The
main construct disruptiveness (A) describes the level of disruptiveness by explicating the
triggers of disruption, the impact of disruption and the temporality of disruptiveness.
The way how firms formulate and enact responses to the disruptive environmental
conditions was categorised in four main constructs. Sensing (B) describes both, the notion of
scanning the environment and making sense of signals in the environment. Exploring (C)
elucidates firm level activities that relate to the inherently entrepreneurial and explorative
concept of purposefully seeking opportunities and strategising in disruptive times. Buffering
(D) describes how firms engage in activities of maintaining, levelling-up and pacing to buffer
the impact of disruptive dynamics on the firm. Reconfiguring (E), however, accounts for
activities that relate to notions of diversification of the firm portfolio, resourcing and
fungibility.
The construct summarising situational moderators (F) integrates a variety of contingent
aspects endogenous and exogenous to the firm, that impact the formulation and enactment
of firm-level responses to yield superior levels of resiliency. Last, the outcome variables are
expressed through the construct of resilience (G), summarising aspects of both value creation
and adaptiveness of the firm. The emergent model in Figure 5 therefore aims to represent
the processes and dynamics that underpin resilience from a contingency perspective.

78
Disruptiveness (A)
14
Informants detail a variety of aspects that describe the disruptive environment that
constitute disruption, including the events that trigger such disruptive dynamics, the impact
that disruptive dynamics have on a number of areas and the notion of temporality, which
denotes a spatial and temporal view of disruptiveness.
Triggers (1)
15
(Appendix G, Table 14)
Informants draw attention to the role disruptive environments play in accelerating
underlying dynamics. That is, dynamics that are not solely induced by the disruptive
environment. Concept 1A crisis as catalyst therefore summarises the role disruptive
environments play. One main effect of the disruptive environmental conditions therefore is
the acceleration and intensification of dynamics that existed a priori. The pre-existence of
these dynamics is an important characteristic, as informants only name very few changes that
were induced by the most recent disruptive environmental conditions specifically.
[T]echnological change is mainly coming from digitalization, of course, and also
artificial intelligence […] and those things, and this is happening faster than it
was before course [001]
16
Informants denote the general tendency of disruptive environments to act as a catalyst
for transformative changes.
[I]n each crisis there are certain transformation which take place and which
become, let's say structural, not so much temporary behaviour [010]
14
For reference, the letter in brackets e.g., “(A)” denotes the construct in the data structure
15
For reference, the number in brackets e.g., “(1)” denotes the second-order concept in the data structure
16
[001] denotes the informant who made this particular statement, further details in Appendix F, table 12

79
[T]o accept these changes is a slow process and I believe that before the
pandemic we would have continued with this slow adoption little bit at a time.
We have to learn now that you got to be in front of it and […] you can't sit back
[011]
An interesting notion is that of the positive effects of the disruptive environment on the
firm, in that informants note that the firm is able to focus on strategy formulation as a
consequence of the disruptions to both demand and supply.
I actually look at Covid as a very positive disruption. Actually, 'cause it allowed us
to actually take stock of where we are. Reflect on who we are as a company,
what our core strengths are and where we want to go [005]
One main effect of the disruptive environment is the notion of uncertainty. 1B
increased uncertainty describes the change of levels of uncertainty for firms, manifesting as
a variety of dimensions. Uncertainty in demand as a consequence of heightened levels of
volatility, uncertainty in supply as a consequence of more volatile supply chains. Uncertainty
is for example expressed through employees’ reaction to changes.
I'm a firm believer that most people um, are uncomfortable by substantial
strategic change. It creates uncertainty [011]
Particularly focal significant seems the notion of uncertainty relative to managerial
decision making as one informant notes.
Well, I think uncertainty is probably the one thing that we fear most. 'cause we
are like a company like us is not just [company]. There are many companies like
us, but you know making changes and yeah you know it. You can't manoeuvre as
if you were on the bicycle and decide to turn left or turn right or to go back. Um?

80
So, we, we hate uncertainty, and the crisis with when it brings initially is
uncertainty [021]
It is the increased levels of volatility across various domains within the firm that creates
uncertainty and thus managerial decision making is inherently more complex. For example,
the uncertainty induced by stark volatility in supply and demand behaviour increases
inaccurateness in forecasting and therefore production and supply planning.
Concept 1C underlying dynamics further details the underlying dynamics that are
accelerated and intensified by the disruptive environment and can have both a negative and
positive impact on the firm.
I think these dynamics were in place already before. So the faster pace of change
changes in the environment of the companies [006]
For example here in this crisis it was obvious that it was a unique opportunity to
accelerate digital transformation of the company [010]
And unfortunately for us, it's not the only issue we have. I mean, protectionism
hasn't gone away [011]
I'd say another really critical transformation initiative that's taking place across
the industry is sustainability [013]
I think they've been aware of several trends before. Talk about digitalization,
platforms, web shop solutions in the industry, and we monitor this. And we're all
aware that those things are coming and will become more and more prominent
and even tools like artificial intelligent in not really works and automation coming
with this and better understanding of markets and dynamics and so on [019]

81
The concept 1D nature of the disruption describes how the nature of the events and
dynamics that induce disruptive environmental conditions differently impact the firm. Noting
that experiences with previous disruptive environments were of little help in the current
environment.
it didn't help me to foresee anything like the pandemic because this was so
different [001]
Informants also offer insights on the differing nature of trigger, i.e., the event or
dynamic that induced the disruptive environment.
The trigger was different. This was a health crisis rather than an economic crisis
[011]
Analysis shows that informants relate to previous disruptions in assessing the current
disruptive environment which may suggest patterns for certain disruptive environments.
The only kind of comparable crisis situation, […] it was the time of the
international financial crisis too [016]
One crises pattern 9/11. And the other the financial crisis [002]
Impact of disruption (2) (Appendix G, Table 14)
The second category of disruptive environmental characteristics describes the impact
that the disruptive environment has on the firm, expressed through a variety of issues. 2A
changes in consumer behaviour describes how the disruptive environment affects consumer
behaviour and the consequences for the firm thereof. One informant describes the change in
speed.
I mean from a product portfolio standpoint and nothing other than the need for
urgency. You know that need for change? If so, we were getting a call from a
customer back in March saying, you know, I need to build a mould for [product].

82
Typically this is a 12 week build. I have to build it in 12 days so I need you to
deliver [product] to me this afternoon when we might typically take two weeks.
So speed is one thing [011].
One informant describes the change in way how consumers purchase differently as a
consequence of the disruptive environment.
Before you said you have to look at the watch and you have to feel the touch or
luxury cars and like s-class in China is now sold 90% via Internet. Yeah, before it
was 20%. So there are certain shifting consumer behaviour and we have to follow
this [002]
Informants also describe (2B) changes in decision making behaviour more specifically,
by for example noting how the role of speed gains importance in disruptive environments.
Speed before perfection is maybe good synonym speed before perfection [003]
One informant is detailing a shift in decision making behaviour by noting how
hierarchies change in disruptive times.
I mean, it used to be an incremental shift off hierarchical decision patterns to
more democratic to agile to whatever before the pandemic came. Now the
pandemic is coming accelerating some of those but also revising actually this
democratic decision patterns into a more hierarchical ones simply due to the fact
that once your cash is running out you need to make very tough decisions and
they cannot ask other people if they're if they're in line with these decisions [006]
A third, very prominent, impact of the disruptive environmental conditions concerns
the (2C) reconfiguring [of] distributive work, where a shift in how and where firms and
employees work is denoted.

83
I mean the work, the work life is changing dramatically and people are working
from home. This was, nobody thought of that a year ago that it's possible at
[company] to work 100% from home and now it's widely accepted [001]
So, the main difference was so we could not communicate via personally. We
were stuck. We couldn't travel [anymore] [002]
This notion entails a variety of characteristics and effects. The impossibility to travel for
example, forced firms to change the way of doing business to a certain extend. Firms, who
previously had relied on personal interaction as a means of decision making or new business
acquisition, had to change their approach. While informants note negative consequences of
these changes in work environment configuration.
You are not able to go and meet the business partners, government agencies, etc
on a on a personal basis [014]
Informants also noted positive effects in that firms saw increases in efficiency across
the firm portfolio, processes and structures.
And to be honest like I realized then that it doesn't really impact the efficiency of
or like the productivity of work [005]
Informants further detail the effect of the disruptive environment on demand,
summarised as 2D demand disruption. Informants outline how the disruptive environment
induced a reduction in customer or consumer demand, increased levels of volatility of
demand, that is stark differences between peaks and lows.
you know the fluctuation in demand was very important not for very long, but
very important. What was the most probably the most difficult thing to handle is
uncertainty because we have the drop [021]

84
While the demand disruption is often viewed negatively, the disruptive environment
also dramatically increased demand in certain business areas, not planned and thus disruptive
to a certain extent, as one informant outlines sudden increased demand from the packaging
sector.
But people still eating [...] You know that people cannot go hungry so that is a
part of business that continue [to grow] [023]
Similarly, informants discussed disruptions to the supply side of the firm, that is the
supply chain supplying raw materials or products to the firm. Summarised as 2E supply
disruption, informants outlined the consequences of their firms’ suppliers not being able to
deliver.
essentially what that did for us was really disrupt our supply chain. Because most
of the consumables that we buy we purchased from local distributors, but they
are actually imported [005]
or the dramatic increase in transportation cost as a consequence of reduction in overall
demand and the consequences of work environment reconfiguration.
And there are other phenomen[a], for instance like the […] incredible increase in
transport costs between China, Europe and the US [004]
Temporality (3) (Appendix G, Table 14)
The third category of environmental characteristics describe the notion of temporality,
denoting characteristics of the disruptive environment that relate to the intensity, nature and
speed of disruption as well as discussing previous disruptions.
3A intensity of disruption describes for example the importance of sequence of events
that constitute disruptive environmental conditions.

85
This was basically one year after the .com bubble burst and this made the crisis
even more severe than it was before. I think the crisis wouldn't have been so bad
if 9/11 didn't happen [001]
Another dimension of this concept includes the notion of prevalence, that is the spread
of the disruptive environmental conditions among the immediate firm-ecosystem, sectors,
geographies and societies.
This is really nothing compared to all that because here you have a worldwide
general halt of many activities. I mean what we have never seen before was a
total grinding to a halt [004]
But some segments, like the aerospace industry, of course, their dramatic
changes, and they go beyond what you have normally in the crisis or what we
had [019]
Informants also detail how duration and intensity over time of disruptive environmental
conditions impact the firm.
Well, I think the Corona Crisis is second to none. So actually, I have never seen so
dramatic changes within such a short period of time [017]
The concept 3B Previous disruptions summarises how informants describe earlier
disruptive periods, which also yields an interesting notion of crisis patterns. This might be
helpful for an analysis of how firms look at disruptive environments through a perspective of
patterns.
two major disruptions apart from this one. This was obviously the global financial
crisis in 2009, which was from nature a bit different because it came from the
from the financials side, but from the consequences quite similar and I remember

86
very well the first of the of the .com bubble in in 2000, so this was also a major
disruption [001]
One crises pattern 9/11. And the other the financial crisis [002]
10 years ago, when we had the 2008 2009 crisis, […] it was totally unexpected,
never happened before, and I can tell you that even before […] economic crisis
affecting the chemical industry […] But this one was unprecedented.
Unprecedented demand dropped by 30% at once no pre warning, nothing. We
did not see it coming […] Nobody saw it coming [021]
Another important aspect in the temporality category is (3C) the speed of disruption,
which relates to the speed or growth of impact as described by informants.
Also, different here was now the speed in which this crisis has spread across the
globe. I believe this is something we have not seen before and we had to deal
with a lot of different topics in a matter of hours or days to find some quick
emergency solutions [003]
Speed of the disruption we had was far quicker than normal [011]
I think this speed how quickly things with changing [019]

87
Sensing (B)
Informants elaborated on a number of ways in which firms scan the environment for
signals that could be threats to the organisation and how they assess and prioritise those
signals to enable consequent decision making, i.e., enactment described as buffering.
Informants describe the sensing dimension through two main concepts, one is scanning and
the other one is sensemaking. The interpretation follows that scanning, that is, sensing signals
in the environment through observation and active risk management, without sensemaking
might not be advantageous for the firm as it is the making sense of these scanned dynamics
that is enabling certain decision-making processes.
Scanning (4) (Appendix G, Table 15)
Scanning details how firms develop and deploy their cognitive abilities to observe the
environment, i.e., sense the environment for signals, make sense of those signals and manage
risk in the environment of the firm.
4A observing the environment summarises informants’ views on how firms observe the
environment for potential disruptive dynamics.
I think we have also of this crisis, we have learned that we need to be much more
proactive in sensing out possible disruptive technologies or disruptive
developments, referring to our business [003]
Informants detail the necessary proactive approach in sensing the environment for
signals, suggesting that firms ought to pay active attention to the environment and scan for
dynamics that could manifest as disruptive environmental conditions.
I think with any disruption. Your ability to navigate it has a direct correlation in
terms of your ability to anticipate it or to see it coming. You know if it arrives on
your doorstep at, you know 8:01 in the morning on Monday, then you're in far

88
worse shape than if you know you saw it coming you know six months before, or
you know or the like [013]
One informant outlines one particular way of observing the environment for potential
disruptive dynamics as follows.
There is one aspect that comes to my mind. Note that's also helpful and this is
something that banks are doing for […] like adverse scenarios and all this and […]
I think it's something that every company should […] think about, is stress testing
[…] What happens when your customers cannot go into your shop? […] when you
[…] have like 10% less revenue per month, a weaker month? [020]
The concept 4B risk management outlines the cognitive ability of the firm to manage
risk across the firm portfolio by constantly sensing and evaluating dynamics in the
environment. Here purposeful risk management is viewed as the assessment of potentially
disruptive environmental dynamics and their potential negative consequences.
risk management today and probably even more in crises, risk management is
vital. You need to not so much to gamble necessarily about what the future is
going to be rather than to have a scenario-based analysis and see in terms of risk.
What makes more sense, knowing that nothing is risk free? You cannot be totally
be risk adverse, but you need also to manage your risk and to figure out what
happens if you make a big mistake. For me this risk management is sometimes
more important than the budget per se, is always a budget in your time when
everything is volatile [010]
This suggest an important role of risk management – even implies higher importance of
risk management than budgetary planning – where it is the risk assessment of decisions that
takes precedence in disruptive times. Informants also relate firm size, that is, the implied

89
availability of resources dedicated towards these functions, to the notion of risk
management, where smaller firms might not be able to actively manage risk through
dedicated organisational functions and roles.
I know there's companies now that have these risk assessment or risk
management or and the you know you with all the money in the world you have
people to, especially to do this kind of stuff, but we you know we're two were too
small for that. We've been too lean for being able to do things like that [012]
Sensemaking (5) (Appendix G, Table 15)
A related notion is that of 5A Assessing signals and dynamics in the environment.
Informants detail ways how they attempt to create meaning with the information, that is
signals or dynamics, they observed in the environment, for example by outlining specific
indicators.
looking at raw material prices makes sense that'll maybe understand disruptions,
in particular when there is a development what is simply not reflecting real world,
what is simply a crazy development [001]
Informants also put emphasis on the sense making ability of the firm to be able to assess
dynamics in the environment as persistent trend or temporary disturbance.
Uncertainty is, is it a trend? A do we have to adapt to this trend or is it another
hiccup? [021]

90
Exploring (C)
Exploring relates to inherently entrepreneurial activities and processes within the firm
that are dedicated to seeking opportunities on the one hand and strategising on the other
hand. Distinct from the abilities summarised as sensing, the explorative dimension of
resilience behaviour focusses on the entrepreneurial aspect of firm-level responses to
disruptiveness. Exploring considers aspects of purposefully seeking opportunities and the
more longer-term focussed capabilities and processes that constitute strategising. A temporal
perspective therefore seems important, that is opportunity seeking seems to emphasise the
short- and medium-term perspective, while strategising seems to put emphasis on the longer-
term building and sustaining of firm-level advantage.
Opportunity-seeking (6) (Appendix G, Table 16)
The idea of purposeful, inherently entrepreneurial, opportunity seeking behaviour that
firms engage in, seems to be of particular importance in disruptive times. While firms engage
in sensing activities to identify changing and potentially disruptive dynamics in the
environment, firms purposefully, and entrepreneurial in spirit, seek opportunities that enable
the firm to predominantly reconfigure its asset base, processes and underlying capabilities.
6A finding new opportunities describes how firms engage in active and purposeful
entrepreneurial behaviour that produces new business opportunities for the firm. One
dimension of this concept is engagement in M&A activities.
I might buy a competitor. It's at out of bankruptcy eventually even, and buy just
the machines and the people from the market [006]
Informants outline another dimension of this concept as the redeployment of extant
capabilities of the firm to capitalise on new business opportunities arising in the current
environment.

91
What if we got now in types of capabilities that other companies could utilize
that may not lie within our normal core area […] and those can also be used for
other things. So, there are a lot of companies out there who are looking for new
locations where they could have a company like ours manufacture just [product]
but just [product] [008]
Informants also note the importance of business model innovation initiatives as a form
of opportunity seeking behaviour.
I would say starting at the last quarter of last year and we are looking intensively
into new business models how we could interact our customers with [003]
The concept 6B cultivating new relationships puts particular focus on exploring new
ways of interacting with potential customers and consumers. This was strikingly interesting
as the characteristics of the current disruptive environment and the consequences of those,
forced firms to especially focus on these activities.
Can we establish a virtual contact which in the end leads to a concrete business?
[…] will we succeed to bring business partners together virtually? [004]
If you are looking for new partners and there is more difficult because you don't
always get those sorts of subliminal signals. As is my message coming across or
not, it's more difficult when you see somebody meet for the first time on [007]
It works quite well to continue business on the digital format, but very difficult to
initiate new business contact [016]
Strategising (7) (Appendix G, Table 16)
Strategising refers to the capabilities and processes that underpin path finding, where
the focus is on the long-term strategy of the firm. The fact that informants explicitly
mentioned this aspect, represents a rather positive dynamic in disruptive times, in that firms

92
were able to find time for purposeful strategising. In essence, strategising can be viewed from
both an essential as well as opportunistic view. Essential, that is the firm is forced to instil
strategic change to adapt to the changing environment, opportunistic, that is, the firm
focusses on future opportunities and how the firm will appropriate superior value in future,
not in response to forced adaptation by the disruptive environment.
7A Path finding emerges from informants’ emphasis on the ability to strategise in times
of disruption, that is, the necessity to (also) focus on formulating corporate strategy by for
example changing the firms’ value chain position.
Be creative in in in filling gaps which some somebody else left, not necessarily
your competitor, but eventually also those guys in line of your value chain before
at the end. There will be opportunities which were unthinkable before this
pandemic, which might be something which is now on the table, which you might
look at and say, well, why not? Let's go that way. Let's extend into the value chain
for example or target new markets with new competence, which I have [006]
Interestingly, one informant detailed how the current disruptive environment enabled
the firm to strategise and to think about where they can move as a business in a more holistic
manner as a consequence of the change in work environment configuration by freeing up
resources in the form of both time and managerial attention that can be dedicated towards
strategising.
The third thing we did was think take the opportunity to not have to run it around
airports and catch trains and airplanes and things to sit down and think in a much
more holistic manner. Where can we move the business? [008]

93
Buffering (D)
Buffering relates to firm-level responses that buffer the impact of disruptiveness on
various aspects of the firm. Informants detail how firms buffer by maintaining (ensuring
financial, short-term, survival and ability to operate), by levelling-up (bringing various
stakeholder groups to the same level during disruptive times) and by pacing (the pacing and
timing of steps taken in response to disruptiveness).
Maintaining (8) (Appendix G, Table 17)
As part of the transformative and effectuating aspect of firm-level responses, the
category asset efficiency details activities of the firm geared towards achieving an increase in
efficiency of existing assets.
The concept 8A ensuring liquidity summarises aspects of a firms’ focus on financial
stability in disruptive times. Informants do emphasise the role of excess resources in being
able to ensure liquidity of the firm.
I would spend more time in in finding those reserve resources which I would need
in the case that something goes completely wrong. So, these contingent
resources which you need to remain in the position where you can act where you
are not forced to react to something which is out of your control [006]
Informants detail a variety of dimensions that firms ought to focus on when aiming to
ensure liquidity, that is, financial stability expressed as liquidity risk.
You start immediately to evaluate the short-term risk starting with the liquidity
risk. And then be able to survive in the next week in the next month in the next
year [010]

94
A cash flow problem, yeah, so and for. And this is if the case the crisis would put
the trigger on longer, but really would become very severe cash flow problem
[018]
I think this is at the very heart of at the very centre of your topic is. [...] you know
when a company like us is faces rough air, tough conditions Cash is King [021]
The concept 8B keeping operations running details the way how firms secure their
ability to produce and operate.
In the first couple of weeks, it took maybe 70-80% of our time and try to manage
this crisis and set countermeasures to counterbalance whatever has to be done
quickly keep the operations afloat […] the focus of the key management team
changed to keep the operations going [003]
Analysis suggests that the nature of the disruption impacts this concept, in that firms
need to ensure workplace safety and the ability for employees to operate production plants,
handle commercial transactions. Also, statements suggest that the structure and focus of the
firm impact the way how firms ensure the ability to operate and produce. That is,
manufacturing firms with heavy asset position ought to take different decisions differently as
for example firms in the professional services sector would need to.
One thing is what are the measures the economic measures not related to the
workplace, but the economic measures to be taken to cope with covid. As we've
discussed before, there was that question around demand um and um? So we
had to make decisions regarding how we manage the purchase of our material,
yes. How we manage the level of inventory? How we deal with you know our
plant which are flexible but with limited extent very often, so you cannot really
adapt [021]

95
Levelling-up (9) (Appendix G, Table 17)
As the first dimension of asset efficiency-directed firm-level responses, (9A) the ability
to communicate and motivate outlines the firms’ abilities to communicate within the firm
and with its network of stakeholders as well as the motivational aspect of leadership
behaviour done through, for example, facilitation or even enactment of knowledge sharing.
So, we let's say we transfer the plans and the action plans from Singapore or
China to 1st Italy. Then we also had it in Germany and also in in the other
European countries. And then we also offered this knowledge to our colleagues
in North America [002]
Informants also detailed how firms need to put particular emphasis on adapting their
way of communicating with stakeholders in their environment.
For the first time, they had to consciously think about it. How do I communicate
with my employees? [...] gave a whole new awareness to it. Questions such as
information density, information frequency, information scope, high relevance,
and these were also addressed accordingly [024]
Another aspect of this concept is the firm-level ability to motivate employees despite
disruptive environmental conditions.
The first question I wanted to have answered: How to be … let's motivate people
in terms of how we lead people and what is leadership in times like these. The
precise question was like which leadership principles to be apply until we can
travel again [002]
Another dimension of asset efficiency-focussed activities is 9B nurture (existing)
customer interactions. Informants detail how firms change the way they interact with their
current customer base, that is, existing customer relations. The aim of firms is to keep or

96
enhance the level of intimacy with their existing customers despite the disruptive
environment.
Then it comes as well to your intimacy with your customer base. And this can be
a key differentiator if you know, uh, the people you do business with is certainly
much easier than if you don't know [them] [010]
Informants also infer the advantages of having a geographically diversified firm
portfolio, as firms are better able to continue nurturing existing customer relations. Firms do
however still have to maintain personal interactions where absolutely necessary, which
increases complexity of doing business with current customers.
When I talk to the [country] export managers, they reiterate this experience, they
say, oh, we have to come over now. Finally, even though we have to go to
quarantine in because we have a number of projects in the pipeline which get
stuck. 'cause if you don't do the final how to say negotiating rounds personally
your local business partner is very reluctant to sign any contract without final
personal business legalization [016]
Pacing (10) (Appendix G, Table 17)
Informants detail how firms buffer by pacing through elaborating on the way how firms
enact, that is implement, and how they take a step-by-step approach in adapting to changing
environmental conditions. Pacing therefore describes how firms plan changes and
adaptations to their resource based by prioritisation and timing.
10A enacting implementation details the way how firms enact changes in disruptive
times more generally.
What we typically would do? Would be we would take a few people, 1-2 maybe
3. We would, people we have confidence in. We would challenge them to engage

97
the organization, the rest of the organization and build followership right and
build excitement build followership, build a willingness of people to say I'm
prepared to invest in your idea [013]
This concept also elaborates on the way how decision-making behaviour is changing in
response to the disruptive environmental conditions.
It's getting more cautious. I think […] the decision process in itself, and also the
realization of those decisions already made, is done in smaller steps [006]
So, he spent a lot of time looking for new systems together is better organized
for central filing other protocols that everyone can access them so [007]
How do you? How do you do this in a way that we can handle it? You know
something which might normally need a huge plant [008]
An interesting notion is detailed by informants and summarised here as 10B step-by-
step approach. Informants repeatedly outline a temporal and contextual dependence of
activities firms take, thereby implying the notion of prioritisation of activities.
I told my team is its first cut [cost], second one is survive and the third point is
rebuild [002]
First, our first steps were focused on the health and safety of our employees […]
of course it moves on to business continuity […] then recovery after August when
things started to recover. It was then a case of how do we ramp up our business
at the same pace to ensure that we can continue to service our customers. So,
there's been different stages [011]
First liquidity and if you if you have enough liquidity and if you know that you can
survive then you can think about strategic issues [025]

98
Reconfiguring (E)
Reconfiguring denotes abilities and processes within the firm that enable redistribution
of assets across the firm portfolio, that is, diversifying, resourcing and increasing fungibility of
firm assets.
Diversifying (11) (Appendix G, Table 18)
The fourth dimension of firm-level responses is focussed on the transformative and
distributive capabilities that firms develop and deploy during times of disruptions. Informants
detail the notion of (11A) strategic change (pivot) as one of the key elements of the
transformative dimension.
I mean I would go as far as to say that we've almost pivoted the company to like
a different direction completely [005]
But a lot of revenue generation is downstream of that. So, when you've actually
made the product and you're going to the consumer and saying we're selling the
product for consumers, there's a very large revenue [008]
let's just take this to the next level and see how we can pivot our business model
and actually. Benefit from this situation [020]
One informant in particular notes how these strategic changes or pivots might require
changes to the organisational structure, hierarchy or firm portfolio. That is, a shift in value
chain position, might require corresponding strategic changes in the organisation.
They had their entire research facilities organized before as a laboratory, now
converting into a company that brings in money for the first time yes, they didn't
have a product on the market before. That means therefore, you need now a
completely different organization [024]

99
The notion of (11B) diversification has been discussed on numerous occasions,
emphasising the importance of a firms’ ability to diversify across a variety of dimensions, such
as geographical diversification
geographic footprint as we are in the position that when China was down, we
still have good business in Europe and the United States. And then when the
pandemic arrived in Europe and the United States, China already was working
like it was before, almost [001]
Informants also emphasised the role of diversification across the dimensions product
portfolio, position in the value chain, market segment, customer (size).
You don't want to be dependent on one client. You want to be dependent on a
broad range of clients with different requirements […] if one of them falls off, you
still got the others, so that because it's also very important to us when we're
looking at metrics is to say that we have not just the number of projects, but the
number of different clients involved behind this project [008]
It's also the production process. We operate both upstream in the value chain
which is very capital-intensive part of the business and we operate downstream
or it's more, let's say batch process much less capital intensive but more labour
intensive R&D intensive [010]
I think one big strength of our companies would be very diversified. We operate
in a lot of different segments [019]
Resourcing (12) (Appendix G, Table 18)
Resourcing summarises notions of changing the way how firms acquire, retain, deploy
and renew resources under disruptiveness, dimensions of which are restructuring and firm-
as well as personal-network, that is the individual’s personal network, activation.

100
12A restructuring the organisation describes how firms adapt their organisational
structure, hierarchical structure, restructuring of resources and firm portfolio to increase
asset efficiency in times of disruption.
streamlining on the one side […] so we did a lot of restructuring. We closed a lot
of locations [002]
I mean we did some rationalization so we closed down several of the offices we
have rather reduced the footprint but only not on in a way that the customer sees
or recognizes this [019]
Well, some have decided to restructure their personnel too. I mean, in most cases
was a reduction in personnel or streamlining, or getting the right people on the
right positions [022]
One informant puts additional emphasis on the notion of organisational
transformation, that is a combination of firm portfolio, hierarchical structure and other
aspects.
how to transform organizations that are historically hierarchical, so this is a
difficult process and I think you cannot simply switch the organization from A to
B, so turn from 1 to 0. Or the other way around, 0 to 1, is not possible [015]
Another key element of the distributive dimension of firm-level responses is 12B
network activation, summarising informants’ insights on the important role of a firms’ ability
to build, nurture and activate networks.
The knowledge of the of the business community with its suppliers. It's a
neighbourhood, it's a [...]. It's in your customers and that's very, very important.
And my personal feeling is that in the future it will be even more important than
in the past [010]

101
Further analysis of informants’ statements suggests a more nuanced view of the
network perspective in that networks are both inside and outside of the firm, both of which
seem to be important.
I think you know also is very, very fundamentally driven by connectivity to your
organization […] So I think you have to organize your networks. Both externally
and internally to facilitate information flow […] I think you have to have that that
the strong external networks and an intimate internal communication [013]
Fungibility (13) (Appendix G, Table 18)
Fungibility explains activities aimed at increasing or ensuring the fungibility of firm
assets, important to the process and dynamics that underpin resilience behaviour of the firm.
The concept 13A developing parallel capabilities denotes the firms’ ability to do
activities concurrently that might be contradictory in nature. Informants mentioned a variety
of dimensions, such as decision-making behaviour.
So, managing this balance between speed and rationale something critical, and
it's up to the management to reassess this [010]
managerial attention focus
You know it's as a as a someone in a leadership position obviously the pandemic
has been the primary focus, but it cannot be the only focus of the management
and you know you need to still think about the other things that are out there.
The other growth projects that we have underway [011]
strategic focus, i.e., the focus on differing targets
One of the key features of what we did was we need to have a two-fold mind to
manage the crisis and prepare the future […] In fact we as a company we have
diversification and consistency, which seems to be a bit counter intuitive [021]

102
Informants detail how the notion of agility becomes an important aspect of firm-level
responses, summarised as 13B stimulating agility. Agility can be seen as distributive given
that the responsibility to make decisions and changes are distributed across the organisation.
So, stimulating agility was one of my major focus. Not necessary because I had
to, but making people understand that there is no time so waiting cannot be the
easy answer [010]
Stimulating agility can also be seen as inducing distributed decision making
I think it's fair to say that we are a centralized company. And there were a number
of decisions that were made by the comex on the basis of you know things being
reported to the crisis by this crisis committee. But at the same time there were
many, many things decided at the local level because it's impossible. First, I think
we have 140 production sites in the world and there is no way a group of eight
people can decide on the day-by-day basis where this to being produced for all
these plants for the following week and so and so. So it was a real combination
of decisions made at the top of a company decision maze at the local level within
the business unit [021]
Informants describe agility further as the ability to quickly adapt the organisational
structure and processes.
when I say dynamics have, I need very agile organizations, so that you are able
to quickly adapt when I notice that something is not working. That is of course
from industry to industry different, agile is a stretchable term. That is of course
something different than if I am now a brand manufacturer in the field of fashion
items or industry, it's completely different, but in both cases of course it's about
agility [015]

103
Situational Moderators (F)
Response formulation and enactment as reaction to disruptiveness is moderated by a
number of situational factors, mentioned by informants. Those situational moderators are
below clustered in amplifiers (effecting the relationship between disruptiveness and sensing
and exploring), integrators (effecting the relationship between sensing, exploring and
buffering, reconfiguring) and levers (effecting the relationship between buffering, exploring
and resilience outcomes).
Cognitive-Amplifiers (14) (Appendix G, Table 19)
Informants detail the contingent role of 14A managerial focus in the formulation and
enactment of responses to disruptive environmental conditions. One of the key dimensions
of managerial focus outlined here is the strategic focus, aptly described by informants.
I think in the second half we came back to what's key management is actually
paid for, to look into the future [003]
All of a sudden short-term survival things become very key normally, especially
in a big organization [010]
One informant further details a change in managerial focus in disruptive times
We spend time strategizing that maybe more than we did before, even because
we have in principle, we have more time now because there's less travel as less
[007]
The notion of (14B) prior experience has been detailed by informants. One informant
notes the important role of prior experience, and learning therefrom, as a reference point for
making decisions.
Without a history without a knowledge base, I mean typically 90% of the
decisions we make on a day-to-day basis. I believe even probably even higher

104
than 90% there is a foundation of history to that decision, yeah? When we have
a downturn. We know that you gotta look at cost […] for the first time in our lives,
we had a management team of a dozen people who none of us have been
through this before [011]
One informant details the reassuring role of prior experience as a reference for
disruptive times.
You know it's just the knowledge that however tough things get, that is possible
to come out the other side is and experience having done that before is an
important component of that for sure [012]
Another view details both the positive and negative consequences of prior experience
It definitely has advantages and disadvantages because if you have prior
experience in a crisis you know how to react and you are probably better able to
react soon, to react sooner, you probably react stronger because. You know how
harmful a crisis can be. Um, and you also probably know which measures can be
taken. Yeah. Um? On the other side, I think in this case, as digitalization is a major
topic in this crisis, I think that companies that have managers [...], that are
younger or are. Um? How should I say this? It's, uh, it's digitalization is. It is a
major topic, probably younger managers have more ideas or are more willing to
change? [025]
The concept 14C slack resources summarises informants view of slack resources as
contingent factor with a focus on a priori excess resource generation and the consequences
of such resources for response formulation.
I would spend more time in in finding those reserve resources which I would need
in the case that something goes completely wrong [006]

105
if you as companies that that were easier to adapt they have a stronger financial
base, they had a stronger source of internal funding, so when you have already
an established business model, your revenue funded [...] and then of course we
ideally also have reserves to like weather a crisis [020]
Decision-Enablers (15) (Appendix G, Table 19)
Decision-Enabling factors impact the relationship between sensing, exploring and
buffering, reconfiguring by facilitating better and faster decision-making. That is, through
specific firm governance structures, organisational culture and higher levels of team
cohesiveness firms are enabled to better integrate the processes and capabilities that
underpin sensing and buffering as well as exploring and reconfiguring respectively.
The effect of firm governance & size (15A) has been detailed by informants, noting that
governance structure, that is privately held vs. publicly listed, or other factors such as board
composition, firm size, both the number of employees and size of fixed asset base,
hierarchical structures are important dimensions of this concept.
we are a public listed company, so we have to report quarterly figures. So we are
not in a position to say OK, so pandemic will last for a year for a year. I don't
make any profit and forget everything and after the year OK, we start off again
[001]
I mean, financial resources, as you know we are a publicly listed company. Profits
from one year distributed, typically to the shareholders. So I think there's no
financial resource to be build up for a rainy day [003]
Like we have no obvious hierarchy, we don't have red tape, everything is very
casual. So then. The guys who have been with us for a while like understand that
flexibility and they have to be adaptable to circumstances [005]

106
So very hierarchical structures I think are not really useful, for adopting quickly
[019]
Informants further detail the contingent role of the (15B) effect of organisational
culture in disruptive times. Dimensions include cultural distance and the impact of
geographical diversity of the firm on organisational culture.
The messages that are differently transported. Yeah, so. And then guy from the
United States will transport their sentiment different to, uh, somebody from
China, you know that [001]
I think the that's a good example where organizations have to have the facility
to recognize when something is important in one portion of the market that they
are dealing with right and not compromise their values [013]
Another dimension is the firm-specific culture, as detailed by informants
But it is also a weakness because we don't bring in enough people who want to
think differently who want to disrupt our organization when you have a group of
people who already think about the way things have always been done, it's hard
to change. When you bring people in who think differently, have a different idea,
different vision, and give them a voice. Yeah, and then also give them the ability
to try it and take a risk. That drives a change in culture, which is quite important
[011]
The third dimension of integrating conditional factors is summarised as 15C team
cohesiveness. Informants explain the important role of (top management) team closeness in
disruptive times.

107
I think the dynamic of our management has also changed. We have become
closer as a management team. From a communication standpoint from a best
practice sharing standpoint from a knowledge management standpoint [011]
change in a good way, I would say you know, changing in a way that I think we
we're closer basically more objective and in principle actually we're getting more
inclusive, than exclusive [023]
Resource-Levers (16) (Appendix G, Table 19)
Firms leverage characteristics of the environment to better be able to achieve resiliency
by taking advantage of government support, consumer-led and industry-led innovativeness
as well as increased levels of clockspeed and the leveraging effect of physical resources across
the firm portfolio.
A number of informants have discussed the contingent role of (16A) government
support, that is direct financial support as well as indirect strategic support.
Rebound must be seen different because there is a lot of political actions to let's
say to minimize the effects of the pandemic on one side and on the other side
there is the regional and local, the local performance [002]
A lot of governments came to the party and supported us in quite a few countries,
and I believe the same is true in Austria and other European markets [003]
The only support we got entitlements and we got our reduction in rent [007]
If you look at the Singaporean companies, but this was also due to the help from
the government is huge transformation process […] That thing was government.
It was government, giving them incentives, telling them OK. If you in this industry
you get a support until the end of the year and by the end of the year if you
haven't changed or did anything the financial support is gone [022]

108
Informants further outlined the important role of (16B) Innovativeness & clockspeed,
that is the level of (regulatory and innovative) change and market maturity (established vs.
emerging) as well as market-led and industry-led innovativeness of the sector. The level of
change within the industry can also be viewed as industry clockspeed (Nadkarni & Narayanan,
2007), while innovativeness of the segment can be driven by both the customer and peers
within the industry.
OK, obviously biotech is always been inventive and it's always constantly moving,
as though someone claiming they've got the next best thing [007]
Generally speaking, at disruption as an act or as a risk or opportunity, yeah, more
often than not it's in the emerging spaces. Yeah, competitiveness in the capability
by which you manage your business is a good, in my view, at least is where you
see the dynamics of change in existing markets. Not to say that disruption can't
happen in an existing market. It certainly does. It's just a question of the intensity
and frequency [013]
Physical resources (16C) details how a firms’ resources impact the achievement of
higher levels of resilience. Physical resources concern the number of plants or production
sites as well as the scope of these sites. Informants detail how physical resources can impact
the firms’ behaviour.
We're running round about 140 hundred 30 locations worldwide [001]
140 sites in 40 countries with 30 languages and roughly 5500 people [002]
We have like a small scale GMP manufacturing facility and an R&D lab [005]
If you are more exposed downstream, it's much easier to cut cost because you
have smaller plants

109
Resilience (G)
Denoted as resilience, the focal construct representing the outcome comprises of both
the notion of value creation and adaptiveness. It is the level of resilience in comparison with
the firms’ peers and prior position that is of interest.
Value creation (17) (Appendix G, Table 20)
Informants elaborate on how success in times of disruption can be measured through a
variety of lenses. The first of which is 17A competitive advantage. Dimensions include a
change in market position (i.e., market share), stronger company (i.e., competitive advantage
has improved), change in business model (e.g., value proposition), strengthened customer
relations, sustainability (beyond ecological sustainability).
Did we gain market share? How do we fare against our competitors? We have
list of competitors which we always benchmark ourselves against [003]
Expand the services that we offer […] I think to find a niche in the market. We
previously didn't realize that we could capitalize on [it] [005]
Probably if you end up in a stronger market position, whatever this position is
defined of, it means if your position in the market has strengthened either
because you had a longer breath than your competitors, or you had a better
customer relation which you nurtured during this stage [006]
I mean, so the combination between share price and sustainability performance,
which includes, by the way, diversity talent management and so on and so forth
is part of it, so if you want to be long term successful you need certainly to have
a good share price or good valuation, but also to be attractive to people. So
people need to think that you're good company to work for [010]

110
Securing supply chains and market access, and on the other hand, how does it
actually look with the people and my own employees […]and on the other hand,
what public expectations are there [024]
The second dimension of the value creation category is 17B employee retention.
Informants outline how employee retention can be a measure of success in disruptive times
through attractiveness of the firm for potential employees and criticality of the task
environment.
So if you put off your most qualified people, you might not be able to get them
back. Once business can be done again, you know if you have as a famous
restaurant with the Star Chef and you say to your Star Chef well and your
customers come because of him, and if you put off your star chef and when you
open again you don't have him anymore, then you might not have the same
attractiveness to your clients [004]
We didn't have to like let go of any staff, the fact that we throughout the whole
time did not need to reduce anyone's pay [005]
First because he's very skilled workers and you cannot, you know, layoff these
people and have to hire them back three months later. It's impossible [021]
Informants also refer to the more obvious notion of 17C financial performance as
measure of success in disruptive times. Statements outlining measures of financial
performance. Dimensions include positive financial result (this could be net income,
profitability), sales & marketing performance (e.g., new customers acquired) as well as a
higher level of adaptiveness of measurement.
I wouldn't say we're in survival mode, so I mean if I look at our business figures,
we're actually doing this year better than in the pre covid year […] another

111
benchmark is profitability […] KPIs maybe change going forward you get more
and more into new business ideas or different business logic. Maybe some of the
KPIs I have mentioned now need also to be revisited [003]
We're just looking at basically how many leads we acquired during this time and
how many of those were going to close this actual project [005]
I think we were I mean successful, I think that's been evidenced by we've got new
clients or partners, customers [007]
You know I'm very I'd be very simplistic and at the end of the day, especially with
public listed company and it will be the share price [010]
The key driver again is cash generation. Who is at the end of the day just for
survival standpoint [021]
The fourth dimension of the value creation category was summarised as 17D increased
efficiency. Informants detail how firm-level responses lead to increased efficiency levels
across various dimensions including improved cost efficiency, time efficiency, increased
efficacy of communication.
But on the other side and I'm gaining a lot of efficiency if I'm sitting at home and
doing some kind of […] without having to travel 4 hours […] and this positive
effects on efficiency [006]
A form of doing export business specifically abroad when it's very time consuming
and in the end expensive to travel all the time. Also, the companies have learned
a lesson we have seen that certain parts of their business can be done virtually
can be done digitally remotely. I think that's the essence [016]

112
Video conference call is like 1000 times less expensive then then a flight to a
certain country. And if one can see OK I have more or less the same outcome or
more or less the same result. So why bother stepping into a plane? [017]
Informants further outline the notion of 17E survival as one of the main success metrics
in disruptive times. Survival can be understood as persistence of the firm over time. That is,
does the firm still exist after the disruptive environmental conditions have eased.
I think the 1st and important thing is the survival that the company can survive
and then tries to make out the best of the situation [004]
One of the biggest problems at the moment so if someone can survive, this is a
cash flow problem [017]
Adaptiveness (18) (Appendix G, Table 20)
The second category of how firms measure success in times of disruption is the notion
of adaptiveness expressed through flexibility and adaptiveness. Informants detail how
success can be measured as a form of 18A flexibility (implied transformability, ability to act
quickly and decisively). Dimensions include structural, strategic and operational flexibility,
that is, have these changed over time.
Some changes are improvised and, on the spot, and out of the necessity [004]
Yeah, and that's how you can measure a company how flexibly they are if they
will be successful, yes or no [009]
At which speed you can adapt yourself to a situation [010]
And that means during a disruption you must be able to manage without reliable
indicators. So there's. Uncertainty in every aspect and even the aspect of how do
we know that we're going the right direction? [025]

113
The second dimension of the adaptiveness category was summarised as a measure of
18B preparedness. Informants describe the notion of preparedness (i.e., being prepared for
changes in the environment and act quickly in accordance). Dimensions include structural
(that is for example the organisational structure), financial (that is financial stability, i.e. have
enough cash to be able to act in crises) and strategic (e.g., the notion of a diversified portfolio,
the notion of sensing and exploring the market) preparedness.
But what would be different now that we would be much better prepared
because we have now structures, in place and what every company should have
anyhow […] We would be much better prepared [003]
At the end of the day, it's a very important checking point in the list of things that
need to be monitored and better to do it before the crisis and when it's not too
late because you cannot change the profile of the company all of a sudden. If
you're not prepared the ground, then it's probably hopeless [010]
That you know you have to be ready for even the most crazy circumstance that
you could never even think of. Yeah, none of us knew that I knew that you know,
18 months ago that that we would be in in a pandemic and it would affect
everything we do [011]
For me resilience is a topic I am prepared and prepared [...] how can I be prepared
[…] I deal with the big trend fields to understand where are fields where I need to
make preparations? [015]
Sometimes you have hiccups, sometimes you have bumps and having it and it
was so in fact the most important things to weather the crisis has been done
before [021]

114
An inductive-contingency-based view of Resilience
The emergent model illustrated in Figure 5 summarises the constructs and underlying
dynamics of processes and behaviours that lead to firm resilience. Informants provide useful
insights on the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the focal issue. Multi-dimensionality
refers to multiple dimensions within constructs and complexity refers to the multi-
directionality of the relationships within the model below. Informants predominantly
advocate a rather positivistic view of firm-level adaptiveness and value creation under
disruptiveness. That is, while firms naturally engage in buffering activities aiming at absorbing
and softening the negative consequences of disruptiveness, firms engage in strategising and
purposeful opportunity seeking concurrently.
Figure 5 – an inductive-contingency-based model of resilience (own illustration)
17
17
Arrows indicate the relational direction: the signs “+” and “-“ indicate the polarity of the relationship between
constructs (Perlow et al., 2002). A “+” sign indicates that an increase in the independent variable causes the
dependent variable to increase and that a decrease causes a decrease, that is X
→
+Y

δY/ δX > 0. A “-“
denotes that an increase in the independent variable causes a decrease in the dependent variable and that
a decrease causes an increase, modelled as X
→
-Y

δY/ δX < 0 (Repenning, 2002; Repenning & Sterman,
2002, p. 276; Sterman & Repenning, 1997). Situational moderators, e.g., cognitive amplifiers, represent
situational moderating effects of variables that amplify, enable or lever, similar to what Repenning &
Sterman (2002, p. 277) denoted feedback or reinforcing loops; the effect thereof is denoted by arrows
pointing towards the relationships that those moderators impact, e.g., cognitive-amplifiers impact the
relationship between disruptiveness and sensing or exploring respectively

115
These findings lend support to the notion of parallelism and dynamism in the way how
firms formulate and enact responses in disruptive times. The emergent model illustrated in
Figure 5 summarises the constructs and underlying dynamics. The model suggests that higher
levels of disruptiveness give rise to an increase in both sensing and exploring capabilities and
processes within the firm. The underlying assumption is, that higher levels of disruptiveness
lead to firm-level adaptation as response to changing dynamics. Disruptiveness can be
observed through the lens of underlying dimensions, that are, triggers, impact of the
disruption and temporality. The greater the change in disruptiveness, the greater the impact
on sensing and exploring.
Both, sensing and exploring consequently reinforce notions of buffering and
reconfiguring respectively. Those dynamics, however, exist both concurrently and bi-
directionally. That is, while sensing reinforces the ability of the firm to buffer, buffering also
strengthens the ability and preparedness to scan the environment and make sense of signals
and dynamics. Similarly, the inherently entrepreneurial exploring activities strengthen the
reconfiguring dimension, which seems to also be true for the inverse relationship. Both,
sensing and buffering as well as exploring and reconfiguring enhance firm-level resilience.
Sensing and buffering lead to firm-level value creation while exploring and reconfiguring lead
to firm-level adaptiveness, yielding the two main dimensions of the resilience construct. That
is, the notion of value creation and the concept of firm-level adaptiveness. Whereas the
concept of value creation condenses how firms satisfy a variety of stakeholders of the firm
through, e.g., superior financial performance and increases in efficiency, the notion of
adaptiveness aims to explain how firms foster flexibility and preparedness to increase firm-
level adaptiveness. Superior value creation is therefore driven by the ability and firm-level

116
processes that underpin sensing and buffering, while exploring and reconfiguring lead to
higher levels of adaptiveness.
A contingency-based view of resilience is substantiated by informants’ emphasis on
both the situational moderators and a more nuanced view of environmental conditions that
lead to disruptiveness. Informants detail a variety of situational factors that moderate
relationships between these constructs. Cognitive amplifiers moderate the relationship
between disruptiveness and sensing and exploring respectively. The cognitive-amplifying
effects of managerial focus, prior experience with disruptiveness and the impact of slack
resources on the anticipatory urgency of disruptiveness are important moderators of the
impact of disruptiveness on sensing and exploring. Decision-enablers depict the effect of firm
governance and size, organisational culture and team cohesiveness on the relationship
between sensing, buffering and exploring, reconfiguring. Decision-enablers facilitate better
and faster decision making through, e.g., enhance top management team cohesiveness. The
resource-leveraging effect of government support and market-led as well as industry-led
innovativeness and the level of change within the industry moderates the relationship
between response formulation and enactment and resilience as outcome.
Higher levels of resilience, as measured by the change in value creation and
adaptiveness, impact the level of disruptiveness. These relationships are depicted as value-
loop and adaptiveness-loop. The value-loop describes how higher levels of performance
expressed through superior value creation impacts the level of disruptiveness and therefore
the negative impact of disruptiveness on the firm. That is, higher value decreases the negative
impact of increased volatility and uncertainty, induced by disruptiveness. Similarly, the
adaptiveness-loop depicts how greater levels of adaptiveness, achieved through flexibility
and preparedness, impact disruptiveness.

117
Discussion
While a theory-driven, dynamic capability-view is a useful grounding for explaining how
firm-level capabilities ought to be developed, deployed and nurtured to yield superior firm-
level resilience, an inductive approach (Chapter 3) to resilience yields an emphasis on the
importance of contingent effects of the firm environment, that is, both exogenous and
endogenous environmental factors. It follows, when observing the focal phenomenon in
managerial practise, an emergent contingency-based view of resilience seems to provide a
better and more nuanced understanding of the way how firms formulate and enact responses
under disruptiveness contingent upon characteristics of the disruptive environment and
situational factors that moderate the relationships between constructs.
Contingency-based view. As advocated in the general contingency theory (Hofer, 1975;
Luthans & Stewart, 1977), the optimal managerial response of any given firm is contingent
upon a set of situational factors. Contrary to an universalistic view, which was previously
related to closed systems thinking, a situational view is related to an open systems thinking
(Child, 1974; Luthans & Stewart, 1977). A contingency theoretical view, however, extends the
situational view of optimal managerial practises, to form a more exact and rigorous approach
by outlining the functional relationships between situational, managerial and performance
criteria variables (Luthans & Stewart, 1977, pp. 183–189). The contingent perspective of
response formulation and enactment seems useful to form an enhanced understanding of
the way how disruptiveness as well as situational moderators impact response formulation.
Importantly, assimilating a contingency perspective of firm-level resilience seems to provide
an appropriate account of how firms sense, explore, buffer and reconfigure in times of
disruption that is firmly grounded in informants’ views.

118
An increased focus on the contingent effects of the firm-environment allows for the
appropriation of a more nuanced view of how firms adapt in times of disruption. This
extension seems to be of vital importance for an enhanced understanding of how resilience
works and to better apprehend how situational, contingent and aspects of disruptiveness
trigger, promote and impede the adaptation of the firm to its disruptive environmental
conditions. The herein postulated conclusions and emphasis on dimensions of resilience
behaviour therefore have to be viewed from a contingent perspective. That is, situational
variables mould optimal response formulation of firms. The rather dynamic nature of the
model captures the alternating impact of these variables in the environment on the firm.
Dynamism, reciprocity and temporal aspects. The dynamic aspect of the inductive
model relates to the fluidity in response formulation and enactment. More precisely, the
characteristics that determine disruptiveness of the firm-environment impact the way how
firms sense, explore, buffer and reconfigure. Both from a dynamic perspective at the
intersection and interaction of the aforementioned activities as well as a temporal
perspective. Dynamism is rooted in the adaptive nature of the relationships between
constructs. For example, to be able to buffer a negative impact of disruptiveness, firms need
to engage in sensing activities that allow for assessment and categorisation as well as
prioritisation of which dynamics a firm needs to buffer at which point in time.
Dynamism moreover relates to the notion of directionality of relationship between
constructs. An observation, that is particularly prominent in the reciprocal relationship
between sensing and buffering, where activities related to buffering can yield important
learnings that consequently impact the sensing function of the firm. Similarly, the assumption
follows that the way how firms reconfigure informs the way how firms explore through
learning from those reconfiguration experiences.

119
Organisational learning. In consequence, the way how firms formulate and enact
responses to disruptiveness yields experiences, the learning from which can improve firm-
level processes and capabilities. Organisational learning therefore is a vital component of the
dynamic aspect of the inductive model, that is, through learning from experiences firms can
improve the way how they respond to disruptiveness. While organisational learning can be
seen as a moderating variable, that is, the amount of learning from previous experiences (see
the concept 14B prior experiences in Figure 4) within the firm, it can also be viewed as
essential feature of the dynamic contingency-based model of resilience outlined in Figure 5.
Incremental learning takes place at every step along the process of response formulation and
enactment. Importantly, it follows that the learning generated from achieving higher levels
of resilience seems to establish a weakening effect on the negative consequences of the
disruptiveness, ex ante, that is, in contribution to the adaptiveness-loop outlined in Figure 5.
Capabilities and processes that underpin resilience. Informants clearly outline how
firms formulate and enact responses, adapt processes and therefore achieve superior results.
While the concepts of sensing and exploring have previously been discussed (see Table 3
above), the buffering function seems to be an important addition to a more holistic,
contingency-based, view of resilience. Buffering, that is, the absorption and softening of the
negative consequences of disruptiveness through means of maintaining, levelling-up and
pacing, seems to be one of the most important activities that constitute firm-level responses.
The intensity of the buffering function is contingent upon the contingent effect of
environmental and situational variables. Buffering is described by informants through a
variety of capabilities and processes. Buffering by maintaining, buffering by levelling-up and
buffering by pacing. Interestingly, firms buffer by pacing through planning implementation
and taking step-by-step approaches.

120
Further, the analysis shows that sensing ought to be viewed distinctively from exploring,
where sensing activities focus on the potentially disruptive environmental dynamics, that is,
a more logical link with buffering. Concurrently, exploring represents an inherently
entrepreneurial focus on opportunities, to both, be able to achieve higher levels of
adaptiveness as well as medium- to long-term value creation.
Contribution
This paper proposes an inductive-contingency-based view of resilience outlined in this
paper, through which it contributes to the received literature in a number of ways. The focus
on the firm-environment in a disequilibrium state resharpens the focus of the discussion on
managerial adaptation and strategic flexibility under disruptiveness. The dynamism,
reciprocity and recursiveness of the relationships between constructs within the model
outlined in Figure 5 offers an additional, temporal view of firm behaviour in disruptive times.
That is, one shall take a rather longitudinal view of firm-level resilience, warranted to explore
the capabilities and process that underpin resilience. Firms view disruptiveness over time and
adapt accordingly.
The main contribution of this paper is to propose a contingency-based, temporal,
recursive and dynamic model of capabilities, dynamics and processes that underpin firm-level
resilience under disruptiveness. The formulation and enactment of firm-level responses were
found to be contingent upon both situational factors in the firms’ environment as well as the
dimensions that constitute disruptiveness. The temporal aspect of the inductive model
describes how disruptiveness, capability-development, processes, dynamics and situational
moderators evolve over time. Accordingly, adaptation, that is the formulation and enactment
of responses, also evolves over time. These aspects of the inductive model inform the firm-
level resilience literature by extending a contingency-based view of resilience, that aims to

121
offer a more nuanced and holistic view how firms survive and outperform under
disruptiveness. Consequently, the conceptualisation of the inductive model is represented as
procedural model (Perlow et al., 2002; Repenning, 2002) in Figure 5. The construct describing
disruptiveness aims to capture the multi-dimensionality of what constitutes disruption in the
firm environment, including triggers of disruptive dynamics, the impact of disruptiveness on
various aspects of the firm and the temporality of disruptiveness.
The combination of processes, dynamics and capabilities through which firms formulate
and enact responses to the disruptive environment yields a more nuanced and holistic
understanding of resilience and thus aims to provide a fruitful grounding for further study.
The findings of the inductive study also inform literature on organisational learning, that is,
as a promoter of the relationships within the model. In other words, each relationship
contains notions of organisational learning, that is vital for increased value creation and
enhancing firm-level adaptiveness.
Limitations and future research
The inductive study has several limitations. The issue of generalisability of the emergent
theory ought to be addressed. While this paper focusses on theory-building through
exploratory research, the limitations of the qualitative interview approach and theoretical
sampling may pose issues for the generalisability of the emergent theory. Therefore, further
quantitative research to extend the validity of the emergent model will be useful and is
strongly encouraged. A follow-up study shall test the derived relationships among constructs
and the underlying dynamics.
Further, potential issues of endogeneity have to be discussed. The capabilities,
processes and dynamics that lead to resilience as outcome, that are, sensing, exploring,
buffering and reconfiguring, may themselves be induced by, not only moderated by, other

122
variables such as prior experience, resource availability or managerial attention focus. Further
research, both qualitative and quantitative in nature, could be useful to counter issues of
endogeneity in the emergent model.
While this paper proposes a contingency-perspective of firm-level resilience and
thereby suggests a disruption-specific view, it seems exceedingly difficult to draw the
boundaries to the processes, capabilities and dynamics that are in place in non-disruptive
periods. Therefore, further (quantitative) study might reinforce the validity of the emergent
model across various research settings.
The interpretation of the interview data yields a rather proactive view of firm-level
behaviour, where managerial action is intentional. That is, firm-level behaviour is proactively
planned, executed and evaluated in times of disruption to adapt to changing environmental
conditions. However, managerial action might be based on intuition, rather than intention.
Further study might therefore add clarity.
This study is not free from selection bias in the form of survival bias of the firms and
informants sampled. In the context of disruption and resilience, it seems particularly
challenging, however, to combat survival bias as one of the main aspects of resilience
outcomes is survival. While in principle this form of selection bias cannot be entirely avoided,
one can sample from the population with the greatest possible care to include polar cases or
firms. That is, sampling participants and firms where the emerging theory will likely not hold.
While measures were taken to limit recall bias, this study cannot guarantee to be free
from the influences of participants’ recollection biases. Further expansion of the sample and
quantitative theory testing may increase validity of the emergent theory overall and
therewith counter potential biases introduced through the focal sample.

123
Concluding remarks of the thesis
The scholarly discussion on how firms survive and outperform in times of disruption has
been at the centre of academic attention for some time, and, increasingly so in recent years.
Particularly, in the current environment, useful guidance is needed for firms to navigate
disruptive environments. That is, insightful from an academic point of view and practically
relevant from a managerial point of view. This thesis aims to contribute to the ongoing
discussion and to extend the literature on firm-level resilience, dynamic capabilities and the
contingency-theoretical view of resilience under disruptiveness.
The aim of both proposed views is to provide stimulating insights to how firms survive
and outperform in disruptive times. The conceptual dynamic capability view provides useful
guidance to the study of how capabilities are developed and nurtured by firms during
disruption, while the inductive contingency-based view extends our knowledge of the
contingent effect of the firm-environment and the various dimensions of disruptiveness.
Therefore, these distinct views provide useful contributions to the respective literatures. In
combination, both views may inform academia and managerial practise.
In brief, the conceptual dynamic-capability view of RESCAP extends the resilience
literature by informing about the capability dimensions, potential and realised RESCAP, the
emphasis on the disequilibrium and by fostering a multi-dimensional view of RESCAP and the
disruptive environment. Useful insights that may extend the dynamic capability theory are
provided by framing the exploring capacity as a distinct dimension (Chapter 2, Figure 2). The
inductive paper extends the resilience literature by providing a contingency-based view that
manifests as a fluid, dynamic, recursive model of response formulation and enactment
(Chapter 3, Figure 5), providing useful grounding for future research. A summary of findings
and limitations specific to both studies is shown in Appendix K and L.

124
Limitations of the thesis and future research
While the contributions and future research directions are noted in the respective
discussion section of each paper, the below limitations of the thesis show a more general
view of both limitations and future research directions, as summarised in Table 8. These
general limitations shall offer fruitful avenues for further research across a variety of domains
and thereby advance a theory of firm-level resilience in the literature that, too, is exceedingly
relevant for managerial practise by providing relevant insights across domains and sectors.
While the research process, specifically in Chapter 3, yielded insights in the underlying
processes, capabilities and dynamics of creating, nurturing and sustaining firm-level
resilience, one ought to consider the limitations to transferability of the findings to other
contexts. Therefore, a quantitative follow-up study would be beneficial for theory testing and
validity-increasing purposes. The conceptual paper (Chapter 2) aims to provide a useful
theoretical framework of RESCAP from a dynamic capability perspective that informs the
capability literature. The focus of this paper is to provide a framework, the propositions
suggested could be fruitful grounding for further study, where the focus lies in (quantitative)
theory testing. Similarly, while the inductive-contingency-based view of firm-level resilience
may offer a useful model of firm-resilience under disruptiveness, further theory testing work
would enhance the credibility and transferability of this model.
The theoretical sampling process in Chapter 3 focussed on the sampling of polar
informants and firms, that is, a focus on instances where the focal theory might be differently
applicable or not hold at all. While the intend herein is to create a parsimonious grounding
for the contingency-based model, further qualitative and quantitative study of specific sectors
will be useful to further carve-out the specificity of the various contingent effects of both
disruptiveness and situational moderators in various research settings. It might prove useful

125
to further investigate how different industries perceive the impact of certain disruptiveness
dimensions, or situational moderators differently. For example, the way how prior experience
impacts firm survival in a rather young, entrepreneurial industry might be different compared
with a mature industry segment or ecosystem, where firms hitherto have accumulated vast
amounts of prior experience with previous disruptiveness.
While this thesis limits its focus on a strategic management view of firm-level resilience
through a dynamic capability and a contingency-theoretical view, scholarly attention could
further expand an economics perspective of engendering and appropriating rents. Keyhani et
al. (2015) provide a useful view on how firms pursue entrepreneurial rents. This view may
prove useful in firm-level resilience research, by informing on how firms pursue which form
of rent, or combinations thereof, in times of disruption and thereby informing the micro-
economic literature on how firms engender and appropriate rents under disruptiveness.
Additionally, the basic assumption of these studies, that the environments that firms
are in are shaped by the tenets of disequilibrium, might be an interesting avenue for future
research. That is, taking an economics view of how firms and ecosystems alternate between
periods of (dis-)equilibrium, further research may find valuable insights of a temporal aspect
of the transition from equilibrium to disequilibrium. This may inform the resilience literature
by adding an additional nuance to the procedural and temporal view of how resilience
behaviour emerges.
Chapter 3 focusses on the interpretation of informants’ views of firm-level resilience.
Further study could extend the rational heuristics literature (e.g., Bingham & Eisenhardt,
2011) to conceptualise simple rules of resilience. Notions of these heuristics were mentioned
by informants detailing the pacing concept, which describes firms taking step-by-step
approaches towards firm-level responses in disruptive times. The heuristics literature might

126
provide an useful perspective to extend this stream of research (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier,
2010; Luan et al., 2019; Neth et al., 2014; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). A related area is such
of how decision-making processes take place under disruptiveness. While crowded, this
research area might be interesting for scholars who want to investigate the ways how firms
make decisions when building, nurturing and retaining resilience under constraints.
Further research on the impact of firm governance types, e.g., privately held versus
publicly listed firms, might provide an interesting avenue for scholars who are interested in
the impact of corporate governance aspects on response formulation and enactment. This
follows notions mentioned by informants on how the type of firm governance impacts
resiliency, e.g., the concept of firm governance & size (15A).
Research on network effects could further expand on the emphasis that informants
have put on the impact of firm-level ecosystem, e.g., network activation (12B). Additional
qualitative study might be able to carve out a more detailed view of the effect of network
activation and structure on firm-level resilience. Network activation was strongly emphasised
by informants to be of particular importance in disruptive times, therefore further insights
might inform both the resiliency literature and network literature.
While not mentioned by informants in the empirical study or detailed in the theory
paper, characteristics of the TMT may play a particularly salient role when firms formulate
and enact responses to disruptiveness. Thus, research on the impact of TMT characteristics
and the composition of management boards might yield valuable insights to advance our
understanding of firm-level resilience. Findings may inform the corporate governance
literature by outlining the specific TMT characteristics of highly resilient firms. Further
research on the impact of TMT diversity on firm-level performance and adaptiveness under
disruptiveness might be an useful extension of the literature concerning TMT characteristics.

127
Further study could be aimed at determining specific, distinct, crisis patterns based on
the dimensions of the environmental conditions identified in both the conceptual paper as
well as the empirical paper. An additional investigation could be based for example in the
environmental conditions literature (e.g., Eisingerich et al., 2010; Keats & Hitt, 1988; Sirmon
et al., 2007) or the contingency-view of the firm (e.g., Boyd, 1995; Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985;
Hoffer, 1975; Luthans & Stewart, 1977). This could expand upon statements made by
informants in the empirical study above relating to the detection of crises.
The empirical paper yielded a contingency-based view of how firms formulate and enact
responses under disruptiveness. One of the ways firms adopt to these environmental
conditions is by buffering. Applying a capability perspective to this dimension of firm
adaptation may yield useful insights that extend the literature on dynamic capabilities (Teece
et al., 1997) and capability development and lifecycle (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). Further study
may extend the capability literature by forming a more nuanced and finer distinction between
other, previously established, dynamic capability dimensions, that are, sensing, seizing and
transforming (Teece, 2019), and the emerging buffering dimension. That said, however, one
ought to consider the limitations of the empirical study (Chapter 3) and that the buffering
dimension had not emerged as a distinct capability, rather as a concept that summarises the
processes, dynamics and capabilities firms develop and deploy under disruptiveness to buffer
the negative impact of disruptive dynamics (see Appendix G, Table 17).
Considering a longitudinal view of firm-level resilience, further study may explore how
resilience response formulation and enactment changes over time. That is, while buffering
and exploring arguably are in focus in the earlier stages of disruptiveness, later stages of
response formulation and enactment might emphasise behavioural action over cognitive
action. However, as the contingency-based view of firm-level resilience advocated in Chapter

128
3 proposes, the process of formulating and enacting responses in disruptive times may be
fluid, dynamic, reciprocal and recursive. While prior scholarship in-part explored the
sequential process of organisational resilience based on a capability-view of firm-resilience
(e.g., Duchek, 2020), further study could tease out the temporal dependencies of capability-
development and deployment or the procedural aspects of response formulation and
enactment more generally. Further investigation could be based in a number of literatures,
such as organisational learning (March, 1991) and capability evolution and lifecycle (Helfat,
2000; Helfat & Peteraf, 2003; D. Levinthal & Myatt, 1994). This discussion can be viewed from
a variety of perspectives, such as, one, the evolution of resilience responses and outcomes
longitudinally and, two, by viewing resilience as a dynamic capability of the firm and the
evolution of such dynamic capability over time.
While the focus of this thesis is on the organisation as the unit of analysis, further study
may extend this view and thereby continue earlier thoughts to the level of ecosystem or a
more detailed investigation of the processes, capabilities and dynamics that take place on a
team-level (Weick, 1993). Extending earlier work on team-level resilience, as opposed to
individual-level resilience
18
, may for example yield valuable insights for the formulation and
enactment of resilience responses on a firm-level. Simply put, the assumption may be that
the firm is to some extend the sum of its subsystems, that is, teams, processes and units. This
view may therefore also be extended to the firms’ sub-units, in other words regional, strategic
or product-specific units and teams within the organisation.
18
A plethora of research has investigated the resilience construct on an individual-level, that is both outside
and within the boundaries of an organization. See for example the research on individuals’ psychological
capital or entrepreneurial resilience in venture formation (Hayward et al., 2010; Hillmann, 2020; Martinelli
et al., 2018; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). The focus of this proposed avenue should be on how teams form
resilient responses.

129
Table 8 – general future research directions
Issue
Possible theoretical lens
(exemplary studies)
Potential research question
Quantitative theory
testing
Either a capability or a contingency
perspective
Enhance the transferability of these views to
a broader sample of firms across various
sectors
Expanding
theoretical sampling
Contingency-based view of firm-
level resilience
How do firms survive and outperform in a
specific sector vs. another sector? How is
the impact of specific constructs
different?
Economics
perspective
Entrepreneurial rents
(Keyhani et al., 2015)
Economic equilibrium
(Frisch, 1936; Kaldor, 1972)
Do firms concurrently pursue Schumpeterian
and Kirznerian rents under
disruptiveness?
How can we determine a shift in equilibrium?
How can we identify evolving
disequilibrium?
Simple rules of
resilience
Rational heuristics
(Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011)
What are the simple rules of resilience that
firms adapt under disruptiveness?
Firm governance
Corporate governance
(Tirole, 2001; Wright & Siegel,
2021)
How does the governance structure of the
firm, impact response formulation and
enactment in disruptive times?
Network effects,
ecosystem
Network activation, change
(Battilana & Casciaro, 2012;
Hernandez & Menon, 2021)
Social network theory
(Eisingerich et al., 2010; Ibarra,
1995; Uzzi, 1997)
How do firms utilise existing networks for
resource reconfiguration?
How do firms purposefully extend their
networks in times of disruption?
How does innovation by co-creation
strengthen firm-level resilience in
disruptive times?
TMT characteristics
TMT diversity
(Prahalad & Bettis, 1986)
Board composition
(Goodstein et al., 1994)
How do TMT characteristics impact firm-level
resilience behaviour in disruptive times?
Crisis patterns
Environmental conditions
(Keats & Hitt, 1988)
What are distinct patters of disruptiveness
that firms experience?
Buffering
Dynamic capability view
(Teece et al., 1997)
Capability lifecycle
(Helfat & Peteraf, 2003)
Can we establish buffering as a distinct
dimension of the dynamic capability
framework?
Resilience as an
evolvable construct
Organizational Learning
(March, 1991)
Capability lifecycle
(Helfat & Peteraf, 2003)
How do firm responses change over time in
context of changing levels of
disruptiveness and learning?
Unit of analysis
Ecosystem-level
Team-level (Weick, 1993)
How does resilience behaviour manifest on
an ecosystem or team level?

130
References
Ackoff, R. (1977). Towards flexible organizations: A multidimensional design. Omega, 5(6),
649–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(77)90046-9
Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical
Analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 678.
Akgün, A. E., & Keskin, H. (2014). Organisational resilience capacity and firm product
innovativeness and performance. International Journal of Production Research,
52(23), 6918–6937. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.910624
Al-Ayed, S. I. (2019). The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management on
Organizational Resilience: An Empirical Study on Hospitals. Business: Theory &
Practice, 20, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.17
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Prentice Hall.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure.
Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044
Ali, I., & Gölgeci, I. (2019). Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic
and co-occurrence analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 49(8), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-0038
Amann, B., & Jaussaud, J. (2012). Family and non-family business resilience in an economic
downturn. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(2), 203–223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2010.537057
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015). Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions:
Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management,
33–34(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002

131
Amit, R., & Livnat, J. (1988). Diversification strategies, business cycles and economic
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), 99–110.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090202
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(1), 33.
Andersson, T. (2018). Followership: An Important Social Resource for Organizational
Resilience. In The Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 147–
162). Springer Nature.
Andersson, T., Cäker, M., Tengblad, S., & Wickelgren, M. (2019). Building traits for
organizational resilience through balancing organizational structures. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 35(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2019.01.001
Andrew, S., Arlikatti, S., Siebeneck, L., Pongponrat, K., & Jaikampan, K. (2016). Sources of
organisational resiliency during the Thailand floods of 2011: A test of the bonding and
bridging hypotheses. Disasters, 40(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12136
Annarelli, A., & Nonino, F. (2016). Strategic and operational management of organizational
resilience: Current state of research and future directions. Omega, 62, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.08.004
Ansoff, H. I. (1958). A Model for Diversification. Management Science, 4(4), 392–414.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.4.4.392
Asch, S., & Mulligan, T. (2017). Organizational Resiliency: The World-Famous San Diego
Zoo Way. Leader to Leader, 2017(83), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20277
Ates, A., & Bititci, U. (2011). Change process: A key enabler for building resilient SMEs.
International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5601–5618.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563825

132
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can Positive Employees Help Positive
Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant
Attitudes and Behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90032-2
Bahrami, H. (1992). The Emerging Flexible Organization: Perspectives from Silicon Valley.
California Management Review, 34(4), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166702
Bang, H., Miles, L., & Gordon, R. (2019). Evaluating local vulnerability and organisational
resilience to frequent flooding in Africa: The case of Northern Cameroon. Foresight,
21(2), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-06-2018-0068
Barasa, E., Mbau, R., & Gilson, L. (2018). What Is Resilience and How Can It Be Nurtured?
A Systematic Review of Empirical Literature on Organizational Resilience.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 7(6), 491–503.
https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 19, 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 9(4), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1995.9512032192
Barton, M. A., & Kahn, W. A. (2019). Group Resilience: The Place and Meaning of Relational
Pauses. Organization Studies, 40(9), 1409–1429.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618782294

133
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change Agents, Networks, and Institutions: A
Contingency Theory of Organizational Change. Academy of Management Journal,
55(2), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891
Beech, N., Devins, D., Gold, J., & Beech, S. (2020). In the family way: An exploration of
family business resilience. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(1),
160–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2019-1674
Beuren, I. M., & dos Santos, V. (2019). Enabling and coercive management control systems
and organizational resilience. Sistemas de Controle Gerencial Habilitantes e
Coercitivos e Resiliência Organizacional, 30(81), 307–323.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x201908210
Beuren, I. M., dos Santos, V., & Bernd, D. C. (2020). Effects of the Management Control
System on Empowerment and Organizational Resilience. Brazilian Business Review
(English Edition), 17(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2020.17.2.5
Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: The concept, a literature review and
future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5375–5393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563826
Bigelow, J. (1992). Developing Managerial Wisdom. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(2),
143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269212008
Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that
strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13),
1437–1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.965
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous
Change? California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.36

134
Blades, A. (2017). Organisational resilience: What does it mean? Governance Directions,
69(11), 669–671.
Bouaziz, F., & Smaoui Hachicha, Z. (2018). Strategic human resource management practices
and organizational resilience. Journal of Management Development, 37(7), 537–551.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2017-0358
Bouchard, T. J. (1976). Unobtrusive Measures: An I nventory of Uses. Sociological Methods
& Research, 4(3), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912417600400301
Bourgeois III, L. J. (1980). Strategy and Environment: A Conceptual Integration. Academy of
Management Review, 5(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1980.4288844
Bourgeois III, L. J. (1985). Strategic Goals, Perceived Uncertainty, and Economic Performance
in Volatile Environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 548–573.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256113
Bourgeois III, L. J., McAllister, D. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). The Effects of Different
Organizational Environments upon Decisions about Organizational Structure. Academy
of Management Journal, 21(3), 508–514. https://doi.org/10.2307/255732
Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the Measurement of Organizational Slack. The Academy of
Management Review, 6(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/257138
Bowman, E. H. (1982). Risk Seeking by Troubled Firms. Sloan Management Review, 23(4),
33.
Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO Duality and Firm Performance: A Contingency Model. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(4), 301–312.
Branicki, L. J., Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Livschitz, S. R. (2018). How entrepreneurial resilience
generates resilient SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, 24(7), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0396

135
Branicki, L., Steyer, V., & Sullivan-Taylor, B. (2019). Why resilience managers aren’t
resilient, and what human resource management can do about it. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(8), 1261–1286.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244104
Branzei, O., & Abdelnour, S. (2010). Another day, another dollar: Enterprise resilience under
terrorism in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5),
804–825. JSTOR.
Breda, A. D. van. (2016). Building Resilient Human Service Organizations. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(1), 62–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1093571
Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M.,
Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W. A., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A
framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities.
Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752.
Buliga, O., Scheiner, C. W., & Voigt, K. (2016). Business model innovation and organizational
resilience: Towards an integrated conceptual framework. Zeitschrift Für
Betriebswirtschaft; Heidelberg, 86(6), 647–670.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/10.1007/s11573-015-0796-y
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of
resilience and self–efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 38(3), 473–499.
Burnard, K., & Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: Development of a conceptual
framework for organisational responses. International Journal of Production Research,
49(18), 5581–5599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563827

136
Burnard, K., Bhamra, R., & Tsinopoulos, C. (2018). Building organizational resilience: Four
configurations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 65(3), 351–362.
Butler, C. (2018). Five steps to organisational resilience: Being adaptive and flexible during
both normal operations and times of disruption. Journal of Business Continuity &
Emergency Planning, 12(2), 103–112.
Calori, R., Baden-Fuller, C., & Hunt, B. (2000). Managing Change at Novotel: Back to the
Future. Long Range Planning, 33(6), 779–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-
6301(00)00090-X
Carden, L. L., Maldonado, T., & Boyd, R. O. (2018). Organizational resilience: A look at
McDonald’s in the fast food industry. Organizational Dynamics, 47(1), 25–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.07.002
Carlson, E. (2018). Vigilant resilience: The possibilities for renewal through preparedness.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(2), 212–225.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2017-0030
Carmeli, A., Dothan, A., & Boojihawon, D. K. (2020). Resilience of sustainability-oriented
and financially-driven organizations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1),
154–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2355
Carmeli, A., & Markman, G. D. (2011). Capture, governance, and resilience: Strategy
implications from the history of Rome. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 322–
341. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.880
Castellacci, F. (2015). Institutional Voids or Organizational Resilience? Business Groups,
Innovation, and Market Development in Latin America. World Development, 70, 43–
58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.014
Cavaco, N. M., & Machado, V. C. (2015). Sustainable competitiveness based on resilience and
innovation – an alternative approach. International Journal of Management Science

137
and Engineering Management, 10(2), 155–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2014.975165
Chan, J. W. K. (2011). Enhancing organisational resilience: Application of viable system
model and MCDA in a small Hong Kong company. International Journal of
Production Research, 49(18), 5545–5563.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563829
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Sage Publications.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational Actions in Response
to Threats and Opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937–955.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069439
Chen, S.-H. (2016). Construction of an Early Risk Warning Model of Organizational
Resilience: An Empirical Study Based on Samples of R&D Teams. Discrete Dynamics
in Nature and Society, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4602870
Chewning, L. V., Lai, C.-H., & Doerfel, M. L. (2013). Organizational Resilience and Using
Information and Communication Technologies to Rebuild Communication Structures.
Management Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912465815
Child. (1974). What determines organization The universals vs. The it-all-depends.
Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(74)90001-1
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). Attention as the Mediator Between Top Management
Team Characteristics and Strategic Change: The Case of Airline Deregulation.
Organization Science, 17(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0192
Clément, V., & Rivera, J. (2017). From Adaptation to Transformation: An Extended Research
Agenda for Organizational Resilience to Adversity in the Natural Environment.

138
Organization & Environment, 30(4), 346–365.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026616658333
Collier, D. Y. (2018). An examination of the impact of diverse internationalization experience
on organizational resilience and a test of the Resilience Architecture Framework.
Auburn University.
Conz, E., Denicolai, S., & Zucchella, A. (2017). The resilience strategies of SMEs in mature
clusters. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
Economy, 11(1), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-02-2015-0015
Conz, E., & Magnani, G. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A
systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European
Management Journal, 38(3), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.004
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). SAGE.
Coutu, D. L. (2002). How Resilience Works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–55.
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling;
merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623–630.
Cruickshank, N. (2020). He who defends everything, defends nothing: Proactivity in
organizational resilience. Transnational Corporations Review, 0(0), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2020.1764326
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation
Systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4277657

139
Dahlberg, R., Johannessen-Henry, C. T., Raju, E., & Tulsiani, S. (2015). Resilience in disaster
research: Three versions. Civil Engineering & Environmental Systems, 32(1/2), 44–54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2015.1025064
Dalgaard‐Nielsen, A. (2017). Organizational resilience in national security bureaucracies:
Realistic and practicable? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(4),
341–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12164
Darkow, P. M. (2019). 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
De Carvalho, A. O., Ribeiro, I., Cirani, C. B. S., & Cintra, R. F. (2016). Organizational
resilience: A comparative study between innovative and non-innovative companies
based on the financial performance analysis. International Journal of Innovation, 4(1),
58–69.
Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. (1999). Geographic scope, product diversification, and the
corporate performance of Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), 711–
727. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199908)20:8<711::AID-
SMJ41>3.0.CO;2-8
DesJardine, M., Bansal, P., & Yang, Y. (2019). Bouncing Back: Building Resilience Through
Social and Environmental Practices in the Context of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
Journal of Management, 45(4), 1434–1460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317708854
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080

140
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive
Advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504
Dolfsma, W., & Velde, G. (2014). Industry innovativeness, firm size, and entrepreneurship:
Schumpeter Mark III? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 713–736.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-014-0352-x
Donnellan, B., Larsen, T. J., & Levine, L. (2007). Editorial Introduction to the Special Issue
on: Transfer and Diffusion of IT for Organizational Resilience. Journal of Information
Technology, 22(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000091
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514–539. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392695
Duchek, S. (2018). Entrepreneurial resilience: A biographical analysis of successful
entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 429–
455. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/10.1007/s11365-017-0467-2
Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business
Research, 13(1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
Duchek, S. (2014). Growth in the face of crisis: The role of organizational resilience
capabilities. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 13487.
Edström, A. (2018). Business Clusters and Organizational Resilience. In The Resilience
Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 197–212). Springer Nature.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

141
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and
Challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159839
Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive
methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113–
1123.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
Eisingerich, A. B., Bell, S. J., & Tracey, P. (2010). How can clusters sustain performance? The
role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Research
Policy, 39(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.007
Elwood, A. (2009). Using the disaster crunch/release model in building organisational
resilience. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 3(3), 241–247.
Eriksson, N. (2018). Followership For Organizational Resilience In Health Care. In The
Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 163–180). Springer
Nature.
Farjoun, M. (1998). The independent and joint effects of the skill and physical bases of
relatedness in diversification. 19, 20.
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031454
Filimonau, V., & Coteau, D. D. (2020). Tourism resilience in the context of integrated
destination and disaster management (DM2). International Journal of Tourism
Research, 22(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2329

142
Finchelstein, D. (2017). The role of the State in the internationalization of Latin American
firms. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 578–590.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.04.003
Fleming, R. S. (2012). Ensuring Organizational Resilience in Times of Crisis. Journal of
Global Business Issues, 6(1), 31–34.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.
Ecology and Society, 15(4), art20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420
Foss, N. J. (2003). Selective Intervention and Internal Hybrids: Interpreting and Learning from
the Rise and Decline of the Oticon Spaghetti Organization. Organization Science,
14(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.331.15166
Freeman, S. F., Hirschhorn, L., & Maltz, M. (2004). The Power of Moral Purpose: Sandler
O’Neill & Partners in the Aftermath of September 11th, 2001. Organization
Development Journal, 22(4), 69–81.
Frisch, R. (1936). On the Notion of Equilibrium and Disequilibrium. The Review of Economic
Studies, 3(2), 100–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967500
Garg, V. K., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. (2003). Chief executive scanning emphases,
environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 24(8), 725–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.335
Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018).
Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory
Building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
George, G. (2005). Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843944

143
Ghemawat, P., & Cassiman, B. (2007). Introduction to the Special Issue on Strategic
Dynamics. Management Science, 53(4), 529–536.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0723
Gibson, C. A. (2010). An integrated approach to managing disruption-related risk: Life and
death in a model community. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning,
4(3), 246–261.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role
of Organizational Ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–
226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
Gifun, J. F., & Karydas, D. M. (2010). Organizational attributes of Highly Reliable complex
systems. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 26(1), 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1034
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2010). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Gilly, J.-P., Kechidi, M., & Talbot, D. (2014). Resilience of organisations and territories: The
role of pivot firms. European Management Journal, 32(4), 596–602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.09.004
Gimenez, R., Hernantes, J., Labaka, L., Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2017). Improving the
resilience of disaster management organizations through virtual communities of
practice: A Delphi study. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(3),
160–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12181
Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, Layoffs, and
Organizational Resilience: Airline Industry Responses to September 11. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300–329.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306286466

144
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research (1st ed.). Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
Goetzmann, W. N., & Kumar, A. (2008). Equity Portfolio Diversification. Review of Finance,
12(3), 433–463.
Golden, B. R. (1992). Research Notes. the Past Is the Past--or Is It? The Use of Retrospective
Accounts as Indicators of Past Strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 848–
860. https://doi.org/10.2307/256318
Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The Effects of Board Size and Diversity on
Strategic Change. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 241–250. JSTOR.
Gover, L., & Duxbury, L. (2018). Inside the Onion: Understanding What Enhances and Inhibits
Organizational Resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(4), 477–501.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318797597
Gracey, A. (2020). Building an organisational resilience maturity framework. Journal of
Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 13(4), 313–327.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Grossack, I. M. (1965). Towards an Integration of Static and Dynamic Measures of Industry
Concentration. Review of Economics & Statistics, 47(3), 301.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1927713
Gunderson, L. H., & Pritchard, L. (2002). Resilience and the behavior of large-scale systems.
Island Press.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The Interplay Between Exploration and
Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026

145
Haase, A., & Eberl, P. (2019). The Challenges of Routinizing for Building Resilient Startups.
Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2), 579–597.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12511
Haeckel, S. H. (2004). Peripheral Vision: Sensing and Acting on Weak Signals. Long Range
Planning, 37(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.006
Hall, M., & Weiss, L. (1967). Firm Size and Profitability. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 49(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926642
Hallen, B. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2012). Catalyzing Strategies and Efficient Tie Formation:
How Entrepreneurial Firms Obtain Investment Ties. Academy of Management Journal,
55(1), 35–70. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0620
Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Corporate coherence and the top management team. Strategy &
Leadership, 25(5), 24–29. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/10.1108/eb054597
Hamel, G., & Välikangas, L. (2003). The Quest for Resilience. Harvard Business Review,
81(9), 52–63.
Handler, W. C. (1990). Succession in family firms: A mutual role adjustment between
entrepreneur and next-generation family members. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 15(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879001500105
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition
in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2750
Harris, S. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1986). Functions of Parting Ceremonies in Dying Organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/255857
Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2014). Let’s dance! elastic coordination in creative group
work: A qualitative study of modern. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1256–
1283. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0343

146
Hatum, A., & Pettigrew, A. M. (2006). Determinants of Organizational Flexibility: A Study in
an Emerging Economy. British Journal of Management, 17(2), 115–137.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00469.x
Hayward, M. L. A., Forster, W. R., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Beyond
hubris: How highly confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again. Journal of
Business Venturing, 25(6), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.03.002
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the
Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Helfat, C. E. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue: The evolution of firm
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 955–959.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<955::AID-
SMJ136>3.0.CO;2-S
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the
microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–
850. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2247
Herbane, B. (2010). The evolution of business continuity management: A historical review of
practices and drivers. Business History, 52(6), 978–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2010.511185
Herbane, B. (2019). Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic renewal in SMEs.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5–6), 476–495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541594

147
Hernandez, E., & Menon, A. (2021). Corporate Strategy and Network Change. Academy of
Management Review, 46(1), 80–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0013
Hillmann, J. (2020). Disciplines of organizational resilience: Contributions, critiques, and
future research avenues. Review of Managerial Science, 1–58.
Hillmann, J., Duchek, S., Meyr, J., & Guenther, E. (2018). Educating Future Managers for
Developing Resilient Organizations: The Role of Scenario Planning. Journal of
Management Education, 42(4), 461–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918766350
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive
landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century.
The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 22–42.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/10.5465/ame.1998.1333922
Ho, M., Teo, S. T., Bentley, T., & Galvin, P. (2014). Organizational resilience and the
challenge for human resource management. International Conference on Human
Resource Management and Professional Development for the Digital Age (HRM&PD)
Proceedings, 1–8.
Hofer, C. W. (1975). Toward a Contingency Theory of Business Strategy. Academy of
Management Journal, 18(4), 784–810. https://doi.org/10.2307/255379
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. JSTOR.
Holling, C. S. (1996a). Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience. In Engineering
Within Ecological Constraints (pp. 31–44). The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/4919
Holling, C. S. (1996b). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In Engineering
within ecological constraints. (pp. 31–44). National Academy Press.

148
Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and
precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Horne III, J. F., & Orr, J. E. (1998). Assessing Behaviors That Create Resilient Organizations.
Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 24(4), 29–39.
Hosseini, S., Barker, K., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2016). A review of definitions and
measures of system resilience. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 145, 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.006
Hsu, C.-C., Park, J.-Y., & Lew, Y. K. (2019). Resilience and risks of cross-border mergers and
acquisitions. Multinational Business Review, 27(4), 427–450.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-05-2019-0035
Huber, G. P. (1985). Temporal Stability and Response-Order Biases in Participant Descriptions
of Organizational Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 28(4), 943–950.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256247
Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective Reports of Strategic-Level Managers:
Guidelines for Increasing Their Accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171–
180.
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, Opportunity, and Diversity of Social Circles in Managerial Networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673–703. https://doi.org/10.2307/256742
Iborra, M., Safón, V., & Dolz, C. (2020). What explains resilience of SMEs? Ambidexterity
capability and strategic consistency. Long Range Planning, 101947.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101947

149
Ingirige, M. J. B., Jones, K., & Proverbs, D. (2008). Investigating SME resilience and their
adaptive capacities to extreme weather events: A literature review and synthesis.
International Conference on Building Education and Research, 108–109.
Ingram, T., & Bratnicka-Myśliwiec, K. (2019). Organizational Resilience of Family
Businesses. Problemy Zarzadzania, 2/2019(82), 186–204.
https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.82.10
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). Societal security Business continuity
management systems Guidance ISO/DIS 22313. BSI Publishing House.
Ishak, A. W., & Williams, E. A. (2018). A dynamic model of organizational resilience:
Adaptive and anchored approaches. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 23(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2017-0037
Jaaron, A. A. M., & Backhouse, C. J. (2014). Service organisations resilience through the
application of the vanguard method of systems thinking: A case study approach.
International Journal of Production Research, 52(7), 2026–2041.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.847291
Jansson, C. (2018). Financial Resilience: The Role Of Financial Balance, Profitability, And
Ownership. In The Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp.
111–132). Springer Nature.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366
Jilani, M. M. A. K., Fan, L., Nusrat, M., & Uddin, M. A. (2019). Empirical study on the
Antecedents predicting Organizational Resilience of Small and Medium Enterprises in
Bangladesh. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUS, 10(2), 138–145.
https://doi.org/10.23925/2179-3565.2019v10i2p138-145

150
Jorion, P. (1985). International Portfolio Diversification with Estimation Risk. Journal of
Business, 58(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1086/296296
Kahn, W. A., Barton, M. A., Fisher, C. M., Heaphy, E. D., Reid, E. M., & Rouse, E. D. (2018).
The Geography of Strain: Organizational Resilience As a Function of Intergroup
Relations. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 509–529.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0004
Kaldor, N. (1972). The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics. The Economic Journal,
82(328), 1237–1255. https://doi.org/10.2307/2231304
Kantur, D., & Iseri-Say, A. (2012). Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative
framework. Journal of Management and Organization, 18(6), 762–773.
Kantur, D., & Say, A. I. (2015). Measuring organizational resilience: A scale development.
Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4(3).
Karman, A. (2020). An examination of factors influencing the application of mechanisms of
organizations’ resilience to weather extremes. Business Strategy and the Environment,
29(1), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2364
Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A Causal Model of Linkages Among Environmental
Dimensions, Macro Organizational Characteristics, and Performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/256460
Kerr, H. (2016). Organizational Resilience. Quality, 55(7), 40–43.
Keyhani, M., Lévesque, M., & Madhok, A. (2015). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial rents:
A simulation of the market process. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 76–96.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2203
Kirtley, J., & O’Mahony, S. (2020). What is a pivot? Explaining when and how entrepreneurial
firms decide to make strategic change and pivot. Strategic Management Journal, 1(34).
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3131

151
Kolay, M. K. (2016). Measurement of Organizational Resilience—An Approach. Productivity,
57(3), 300–309.
Korber, S., & McNaughton, R. B. (2018). Resilience and entrepreneurship: A systematic
literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
24(7), 1129–1154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2016-0356
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy. Annual
Review of Psychology, 51(1), 481. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481
Koronis, E., & Ponis, S. (2018). A strategic approach to crisis management and organizational
resilience. Emerald.
Koronis, Epaminondas, & Ponis, S. (2018). Better than before: The resilient organization in
crisis mode. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-
10-2016-0124
Krijnen, H. G. (1979). The flexible firm. Long Range Planning, 12(2), 63–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(79)90074-8
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting Interorganizational Research
Using Key Informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256824
Kyratsis, Y., Atun, R., Phillips, N., Tracey, P., & George, G. (2017). Health Systems in
Transition: Professional Identity Work in the Context of Shifting Institutional Logics.
Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 610–641.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0684
Labaka, L., Hernantes, J., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2016). A holistic framework for building critical
infrastructure resilience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 21–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.005

152
Lalonde, C. (2007). The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to
Crisis Management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(2), 95–104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00508.x
Lampel, J., Bhalla, A., & Jha, P. P. (2014). Does governance confer organisational resilience?
Evidence from UK employee owned businesses. European Management Journal,
32(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.06.009
Lee, A. V., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Developing a tool to measure and compare
organizations’ resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 14(1), 29–41.
Lee, J. H., Nam, S. K., Kim, A.-R., Kim, B., Lee, M. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2013). Resilience: A
Meta-Analytic Approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(3), 269–279.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00095.x
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2003). Beyond bouncing back: The concept of
organizational resilience. Academy of Management Organization and Management
Theory Division.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2005). Adaptive Fit Versus Robust Transformation: How
Organizations Respond to Environmental Change. Journal of Management, 31(5),
738–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279367
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2009). Resilience capacity and strategic agility:
Prerequisites for thriving in a dynamic environment. Working Paper of the University
of Texas at San Antonio, College of Business, 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1.1.711.3690
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001

153
Leszczynska, A. (2018). Mechanisms of Organisational Resilience to Weather Extremes—An
Attempt of Identification. International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on
Social Sciences & Arts SGEM, 5, 663–670. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2018/1.5
Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.7.934
Levinthal, D., & Myatt, J. (1994). Co-Evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution
of Mutual Fund Processing. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 45–62.
Linnenluecke, M., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Beyond Adaptation: Resilience for Business in Light
of Climate Change and Weather Extremes. Business & Society, 49(3), 477–511.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310368814
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of
Influential Publications and a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 19(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12076
Linnenluecke, M. K., Griffiths, A., & Winn, M. (2012). Extreme Weather Events and the
Critical Importance of Anticipatory Adaptation and Organizational Resilience in
Responding to Impacts. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(1), 17–32.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.708
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2004). International Diversification and Firm Performance: The
S-Curve Hypothesis. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 598–609.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159604
Luan, S., Reb, J., & Gigerenzer, G. (2019). Ecological Rationality: Fast-and-Frugal Heuristics
for Managerial Decision Making under Uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal,
62(6), 1735–1759. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0172

154
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting
performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 21(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20034
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of
psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—Employee performance
relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219–238.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.507
Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A General Contingency Theory of Management. The
Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/257902
Ma, Z., Xiao, L., & Yin, J. (2018). Toward a dynamic model of organizational resilience.
Nankai Business Review International, 9(3), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-
07-2017-0041
Mafabi, S., Munene, J. C., & Ahiauzu, A. (2015). Creative climate and organisational
resilience: The mediating role of innovation. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 23(4), 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2012-0596
Mallak, L. (1998). Putting organizational resilience to work. Industrial Management, 40(6), 8–
13.
Mamouni Limnios, E. A., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. M. (2014). The
Resilience Architecture Framework: Four organizational archetypes. European
Management Journal, 32(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.11.007
Management Today. (2015). Why Resilience Is the Key to Success. Management Today, 58–
61.
Manfield, R. C., & Newey, L. R. (2018). Resilience as an entrepreneurial capability:
Integrating insights from a cross-disciplinary comparison. International Journal of

155
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1155–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0368
Manfield, R., & Newey, L. (2015). Escaping the Collapse Trap: Remaining Capable Without
Capabilities. Strategic Change, 24(4), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2016
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Markman, G. M., & Venzin, M. (2014). Resilience: Lessons from banks that have braved the
economic crisis—And from those that have not. International Business Review, 23(6),
1096–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.06.013
Martinelli, E., Tagliazucchi, G., & Marchi, G. (2018). The resilient retail entrepreneur:
Dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1222–1243.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0386
McDonald, R., & Gao, C. (2019). Pivoting Isn’t Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in
New Ventures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1289–1318.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1287
McDonald, R. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2019). Parallel Play: Startups, Nascent Markets, and
Effective Business-model Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2), 483–523.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219852349
McIndoe, B. (2009). Decade of Risk. Risk Management, 56(10), 22,24,26-27.
McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Brunsdon, D. (2008). Facilitated process for improving
organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 9(2), 81–90.
Mendonça, D., & Wallace, W. A. (2015). Factors underlying organizational resilience: The
case of electric power restoration in New York City after 11 September 2001.

156
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 83–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.017
Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to Environmental Jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly,
27(4), 515–537. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392528
Meyer, A. D., Brooks, G. R., & Goes, J. B. (1990). Environmental Jolts and Industry
Revolutions: Organizational Responses to Discontinuous Change. Strategic
Management Journal, 11, 93–110.
Michel‐Villarreal, R., Vilalta‐Perdomo, E., Hingley, M., & Canavari, M. (2019). Evaluating
economic resilience for sustainable agri-food systems: The case of Mexico. Strategic
Change, 28(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2270
Mintzberg, H. (1979). An Emerging Strategy of ‘Direct’ Research. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(4), 582–589. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392364
Mitsakis, F. V. (2020). Human resource development (HRD) resilience: A new ‘success
element’ of organizational resilience? Human Resource Development International,
23(3), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2019.1669385
Mockler, R. J. (1971). Situational theory of management. Harvard Business Review, 49(3),
146–155.
Morais-Storz, M., Stoud Platou, R., & Berild Norheim, K. (2018). Innovation and
metamorphosis towards strategic resilience. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1181–1199. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-
0369
Morales, S. N., Martínez, L. R., Gómez, J. A. H., López, R. R., & Torres-Argüelles, V. (2019).
Predictors of organizational resilience by factorial analysis. International Journal of
Engineering Business Management, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979019837046

157
Mzid, I. (2017). Family Capital and Organizational Resilience of the Family Firm in Tunisia.
In S. Basly (Ed.), Family Businesses in the Arab World: Governance, Strategy, and
Financing (pp. 41–61). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-57630-5_4
Mzid, I., Khachlouf, N., & Soparnot, R. (2019). How does family capital influence the
resilience of family firms? Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 249–277.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0226-7
Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm
performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(3), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.576
Nath, D., & Sudharshan, D. (1994). Measuring Strategy Coherence Through Patterns of
Strategic Choices. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 43–61. JSTOR.
Neffke, F., & Henning, M. (2013). Skill relatedness and firm diversification. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2014
Neth, H., Meder, B., Kothiyal, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Homo Heuristicus in the Financial
World: From Risk Management to Managing Uncertainty. Journal of Risk Management
in Financial Institutions, 7(2), 8.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An
assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2),
121–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.573
Newbert, S. L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A
conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 745–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.686
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation? Academy of
Management Journal, 39(5), 1245–1264. https://doi.org/10.2307/256998

158
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008).
Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for
Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1/2), 127–150.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6
Nuruzzaman, N., Singh, D., & Gaur, A. S. (2020). Institutional support, hazards, and
internationalization of emerging market firms. Global Strategy Journal, 10(2), 361–
385. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1365
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an Attention-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management
Journal (1986-1998); Chichester, 18(Summer Special Issue), 187.
Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to Attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286–1296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0602
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–
206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How
managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present,
and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2016). The long-term benefits of organizational
resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal,
37(8), 1615–1631. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2410

159
Oudhuis, M. (2018). Organizational Resilience And Stagnation At A Fashion Company. In The
Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 181–196). Springer
Nature.
Pal, R., Torstensson, H., & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in
economic crises—An empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs.
International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 410–428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.031
Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Repenning, N. P. (2002). The Speed Trap: Exploring the
Relationship Between Decision Making and Temporal Context. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(5), 931–955. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069323
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View.
Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice.
Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.267
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
Piscitello, L. (2004). Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 757–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth030
Porter, M. E. (1980). Industry Structure and Competitive Strategy: Keys to Profitability.
Financial Analysts Journal, 36(4), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v36.n4.30
Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive Advantage, Agglomeration Economies, and Regional
Policy. International Regional Science Review, 19(1–2), 85–90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769601900208

160
Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business
Review, November-December 1998. https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-
economics-of-competition
Powell, T. C. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical considerations.
Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.173
Powley, E. H. (2013). The Process and Mechanisms of Organizational Healing. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312471192
Powley, E. H., & Piderit, S. K. (2008). Tending Wounds: Elements of the Organizational
Healing Process. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 134–149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308314842
Pradhan, R. K., & Bhattacharyya, P. (2018). Building organisational resilience: Role of
cherishing at work. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation
Management, 22(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2018.10012590
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage Between
Diversity and Performance. Strategic Management Journal; Chicago, 7(6), 485.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a Field of Study: Why Search for a New
Paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5–16.
Prayag, G. (2018). Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience and crisis
management in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 133–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.012
QSR International. (n.d.). NVIVO (Release 1.4 (4349)) [Computer software]. QSR
International Pty Ltd.
Reinmoeller, P., & Baardwijk, N. van. (2005). The Link Between Diversity and Resilience.
MIT Sloan Management Review; Cambridge, 46(4), 61.

161
Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of
innovation implementation. Organization Science, 13(2), 109–127.
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution
Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly,
47(2), 265–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094806
Rhodes, D., & Stelter, D. (2009). Seize Advantage in a DOWNTURN. Harvard Business
Review, 87(2), 50–58.
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10020
Richtnér, A., & Löfsten, H. (2014). Managing in turbulence: How the capacity for resilience
influences creativity. R&D Management, 44(2), 137–151.
https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12050
Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2003). Information system organizational resilience. Omega, 31(3),
227–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(03)00023-9
Romanelli, E. (1991). The Evolution of New Organizational Forms. Annual Review of
Sociology, 17(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000455
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1986). Inertia, Environments and Strategic Choice: A
Quasi-Experimental Design for Comparative-Longitudinal Research. Management
Science, 32(5), 608–621. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.608
Royer, S., Simons, R., Boyd, B., & Rafferty, A. (2008). Promoting Family: A Contingency
Model of Family Business Succession. Family Business Review, 21(1), 15–30.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00108.x
Rudolph, J. W., & Repenning, N. P. (2002). Disaster Dynamics: Understanding the Role of
Quantity in Organizational Collapse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3094889

162
Rugman, A. M. (1976). Risk Reduction by International Diversification. Journal of
International Business Studies; Basingstoke, 7(2), 75.
Ruiz-Martin, C., Rios, J. M. P., Wainer, G., Pajares, J., Hernández, C., & López-Paredes, A.
(2017). The application of the viable system model to enhance organizational
resilience. In Advances in Management Engineering (pp. 95–107). Springer.
Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Diversification Strategy and Profitability. Strategic Management
Journal, 3(4), 359–369. JSTOR.
Sahebjamnia, N., Torabi, S. A., & Mansouri, S. A. (2015). Integrated business continuity and
disaster recovery planning: Towards organizational resilience. European Journal of
Operational Research, 242(1), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.055
Sahebjamnia, Navid, Torabi, S. A., & Mansouri, S. A. (2018). Building organizational
resilience in the face of multiple disruptions. International Journal of Production
Economics, 197, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.12.009
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition. Strategic Management
Journal, 16(SPECIAL ISSUE), 135.
Santoro, G., Messeni-Petruzzelli, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2020). Searching for resilience: The
impact of employee-level and entrepreneur-level resilience on firm performance in
small family firms. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-
00319-x
Sawalha, I. H. S. (2015). Managing adversity: Understanding some dimensions of
organizational resilience. Management Research Review, 38(4), 346–366.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0010
Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Day, G. S. (2009). How to Make Sense of Weak Signals. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 50(3), 81–89.

163
Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden
within the Language of Contingency ‘Theory.’ Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(3), 349–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392512
Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research programme. In
Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development (pp. 373–393).
Oxford.
Senbeto, D. L., & Hon, A. H. Y. (2020). Market turbulence and service innovation in
hospitality: Examining the underlying mechanisms of employee and organizational
resilience. The Service Industries Journal, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1734573
Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J., Wilkinson, S., & Vargo, J. (2008).
Organisational resilience: Researching the reality of New Zealand organisations.
Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 2(3), 258–266.
Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B. Jr. (2005). A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41–48.
Shimizu, K., & Hitt, M. A. (2004). Strategic Flexibility: Organizational Preparedness to
Reverse Ineffective Strategic Decisions. The Academy of Management Executive
(1993-2005), 18(4), 44–59. JSTOR.
Siltaloppi, J., Laurila, J., & Artto, K. (2019). In the service of a higher good: Resilience of
academics under managerial control. Organization, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419890084
Simmie, J., & Martin, R. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolutionary
approach. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 27–43.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp029

164
Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of
the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94–101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103258144
Sincorá, L. A., Oliveira, M. P. V. de, Zanquetto-Filho, H., & Ladeira, M. B. (2018). Business
analytics leveraging resilience in organizational processes. RAUSP Management
Journal, 53(3), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-04-2018-002
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic
Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of
Management Review, 32(1), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23466005
Smallbone, D., Deakins, D., Battisti, M., & Kitching, J. (2012). Small business responses to a
major economic downturn: Empirical perspectives from New Zealand and the United
Kingdom. International Small Business Journal, 30(7), 754–777.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612448077
Somers, S. (2009). Measuring Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for Organizational
Crisis Planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1), 12–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00558.x
Starr, R., Newfrock, J., & Delurey, M. (2003). Enterprise resilience: Managing risk in the
networked economy. Strategy and Business, 30, 70–79.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat Rigidity Effects in
Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(4), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392337
Sterman, J. D., Henderson, R., Beinhocker, E. D., & Newman, L. I. (2007). Getting Big Too
Fast: Strategic Dynamics with Increasing Returns and Bounded Rationality.
Management Science, 53(4), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0673

165
Sterman, J. D., & Repenning, N. P. (1997). Unanticipated side effects of successful quality
programs: Exploring a paradox of organizational... Management Science, 43(4), 503.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.503
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In Handbook of qualitative
research (Vol. 17, pp. 273–285).
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. SAGE.
Stubbart, C. I. (1989). Managerial cognition: A missing link in strategic management research.
Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 325–347.
Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Branicki, L. (2011). Creating resilient SMEs: Why one size might not
fit all. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5565–5579.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563837
Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Wilson, D. C. (2009). Managing the Threat of Terrorism in British
Travel and Leisure Organizations. Organization Studies, 30(2–3), 251–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608101480
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing For Resilience. In Positive Organizational
Scholarship (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.
Sweya, L. N., Wilkinson, S., Kassenga, G., & Mayunga, J. (2020). Developing a tool to
measure the organizational resilience of Tanzania’s water supply systems. Global
Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(2), 6–19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21985
Tadić, D., & Aleksić, A. (2013). Ranking organizational resilience factors in enterprises using
a modified fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Ekonomski Horizonti, 15(3), 181–196.
https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonhor1303181T

166
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). A Clinical Approach to Posttraumatic Growth. In
Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 405–419). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939338.ch25
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–
1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J. (2014a). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational
enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8–37. JSTOR.
Teece, D. J. (2014b). The Foundations of Enterprise Performance: Dynamic and Ordinary
Capabilities in an (economic) Theory of Firms. Academy of Management Perspectives,
28(4), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0116
Teece, D. J. (2017). Towards a capability theory of (innovating) firms: Implications for
management and policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), 693–720.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew063
Teece, D. J. (2019). A capability theory of the firm: An economics and (Strategic) management
perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(1), 1–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2017.1371208
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 23(1), 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)90094-9

167
Teixeira, E. de O., & Werther, W. B. (2013). Resilience: Continuous renewal of competitive
advantages. Business Horizons, 56(3), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.009
Tejeiro Koller, M. R., Morcillo Ortega, P., Rodríguez Antón, J. M., & Rubio Andrada, L.
(2017). Corporate culture and long-term survival of Spanish innovative firms.
International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(4), 335–354.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-11-2016-0053
Tengblad, S. (2018a). A Resource-Based Model Of Organizational Resilience. In The
Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 39–56). Springer
Nature.
Tengblad, S. (2018b). Organizational Resilience: Theoretical Framework. In The Resilience
Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 19–38). Springer Nature.
Tengblad, S. (2018c). Resilient Leadership: Lessons from Three Legendary Business Leaders.
In The Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 89–110).
Springer Nature.
Tengblad, S., & Oudhuis, M. (2018a). Conclusions: The Resilience Framework Summarized.
In The Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 233–248).
Springer Nature.
Tengblad, S., & Oudhuis, M. (2018b). Conclusions: The Resilience Framework Summarized.
In The Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained Viability (pp. 233–248).
Springer Nature.
Tengblad, S., & Oudhuis, M. (2018c). Organization Resilience: What Makes Companies And
Organizations Sustainable? In The Resilience Framework: Organizing for Sustained
Viability (pp. 3–18). Springer Nature.

168
Teo, W. L., Lee, M., & Lim, W.-S. (2017). The relational activation of resilience model: How
leadership activates resilience in an organizational crisis. Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management, 25(3), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12179
The British Standards Institution. (2019). Organizational Resilience Index (No. 3). The British
Standards Institution. https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/our-services/Organizational-
Resilience/
Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J., Parvinen, P., & Kallunki, J. (2005). Managerial cognition, action
and the business model of the firm. Management Decision, 43(6), 789–809.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510603565
Tirole, J. (2001). Corporate Governance. Econometrica, 69(1), 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00177
Tisch, D., & Galbreath, J. (2018). Building organizational resilience through sensemaking: The
case of climate change and extreme weather events. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 27(8), 1197–1208. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2062
Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Contingency Theory: Some Suggested Directions. Journal
of Management, 10(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638401000103
Turgeon, P. (2019). Identifying the Leadership Skills Needed to Develop the Competencies to
Lead in a Postcrisis Organization: A Delphi Study. Brandman University.
Turner, B. A. (1983). The Use of Grounded Theory for the Qualitative Analysis of
Organizational Behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 20(3), 333–348.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00211.x
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

169
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial
performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal,
30(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.738
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of
Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
Valero, J. N., Jung, K., & Andrew, S. A. (2015). Does transformational leadership build
resilient public and nonprofit organizations? Disaster Prevention and Management,
24(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-04-2014-0060
van der Vegt, G. S., Essens, P., Wahlström, M., & George, G. (2015). Managing Risk and
Resilience. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 971–980.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4004
van Notten, Ph. W. F., Sleegers, A. M., & van Asselt, M. B. A. (2005). The future shocks: On
discontinuity and scenario development. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 72(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2003.12.003
Van Trijp, J., Boersma, K., & Groenewegen, P. (2018). Resilience from the real world towards
specific organisational resilience in emergency response organisations. International
Journal of Emergency Management, 14(4), 303–321.
van Trijp, J. M., Ulieru, M., & van Gelder, P. H. (2012). Quantitative modeling of
organizational resilience for Dutch emergency response safety regions. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 226,
666–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X12466371
Verreynne, M.-L., Ho, M., & Linnenluecke, M. (2018). Editorial for the special issue on:
Organizational resilience and the entrepreneurial firm. International Journal of

170
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1122–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2018-533
Villemain, A., & Godon, P. (2017). Toward a resilient organization: The management of
unexpected hazard on the polar traverse. Safety Science, 95, 210–218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.008
Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and
research agenda. 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 3418–3422.
Volberda, H. W. (1997). Building flexible organizations for fast-moving markets. Long Range
Planning, 30(2), 169–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00110-0
Walch, D., & Merante, J. (2008). What is the appropriate business continuity management staff
size? Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 2(3), 240–250.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).
Weick, K. E. (1993). The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch
Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393339
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring High
Performance in an Age of Complexity. Jossey-Bass.
Werran, R. (2019). How resilient are food businesses? Food & Drink Technology, 18, 26–27.
Whiteman, G., Forbes, B. C., Niemelä, J., & Chapin, F. S. (2004). Bringing Feedback and
Resilience of High-latitude Ecosystems into the Corporate Boardroom. AMBIO: A
Journal of the Human Environment, 33(6), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-
7447-33.6.371

171
Whitman, Z. R., Kachali, H., Roger, D., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Short-form version of
the Benchmark Resilience Tool (BRT-53). Measuring Business Excellence, 17(3), 3–
14. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2012-0030
Wicker, P., Filo, K., & Cuskelly, G. (2013). Organizational Resilience of Community Sport
Clubs Impacted by Natural Disasters. Journal of Sport Management, 27(6), 510–525.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.27.6.510
Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017).
Organizational Response to Adversity: Fusing Crisis Management and Resilience
Research Streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733–769.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0134
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach.
American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.
Winn, M., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffiths, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., & Günther, E. (2011). Impacts
from climate change on organizations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 20(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.679
Witmer, H. (2019). Degendering organizational resilience – the Oak and Willow against the
wind. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 34(6), 510–528.
https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2018-0127
Wood, M. D., Wells, E. M., Rice, G., & Linkov, I. (2019). Quantifying and mapping resilience
within large organizations. Omega, 87, 117–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.08.012
Wright, M., & Siegel, D. (2021). Alternative Investments, New Organizational Forms, and
Corporate Governance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0182

172
Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392599
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive Organizational Behavior in the Workplace: The
Impact of Hope, Optimism, and Resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305562
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and
Extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351
Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zaltman, G. (2020).
A Theories-in-Use Approach to Building Marketing Theory. Journal of Marketing,
84(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919888477
Zobel, C. W. (2011). Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster resilience. Decision
Support Systems, 50(2), 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.10.001
Zobel, C. W. (2010). Comparative visualization of predicted disaster resilience. Proceedings
of the 7th International ISCRAM Conference, 1–5.
Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic Capabilities and the Emergence of Intraindustry Differential Firm
Performance: Insights from a Simulation Study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2),
97–125.

173
Back matter
Appendix A – list of studies reviewed (Chapter 1)
Table 9 – studies reviewed, by year of publication
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce19
1
Holling (1973)
Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems
Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics
4, 1-23
M
2
Staw et al., (1981)
Threat Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior:
A Multilevel Analysis
Administrative Science
Quarterly
26(4), 501-524
M
3
Meyer (1982)
Adapting to Environmental Jolts
Administrative Science
Quarterly
27(4), 515-537
M
4
Weick (1993)
The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The
Mann Gulch Disaster
Administrative Science
Quarterly
38(4), 628-652
W
5
Holling (1996)
Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience
In: Engineering Within
Ecological Constraints
-
M
6
Coutu (2002)
How Resilience Works
Harvard Business Review
80(5), 46–55
W
7
Rudolph &
Repenning (2002)
Disaster Dynamics: Understanding the Role of
Quantity in Organizational Collapse
Administrative Science
Quarterly
47(1), 1–30
W
8
Hamel &
Välikangas (2003)
The Quest for Resilience
Harvard Business Review
81(9), 52–63
W
9
Riolli & Savicki
(2003)
Information system organizational resilience
Omega
31(3), 227–
233
W
10
Sutcliffe & Vogus
(2003)
Organizing for Resilience
In: Positive
Organizational
Scholarship
-
M
11
Bruneau et al.
(2003)
A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance
the seismic resilience of communities
Earthquake spectra
19(4), 733-752
M
12
Whiteman et al.
(2004)
Bringing Feedback and Resilience of High-latitude
Ecosystems into the Corporate Boardroom
AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment
33(6), 371-376
E
13
Freeman et al.
(2004)
The Power of Moral Purpose: Sandler O'Neill &
Partners in the Aftermath of September 11th,
2001
Organization
Development Journal
22(4), 69-81
M
14
Sheffi & Rice
(2005)
A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise
MIT Sloan Management
Review
47(1), 41-48
W
15
Lengnick-Hall &
Beck (2005)
Adaptive Fit Versus Robust Transformation: How
Organizations Respond to Environmental Change
Journal of Management
31(5), 738-757
W
16
Gittell et al. (2006)
Relationships, Layoffs, and Organizational
Resilience: Airline Industry Responses to
September 11
The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science
42(3), 300-329
W
17
Youssef & Luthans
(2007)
Positive Organizational Behavior in the Workplace:
The Impact of Hope, Optimism, and Resilience
Journal of Management
33(5), 774-800
W
18
Donnellan et al.
(2007)
Editorial Introduction to the Special Issue on:
Transfer and Diffusion of IT for Organizational
Resilience
Journal of Information
Technology
22(1), 3-4
W
19
Lalonde (2007)
The Potential Contribution of the Field of
Organizational Development to Crisis
Management
Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management
15(2), 95-104
E
20
Vogus & Sutcliffe
(2007)
Organizational resilience: towards a theory and
research agenda
2007 IEEE International
Conference on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics
3418-3422
M
21
Walch & Merante
(2008)
What is the appropriate business continuity
management staff size?
Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency
Planning
2(3), 240-250
E
19
source: W = Web of Science, E = EBSCOhost, M = manual addition

174
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, II (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
22
Seville et al. (2008)
Organisational resilience: Researching the reality
of New Zealand organisations
Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency
Planning
2(3), 258-266
E
23
McManus et al.
(2008)
Facilitated process for improving organizational
resilience
Natural Hazards Review
9(2), 81-90
M
24
Sullivan-Taylor &
Wilson (2009)
Managing the Threat of Terrorism in British Travel
and Leisure Organizations
Organization Studies
30(2-3), 251-
276
W
25
McIndoe (2009)
Decade of Risk
Risk Management
56(10),
22,24,26-27
E
26
Elwood (2009)
Using the disaster crunch/release model in
building organisational resilience
Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency
Planning
3(3), 241-247
E
27
Somers (2009)
Measuring Resilience Potential: An Adaptive
Strategy for Organizational Crisis Planning
Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management
17(1), 12-23
E
28
Hayward et al.
(2010)
Beyond hubris: How highly confident
entrepreneurs rebound to venture again
Journal of Business
Venturing
25(6), 569-578
W
29
Herbane (2010)
The evolution of business continuity management:
A historical review of practices and drivers
Business History
52(6), 978-
1002
W
30
Branzei &
Abdelnour (2010)
Another day, another dollar: Enterprise resilience
under terrorism in developing countries
Journal of International
Business Studies
41(5), 804-825
W
31
Gifun & Karydas
(2010)
Organizational attributes of Highly Reliable
complex systems
Quality and Reliability
Engineering
International
26(1), 53-62
W
32
Gibson (2010)
An integrated approach to managing disruption-
related risk: Life and death in a model community
Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency
Planning
4(3), 246-261
E
33
Bhamra et al.
(2011)
Resilience: the concept, a literature review and
future directions
International Journal of
Production Research
49(18), 5375-
5393
W
34
Burnard & Bhamra
(2011)
Organisational resilience: development of a
conceptual framework for organisational
responses
International Journal of
Production Research
49(18), 5581-
5599
W
35
Lengnick-Hall et al.
(2011)
Developing a capacity for organizational resilience
through strategic human resource management
Human Resource
Management Review
21(3), 243-255
W
36
Zobel (2011)
Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining
disaster resilience
Decision Support
Systems
50(2), 394-403
W
37
Winn et al. (2011)
Impacts from climate change on organizations: a
conceptual foundation
Business Strategy and
the Environment
20(3), 157-173
W
38
Ates & Bititci
(2011)
Change process: a key enabler for building resilient
SMEs
International Journal of
Production Research
49(18), 5601-
5618
W
39
Sullivan-Taylor &
Branicki (2011)
Creating resilient SMEs: why one size might not fit
all
International Journal of
Production Research
49(18), 5565-
5579
W
40
Carmeli &
Markman (2011)
Capture, governance, and resilience: strategy
implications from the history of Rome
Strategic Management
Journal
32(3), 322-341
W
41
Chan (2011)
Enhancing organisational resilience: application of
viable system model and MCDA in a small Hong
Kong company
International Journal of
Production Research
49(18), 5545-
5563
W
42
Linnenluecke et al.
(2012)
Extreme Weather Events and the Critical
Importance of Anticipatory Adaptation and
Organizational Resilience in Responding to
Impacts
Business Strategy and
the Environment
21(1), 17-32
W
43
Smallbone et al.
(2012)
Small business responses to a major economic
downturn: Empirical perspectives from New
Zealand and the United Kingdom
International Small
Business Journal
30(7), 754-777
W

175
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, III (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
44
Kantur & Iseri-Say
(2012)
Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative
framework
Journal of Management
and Organization
18(6). 762-773
W
45
Amann & Jaussaud
(2012)
Family and non-family business resilience in an
economic downturn
Asia Pacific Business
Review
18(2), 203-223
W
46
van Trijp et al.
(2012)
Quantitative modeling of organizational resilience
for Dutch emergency response safety regions
Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part O:
Journal of Risk and
Reliability
226, 666-676
W
47
Fleming (2012)
Ensuring Organizational Resilience in Times of
Crisis
Journal of Global
Business Issues
6(1), 31-34
E
48
Chewning et al.
(2013)
Organizational Resilience and Using Information
and Communication Technologies to Rebuild
Communication Structures
Management
Communication
Quarterly
27(2), 237-263
W
49
Wicker et al.
(2013)
Organizational Resilience of Community Sport
Clubs Impacted by Natural Disasters
Journal of Sport
Management
27(6), 510-525
W
50
Powley (2013)
The Process and Mechanisms of Organizational
Healing
The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science
49(1), 42-68
W
51
Tadić & Aleksić
(2013)
Ranking organizational resilience factors in
enterprises using a modified fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process
Ekonomski horizonti
15(3), 181-196
E
52
Whitman et al.
(2013)
Short-form version of the Benchmark Resilience
Tool (BRT-53)
Measuring Business
Excellence
17(3), 3-14
E
53
Teixeira &
Werther (2013)
Resilience: Continuous renewal of competitive
advantages
Business Horizons
56(3), 333-342
M
54
Lee et al. (2013)
Developing a tool to measure and compare
organizations’ resilience
Natural hazards review
14(1), 29-41
M
55
Bullough et al.
(2014)
Danger zone entrepreneurs: the importance of
resilience and self–efficacy for entrepreneurial
intentions
Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice
38(3), 473-499
W
56
Pal et al. (2014)
Antecedents of organizational resilience in
economic crises—an empirical study of Swedish
textile and clothing SMEs
International Journal of
Production Economics
147, 410-428
W
57
Mamouni Limnios
et al. (2014)
The Resilience Architecture Framework: Four
organizational archetypes
European Management
Journal
32(1), 104-116
W
58
Akgün & Keskin
(2014)
Organisational resilience capacity and firm product
innovativeness and performance
International Journal of
Production Research
52(23), 6918-
6937
W
59
Gilly et al. (2014)
Resilience of organisations and territories: The role
of pivot firms
European Management
Journal
32(4), 596-602
W
60
Richtnér & Löfsten
(2014)
Managing in turbulence: how the capacity for
resilience influences creativity
R&D Management
44(2), 137-151
W
61
Lampel et al.
(2014)
Does governance confer organisational resilience?
Evidence from UK employee owned businesses
European Management
Journal
31(1), 66-72
W
62
Jaaron &
Backhouse (2014)
Service organisations resilience through the
application of the vanguard method of systems
thinking: a case study approach
International Journal of
Production Research
52(7), 2026-
2041
W
63
Duchek (2014)
Growth in the face of crisis: the role of
organizational resilience capabilities
Academy of Management Proceedings
E
64
Ho et al. (2014)
Organizational resilience and the challenge for
human resource management
International Conference on Human
Resource Management and Professional
Development for the Digital Age (HRM&PD)
Proceedings
E

176
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, IV (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
65
Sahebjamnia et al.
(2015)
Integrated business continuity and disaster
recovery planning: Towards organizational
resilience
European Journal of
Operational Research
242(1). 261-
273
W
66
Sawalha (2015)
Managing adversity: understanding some
dimensions of organizational resilience
Management Research
Review
38(4), 346-366
W
67
Mendonça &
Wallace (2015)
Factors underlying organizational resilience: The
case of electric power restoration in New York City
after 11 September 2001
Reliability Engineering &
System Safety
141, 83-91
W
68
Valero et al.
(2015)
Does transformational leadership build resilient
public and nonprofit organizations?
Disaster Prevention and
Management
24(1), 4-20
W
69
Mafabi et al.
(2015)
Creative climate and organisational resilience: the
mediating role of innovation
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
23(4), 564-587
W
70
Cavaco &
Machado (2015)
Sustainable competitiveness based on resilience
and innovation – an alternative approach
International Journal of
Management Science
and Engineering
Management
10(2), 155-164
W
71
Manfield & Newey
(2015)
Escaping the Collapse Trap: Remaining Capable
Without Capabilities
Strategic Change
24(4), 373-387
W
72
Management
Today (2015)
Why Resilience Is the Key to Success
Management Today
58-61
E
73
van der Vegt et al.
(2015)
Managing Risk and Resilience
Academy of
Management Journal
58(4), 971-980
E
74
Castellacci (2015)
Institutional Voids or Organizational Resilience?
Business Groups, Innovation, and Market
Development in Latin America
World Development
70, 43-58
E
75
Ortiz‐de‐
Mandojana &
Bansal (2016)
The long-term benefits of organizational resilience
through sustainable business practices
Strategic Management
Journal
37(8), 1615-
1631
W
76
Annarelli &
Nonino (2016)
Strategic and operational management of
organizational resilience: Current state of research
and future directions
Omega
62, 1-18
W
77
De Carvalho et al.
(2016)
Organizational resilience: A comparative study
between innovative and non-innovative
companies based on the financial performance
analysis
International Journal of
Innovation
4(1), 58-69
W
78
Kolay (2016)
Measurement of Organizational Resilience - An
Approach
Productivity
57(3), 300-309
E
79
Kerr (2016)
Organizational Resilience
Quality
55(7), 40-43
E
80
Chen (2016)
Construction of an Early Risk Warning Model of
Organizational Resilience: An Empirical Study
Based on Samples of R&D Teams
Discrete Dynamics in
Nature and Society
2016
E
81
Andrew et al.
(2016)
Sources of organisational resiliency during the
Thailand floods of 2011: a test of the bonding and
bridging hypotheses
Disasters
40(1), 65-84
E
82
Breda (2016)
Building Resilient Human Service Organizations
Human Service
Organizations:
Management,
Leadership &
Governance
40(1), 62-73
E
83
Buliga et al. (2016)
Business model innovation and organizational
resilience: towards an integrated conceptual
framework
Zeitschrift für
Betriebswirtschaft;
Heidelberg
86(6), 647-670
E

177
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, V (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
84
Clément & Rivera
(2017)
From Adaptation to Transformation: An Extended
Research Agenda for Organizational Resilience to
Adversity in the Natural Environment
Organization &
Environment
30(4), 346-365
W
85
Teo et al. (2017)
The relational activation of resilience model: How
leadership activates resilience in an organizational
crisis
Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management
25(3), 136-147
W
86
Conz et al. (2017)
The resilience strategies of SMEs in mature
clusters
Journal of Enterprising
Communities
25(3), 136-147
W
87
Gimenez et al.
(2017)
Improving the resilience of disaster management
organizations through virtual communities of
practice: A Delphi study
Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management
25(3), 160-170
W
88
Dalgaard‐Nielsen
(2017)
Organizational resilience in national security
bureaucracies: Realistic and practicable?
Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management
25(4), 341-349
W
89
Villemain & Godon
(2017)
Toward a resilient organization: The management
of unexpected hazard on the polar traverse
Safety Science
95, 210-218
W
90
(Ruiz-Martin et al.,
2017)
The application of the viable system model to
enhance organizational resilience
In: Advances in Management Engineering
W
91
Tejeiro Koller et al.
(2017)
Corporate culture and long-term survival of
Spanish innovative firms
International Journal of
Innovation Science
9(4), 335-354
W
92
Mzid (2017)
Family Capital and Organizational Resilience of the
Family Firm in Tunisia
Contributions to
Management Science
41-61
W
93
Blades (2017)
Organisational resilience: What does it mean?
Governance Directions
69(11), 669-
671
E
94
Asch & Mulligan
(2017)
Organizational Resiliency: The World-Famous San
Diego Zoo Way
Leader to Leader
2017(83), 53-
58
E
95
Linnenluecke
(2017)
Resilience in Business and Management Research:
A Review of Influential Publications and a Research
Agenda
International Journal of
Management Reviews
19(1), 4-30
M
96
Williams et al.
(2017)
Organizational Response to Adversity: Fusing Crisis
Management and Resilience Research Streams
Academy of
Management Annals
11(2), 733-769
M
97
Sahebjamnia et al.
(2018)
Building organizational resilience in the face of
multiple disruptions
International Journal of
Production Economics
197, 63-83
W
98
Korber &
McNaughton
(2018)
Resilience and entrepreneurship: a systematic
literature review
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research
24(7), 1129-
1154
W
99
Kahn et al. (2018)
The Geography of Strain: Organizational Resilience
As a Function of Intergroup Relations
Academy of
Management Review
43(3), 509-529
W
100
Prayag (2018)
Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding
resilience and crisis management in tourism
Tourism Management
Perspectives
25, 133-135
W
101
Tisch & Galbreath
(2018)
Building organizational resilience through
sensemaking: The case of climate change and
extreme weather events
Business Strategy and
the Environment
27(8), 1197-
1208
W
102
Duchek (2018)
Entrepreneurial resilience: a biographical analysis
of successful entrepreneurs
International
Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal
14(2), 429-455
W
103
Burnard et al.
(2018)
Building organizational resilience: Four
configurations
IEEE transactions on
engineering
management
65(3), 351-362
W
104
Carlson (2018)
Vigilant resilience: the possibilities for renewal
through preparedness
Corporate
Communications: An
International Journal
23(2), 212-225
W

178
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, VI (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
105
Manfield & Newey
(2018)
Resilience as an entrepreneurial capability:
integrating insights from a cross-disciplinary
comparison
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research
24(7), 1155-
1180
W
106
Martinelli et al.
(2018)
The resilient retail entrepreneur: dynamic
capabilities for facing natural disasters
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research
24(7), 1222-
1243
W
107
Andersson (2018)
Followership: An Important Social Resource for
Organizational Resilience
In: The Resilience Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
W
108
Branicki et al.
(2018)
How entrepreneurial resilience generates resilient
SMEs
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research
24(7), 1244-
1263
W
109
Edström (2018)
Business Clusters and Organizational Resilience
In: The Resilience Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
W
110
Bouaziz & Smaoui
Hachicha (2018)
Strategic human resource management practices
and organizational resilience
Journal of Management
Development
37(7), 537-551
W
111
Ishak & Williams
(2018)
A dynamic model of organizational resilience:
adaptive and anchored approaches
Corporate
Communications: An
International Journal
23(2), 180-196
W
112
Morais-Storz et al.
(2018)
Innovation and metamorphosis towards strategic
resilience
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research
24(7), 1181-
1199
W
113
Tengblad &
Oudhuis (2018a)
Conclusions: The Resilience Framework
Summarized
In: The Resilience Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
W
114
Carden et al.
(2018)
Organizational resilience: A look at McDonald’s in
the fast food industry
Organizational Dynamics
47(1), 25-31
W
115
Gover & Duxbury
(2018)
Inside the Onion: Understanding What Enhances
and Inhibits Organizational Resilience
The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science
54(4), 477-501
W
116
Sincorá et al.
(2018)
Business analytics leveraging resilience in
organizational processes
RAUSP Management
Journal
53(3), 385-403
W
117
Van Trijp et al.
(2018)
Resilience from the real world towards specific
organisational resilience in emergency response
organisations
International journal of
emergency management
14(4), 303-321
W
118
Tengblad (2018c)
Resilient Leadership: Lessons from Three
Legendary Business Leaders
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
89-110
W
119
Verreynne et al.
(2018)
Editorial for the special issue on: organizational
resilience and the entrepreneurial firm
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research
24(7), 1122-
1128
W
120
Tengblad (2018a)
A Resource-Based Model Of Organizational
Resilience
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
39-56
W
121
Jansson (2018)
Financial Resilience: The Role Of Financial Balance,
Profitability, And Ownership
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
111-132
W
122
Tengblad &
Oudhuis (2018c)
Organization Resilience: What Makes Companies
And Organizations Sustainable?
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
3-18
W
123
Tengblad (2018b)
Organizational Resilience: Theoretical Framework
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
19-38
W
124
Eriksson (2018)
Followership For Organizational Resilience In
Health Care
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
163-180
W

179
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, VII (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
125
Oudhuis (2018)
Organizational Resilience And Stagnation At A
Fashion Company
In: The Resilience
Framework: Organizing
for Sustained Viability
181-196
W
126
Ma et al. (2018)
Toward a dynamic model of organizational
resilience
Nankai Business Review
International
9(3), 246-263
W
127
Butler (2018)
Five steps to organisational resilience: Being
adaptive and flexible during both normal
operations and times of disruption
Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency
Planning
12(2), 103-112
E
128
Hillmann et al.
(2018)
Educating Future Managers for Developing
Resilient Organizations: The Role of Scenario
Planning
Journal of Management
Education
42(4), 461-495
E
129
Barasa et al.
(2018)
What Is Resilience and How Can It Be Nurtured? A
Systematic Review of Empirical Literature on
Organizational Resilience
International Journal of
Health Policy and
Management
7(6), 491-503
E
130
Pradhan &
Bhattacharyya
(2018)
Building organisational resilience: role of
cherishing at work
International Journal of
Entrepreneurship &
Innovation Management
22(3), 269-285
E
131
Collier (2018)
An examination of the impact of diverse
internationalization experience on organizational
resilience and a test of the Resilience Architecture
Framework
Dissertation Auburn University
E
132
Leszczynska
(2018)
Mechanisms of Organisational Resilience to
Weather Extremes - an Attempt of Identification
International Multidisci-
plinary Scientific
Conference on Social
Sciences & Arts SGEM
5, 663-670
E
133
Koronis & Ponis
(2018)
Better than before: the resilient organization in
crisis mode
Journal of Business
Strategy
39(1), 32-42
M
134
DesJardine et al.
(2019)
Bouncing Back: Building Resilience Through Social
and Environmental Practices in the Context of the
2008 Global Financial Crisis
Journal of Management
45(4), 1434-
1460
W
135
Branicki et al.
(2019)
Why resilience managers aren’t resilient, and what
human resource management can do about it
The International Journal
of Human Resource
Management
30(8), 1261-
1286
W
136
Wood et al. (2019)
Quantifying and mapping resilience within large
organizations
Omega
87, 117-126
W
137
Mzid et al. (2019)
How does family capital influence the resilience of
family firms?
Journal of International
Entrepreneurship
17(2), 249-277
W
138
Darkow (2019)
Beyond “bouncing back”: Towards an integral,
capability-based understanding of organizational
resilience
Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management
27(2), 145-156
W
139
Herbane (2019)
Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic
renewal in SMEs
Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development
31(5-6), 476-
495
W
140
Barton & Kahn
(2019)
Group Resilience: The Place and Meaning of
Relational Pauses
Organization Studies
40(9), 1409-
1429
W
141
Witmer (2019)
Degendering organizational resilience – the Oak
and Willow against the wind
Gender in Management:
An International Journal
34(6), 510-528
W
142
Andersson et al.
(2019)
Building traits for organizational resilience through
balancing organizational structures
Scandinavian Journal of
Management
35(1), 36-45
W
143
Hsu et al. (2019)
Resilience and risks of cross-border mergers and
acquisitions
Multinational Business
Review
27(4), 427-450
W
144
Siltaloppi et al.
(2019)
In the service of a higher good: Resilience of
academics under managerial control
Organization
1-22
W
145
Haase & Eberl
(2019)
The Challenges of Routinizing for Building Resilient
Startups
Journal of Small Business
Management
57(2), 579-597
W

180
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, VIII (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
146
Michel‐Villarreal
et al. (2019)
Evaluating economic resilience for sustainable
agri-food systems: The case of Mexico
Strategic Change
28(4), 279-288
W
147
Jilani et al. (2019)
Empirical study on the Antecedents predicting
Organizational Resilience of Small and Medium
Enterprises in Bangladesh
Journal on Innovation
and Sustainability RISUS
10(2), 138-145
W
148
Morales et al.
(2019)
Predictors of organizational resilience by factorial
analysis
International Journal of
Engineering Business
Management
11
W
149
Ingram &
Bratnicka-
Myśliwiec (2019)
Organizational Resilience of Family Businesses
Problemy Zarzadzania
2/2019(82),
186-204
W
150
Turgeon (2019)
Identifying the Leadership Skills Needed to
Develop the Competencies to Lead in a Postcrisis
Organization: A Delphi Study
Dissertation Brandman
University
E
151
Werran (2019)
How resilient are food businesses?
Food & Drink Technology
18, 26-27
E
152
Beuren & dos
Santos (2019)
Enabling and coercive management control
systems and organizational resilience
Sistemas de controle
gerencial habilitantes e
coercitivos e resiliência
organizacional
30(81), 307-
323
E
153
Bang et al. (2019)
Evaluating local vulnerability and organisational
resilience to frequent flooding in Africa: the case
of Northern Cameroon
Foresight
21(2), 266-284
E
154
Al-Ayed (2019)
The Impact of Strategic Human Resource
Management on Organizational Resilience: An
Empirical Study on Hospitals
Business: Theory &
Practice
20, 179-186
E
155
Carmeli et al.
(2020)
Resilience of sustainability-oriented and
financially-driven organizations
Business Strategy and
the Environment
29(1), 154-169
W
156
Mitsakis (2020)
Human resource development (HRD) resilience: a
new ‘success element’ of organizational
resilience?
Human Resource
Development
International
23(3), 321-328
W
157
Karman (2020)
An examination of factors influencing the
application of mechanisms of organizations'
resilience to weather extremes
Business Strategy and
the Environment
29(1), 276-290
W
158
Cruickshank
(2020)
He who defends everything, defends nothing:
proactivity in organizational resilience
Transnational
Corporations Review
1-11
W
159
Hillmann (2020)
Disciplines of organizational resilience:
contributions, critiques, and future research
avenues
Review of Managerial
Science
1-58
W
160
Senbeto & Hon
(2020)s
Market turbulence and service innovation in
hospitality: examining the underlying mechanisms
of employee and organizational resilience
The Service Industries
Journal
1-21
W
161
Santoro et al.
(2020)
Searching for resilience: the impact of employee-
level and entrepreneur-level resilience on firm
performance in small family firms
Small Business
Economics
-
W
162
Beech et al. (2020)
In the family way: an exploration of family business
resilience
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
28(1), 160-182
W
163
Conz & Magnani
(2020)
A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A
systematic literature review and a framework for
future research
European Management
Journal
38(3), 400-412
E
164
Gracey (2020)
Building an organisational resilience maturity
framework
Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency
Planning
13(4), 313-327
E

181
Table 9 – Studies reviewed, by year of publication, IX (continued)
#
Study
(authors)
Title
Journal / Proceeding /
Book
Volume
(issue), pages
Sou-
rce
165
Beuren et al.
(2020)
Effects of the Management Control System on
Empowerment and Organizational Resilience
Brazilian Business
Review (English Edition)
17(2), 211-232
E
166
Filimonau &
Coteau (2020)
Tourism resilience in the context of integrated
destination and disaster management (DM2)
International Journal of
Tourism Research
22(2), 202-222
E
167
Sweya et al. (2020)
Developing a tool to measure the organizational
resilience of Tanzania's water supply systems
Global Business and
Organizational
Excellence
39(2), 6-19
E
168
Duchek (2020)
Organizational resilience: a capability-based
conceptualization
Business Research
13(1), 215-246
M

182
Appendix B – literature review details (Chapter 1)
Table 10 – literature review summary
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Holling
(1973)
Ecological
systems
“Resilience is the property of
the system and persistence
or probability of extinction is
the result” (p. 17)
Conceptual,
modeling
Under uncertainty and
profound impact, the
persistance of relationships
within a system become more
important than its behaviour (p.
1)
Among two
populations,
different trajectories
(behaviours) can be
observed within the
same system
(outcome)
Fluctuations in
populations
towards
different states
of (in)equilibria
Differentiation between
stability and resilience (p. 17);
Instability could even result in
enhanced resilience (p. 19);
domains of attraction and
persistance (p. 21)
Staw et
al.
(1981)
Organisation,
group and
individual
No formal definition of
resilience
Conceptual,
modeling
Threat-rigidity effects in
response to threats
Under threat, infor-
mation processess-
ing and control vital
Conceptual
Mulit-level analysis shows that
under threat information and
control are restricted
Meyer
(1982)
Organisation,
Hospitals
“Resiliency occurs when
responses create negative
feedback loops that absorb
jolts’ impacts” (p. 520); time
needed to restore prior
levels of service (p. 521)
Natural
experiment
among a
group of 19
hospitals
Departure from equilibria
through severe environmental
jolts; organisations select and
interpret stimuli according to
theories of action (p. 519)
Environmental jolts
trigger a selection of
stimuli which then
triggers the
organisational
response (outcome)
Increase in
organisational
learning; firs-
and second-
order changes
(p. 531)
3 phases of adaptation,
ideological and strategic
variables are better predictors
of adaption than are slack
resources and organisational
structures (p. 534)
Weick
(1993)
Minimal
organisation
First, retain direct, inverse,
relation of structure,
meaning; Second, alienation
(social ties) rises attentive-
ness to meaning, which de-
creases alienation (p. 646)
Observations
via statistical
reports,
statements,
court reports,
photographs
Loss of cohesion of role
structure and organisational
sensemaking in the face of a
crises by virtue of leadership
failures to maintain such
structure in the event of crises
Resilience as an
indication for the
(minimal)
organisations ability
to make sense and
adapt (capacity)
Bricolage,
virtual role
system, wisdom
and respectful
interaction
Four potential sources of re-
silience making teams “less
vulnerable to disruptions of
sensemaking; Organisations
only have a restricted view of
potential challenges arising
Holling
(1996)
Systems
Engineering (p. 36) and
ecological resilience (p. 38)
Conceptual,
modeling
Engineering (focus on
maintaining efficiency of
functioning) and ecological
(maintaining existance of
functioning) (p. 33)
Conceptual
Conceptual
Delineation between
engineering (maintain, stay
within) and ecological
resilience (exist, diversify if
necessary)

183
Table 10 – literature review summary II (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Coutu
(2002)
Individuals,
Organisations
“The skill and the capacity to
be robust under conditions
of enourmous stress and
change” (p. 52)
Conceptual
Three characteristics of resilient
individuals: objective view of
reality, sensemaking of
adversity and the ability to
thrive on available resouces
Individual
characteristics as the
key driver for
resilience (capacity)
Characteristics
as key
determinants of
resilience
Under pressure, individuals
“regress to their most
habituated ways of
responding” (p. 53); Three
main characteristics;
Rudolph &
Repenning
(2002)
Organisation
No formal definition
Conceptual,
Modeling
based on case
studies
Organisational resilience
contigent upon the novelty and
quantity of adverse events
Ongoing stream of
non-novel disrup-
tions beyond the
tipping point shift
the organisation
(outcome)
Performance
(net inter-
ruption reso-
lution rate vs.
stress
Differentiation between
novelty-induced and quantity-
induced crises;
Hamel &
Välikangas
(2003)
Organisation
“the capacity for continuous
reconstruction” (p. 55)
“the ability to dynamically
reinvent business models
and strategies as
circumstances change” (p.
53)
Conceptual
Proactive view of resilience and
the role of the organisation in
trends and dynamics that shape
the organisation and economy
Dynamically adapt
strategy and
business models
(capacity)
Level of trauma
– avoidance of
unexpected
changes in the
organisation
Conceptualisation of strategic
resilience; four main
challenges to becoming a
resilient firm; need for
innovative resilience;
Riolli &
Savicki
(2003)
Organisation,
individual
Ability to respond to
unexpected events without
suffering “extended period
of regressive behaviour”
(Horne III & Orr, 1998 as
cited in Riolli & Savicki,
2003, p. 227); “capitalise on
the ability to absorb change
continuously” (p. 231)
Conceptual,
Modeling
Organisational resilience in
information systems settings in
economically volatile times
Organisational and
individual level
antecedents,
resilience factors,
and consequences
(Fig. 1, p. 229)
(capacity)
Organisational
processes and
structures
individual
differences as
sources of
protection from
disruption
Conceptual integration of
organisational (structure and
processes) and individual level
(appraisal dispositions and
coping styles) to foster
organisational resilience in
information system
organisations

184
Table 10 – literature review summary III (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Sutcliffe &
Vogus
(2003)
Organisation,
Individual
“more specifically (a) the
ability to absorb strain and
preserve (or improve)
functioning despite the
presence of adversity (both
internal adversity […] and
external adversity […]), or
(b) an ability to recover or
bounce back from
untoward events” (p. 96)
Conceptual
In the presence of processes
that foster enhanced
competence, growth and
efficacy, resilient responses of
the organisation, group or
individual (compared with rigid
responses) ultimatively lead to
positive adjustment of the
organisation and thereby
strenthening such capabilities
to yield enhanced future
responses to adverse events
(i.e. organisational learning)
Resilient response
(outcome) as the
behaviour (capacity)
manifested as
broader information
processing,
loosening of
hierarchy controlled
decision-making and
slack capabilities
Structures and
behaviours of
the organisation
when being
faced with
adverse
obstacles –
responses can
be rigid or
resilient
Reconceptualised view of
resilience counters the earlier
threat-rigidity view
(formulated by Staw et al.,
1981); comparing views of
resilience from OT
perspective (recover and
restore) compared with
development perspective
(rebound, become
resourceful and strengthened
in the process);
Bruneau et
al. (2003)
Communities
“. . . community seismic
resilience . . . ability of so-
cial units (e.g., organizat-
ions, communities) to
mitigate hazards . . . and
mitigate the effects of
future earthquakes” (p.
735)
Conceptual,
modeling
Four dimensional view of
community resilience:
technical, organisational, social
and economic
Reduced failure
proabilities, reduced
consequences from
failures, reduced
time to recovery
(outcome)
Resilience as
robustness and
rapidity (ends),
resourcefulness,
redundancy
(means)
Resilient community
framework in response to
natural disasters based on
four dimensions; attempted
quanitication or
measurement of community
seismic resilience
Freeman
et al.
(2004)
Organisation,
Investment
banking
OT proposes that
organisations “are not
resilient – at least not in the
positive sense of being able
to respond effectively to
catastrophic events” (p. 72)
otherwise no formal
definition
Cast study
with 1 firm
Organisation is not resilient ex-
ante but moral purpose can
foster a resilient behaviour of
the organisation ex-post
Moral purpose as
main source of
resiliency (outcome)
Moral purpose
and employee
motivation,
customer and
competitor
behaviour,
business and
structural
opportunities
Moral purpose, behavioural
factors and opportunites
foster positive resilient
behaviour of organisation

185
Table 10 – literature review summary IV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Whiteman
et al.
(2004)
Organisation,
high-
geographical
latitude
Resilience from a socio-
ecological and ecological
perspective; no formal
definition of organisational
resilience
Conceptual,
3 case studies
Organisations in high-lattitude
regions must ought to move
beyond the economic
resilience perspective to socio-
ecological view
Stresses to the
ecosystem impact
organisational
resilience (outcome)
The extend to
which socio-
ecological
resilience is
integrated
Extension of the
organisaitonal resilience view
to integrate ecosystem
resiliency into governance
and organisational structures
Lengnick-
Hall & Beck
(2005)
Organisation
Resilience capacity is
described as “a unique
blend of cognitive,
behavioral, and contextual
properties that increase a
firm’s ability to understand
its current situation and to
develop customized
responses that reflect that
understanding” (p. 750)
Conceptual
Adaptive fit assumes a return
to equilibrium (longer term)
whilst robust transformation
(consciously temporary)
focusses on the constant
change of the firm and its
environment;
different levels of applicability
for adaptive fit and robut
transformation (p. 740-743,
748)
When firms face
uncertainties,
resilience capacity
(capacity) enables a
firm to decide which
responses are
required, such that
the firm decides
between adaptive fit
and robust
transformation
Robust
transformation:
alterations in
control sys-
tems, dynamic
capabilities;
resilience
capacity by
measuring
mindfulness,
sensemaking
Extension of extant view of
adaptive fit towards a more
dynamic view of robust
transformation; introduction
of resilience capacity
operationalised as cognitive,
behavioural and contextual
resilience (validity for both
new constructs is however
only proposed, not tested)
Sheffi &
Rice (2005)
Organisation,
supply chain
“. . . the ability to bounce
back from a disruption.” (p.
41)
Conceptual
Redundancy and flexibility as
the main pillars of resilience
The function of the
competitive position
and the
responsiveness of
the supply chain
Conceptual
Disruption profile in phases of
performance versus time;
disruption vulnerability
framework (probability
versus consequences)
Gittell et
al. (2006)
Organisation,
impact of the
9/11 attacks
on firm
performance
Resiliency is referred to as
the ability to positively
adjust, to bounce back from
adverse events and to
maintain functions during
times of adverse events (p.
303); speed of stock price
recovery (p. 308)
Longitudinal
study of 10 US
airlines,
quarterly
stock price
data between
1987 and
2005
Resilient performance is
expected to be positively
influenced by financial
reserves and the business
model, but negatively by lay-
offs during the crisis
Resilient
performance
(outcome) is
predicted by level of
financial and
relational reserves,
and thus a viable
business model
Speed of stock
price recovery
measured as
current stock
price divided by
stock price on
September 10,
2001
Post-crisis recovery was
significantly and negatively
related to lay-offs; “relational
reserves enable organisations
to establish viable business
models” (p. 313) and
cominatively enable better
ex-post performance

186
Table 10 – literature review summary V (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Youssef &
Luthans
(2007)
Individual
Resilience described as the
ability to recover from both
adverse and positive events
and developments (p. 778)
2 studies with
one 1032
employees
from 135 and
two 232
employees
from 32 US
midwestern
firms
The impact of positive
organisational behaviour
capacities (hope, optimism and
resilience) on “work-related
employee outcomes” (p. 774)
Resilience (capacity,
input variable) as
one of three criteria
determining positive
organisational
behaviour (POB)
Impact of
psychological
resource
capacities on
performance,
job satisfaction,
work happiness,
commitment
Hope seems to more
significantly contribute to
job-related outcomes than
optimism and resilience
Donnellan
et al.
(2007)
Organisation,
Information
technology
Following the definition by
Coutu (2002)
Conceptual
How information technology
innovation can make a firm
more resilient
IT innovation as
predictor of resilient
organisation
(outcome)
Level of IT
innovation as
contributor to
resilience
Various streams within the
information technology field
are reviewed and
conceptualised as predictors
of resiliency
Lalonde
(2007)
Organisation
Resilience as a process that
yields adaptive behaviours
and capacities (p. 98)
Conceptual
Crisis management lacks
specific goals of forming a
resilient organisation,
organisational development
strengthens reslient capacities
Combined crisis
management and
organisational
development
(process, input)
Resilience
operationalised
as combined
disciplines
enabling skills
Conceptual combination of
crisis management (specific
events) and organisational
development
Vogus &
Sutcliffe
(2007)
Organisation
“the maintenance of
positive adjustment under
challenging conditions such
that the organization
emerges from those
conditions strengthened
and more resourceful” (p.
3418)
Conceptual,
Theory of
organisational
resilience
Both ongoing strain and
exogenous shocks create
unstable conditions for
organisations, responses to
which strengthen the current
and future organisation;
differentiation between
anticipatory and resilient
approach towards turbulence
Building recovery
and adaptive as well
as monitoring
capabilities
(capacity); resilient
organisations
constantly test their
assumptions (p.
3419)
The level of
belief that
resilient
organisations
are imperfect
but can become
better through
learning; latent
resources
Resilience as a process
(capacity) as well as a
capability; Emphasis of slack
resources, margin, resource
deployment, opportunities
and flexibility, organisational
learning and the capacities to
bounce back from adverse
and unexpected events

187
Table 10 – literature review summary VI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Walch &
Merante
(2008)
Organisation
Ability to withstand
adversity and “return to
productivity within an
acceptable amount of time”
(p. 240)
Conceptual,
Modeling
Resilient responses require a
team of highly qualified indi-
viduals; Integration of busi-
ness continuity, disaster reco-
very and crisis manage-ment to
define appropriate staffing
Determination of
number of business
and IT staff
necessary for
recovery from
incident (structure)
Staff size based
on structure of
organisational
systems and
infrastructure
Conceptual model of how to
calculate appropriate staff
size in business and IT team to
manage the recovery from
incident
Seville et
al. (2008)
Country,
Organisation
Resilience as “a function of
an organisation’s: situation
awareness, management of
keystone vulnerabilities
and adaptive capacity in a
complex, dynamic and
interconnected
environment” (p. 259)
Initial findings
from
observations
from 6-year
research
programme
in New
Zealand
Economy view: resilience
cannot be achieved by one
company alone but only by
collaboration
Resilience as the
outcome of
collaborative and
networked efforts
(outcome)
Balance, shared
vision,
overcoming
differences,
ongoing
commitment,
organisational
culture
Issues cannot be resolved by
any one single organisation
itself – strong collaboration
between firms is suggested
McManus
et al.
(2008)
(Community)
Organisation
“The ability of organizations
to keep operating in times
of adversity . . .” (p. 81)
Case study
with 10 firms
in New
Zealand
The interconnectedness
between resilience of the
wider community and the
organisations within that
create such resilience
Resilience as the
outcome of situa-
tion awareness,
management of
keystone vulnera-
bilities and adaptive
capacity
Operational,
strategic and
managerial as
physical, human
and process
components
Reconceptualisation of
resilience (community –
organisational perspective);
main pillars: situational
awareness, man-agement of
keystone vulnerabilities and
adaptive capacity
Sullivan-
Taylor &
Wilson
(2009)
Organisation
The ability to bounce back
after the crisis (p. 254)
6 cased
studies with
firms from
the travel and
leisure
industry (TLS)
When managers are faced with
uncertainty, two concepts can
be applied: organisational
resilience and institutional
perspective
Resilience as the
proactive
counterpart to the
institutional view
(process)
Risk assessment
in combination
with action
repertoire
Theories of framing and
action differ across
organisations and depend on
information completeness,
prior experience and
prioritisation; Managers in
aviation take a proactive,
resiliency-driven approach

188
Table 10 – literature review summary VII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
McIndoe
(2009)
Organisation
No formal definition
Conceptual
Risk management as a
necessary antecedent of the
resilient firm
Risk management
includes factors of
resiliency (process)
Risk
management as
an indicator for
resiliency and
continuity
Risk management
conceptualised as an
antecedent of the resilient
firm and business continuity
in the face of shocks
Elwood
(2009)
Organisation
Ability of an organisation to
counter impacts for
exogenous shocks to the
system
Conceptual,
process
modeling
The crunch/release model
adopted from disaster
management applied to
organisational resilience;
Resilience conceptualised
beyond risk management
Identification of
trigger events,
underlying causes
and risk exposure
(process)
Identification of
risk forces,
identification
and mitigation
of such forces
Organisational
crunch/release model
enables organisations to
assess and enhance their
organisational resiliency;
three factors of resilience
Somers
(2009)
Organisation
Review of various
definitions (p. 12-13) but
not formal definition for
this paper
Case study of
municipal
public works
departments
with survey
96 respones
Risk management as the task,
resilience as an outcome or
pattern (p. 21); Disaster
planning based on
organisational resilience
potential (p. 13-14)
Indirectly measuring
resilience as the
organisational
outcome or pattern
(outcome, latent)
Organizational
Resilience
Potential Scale
(ORPS) measure
latent resilience
values in firm
ORPS scale to measure latent
resilience; Organisations that
show higher latent resilience
potential, are more likely to
show adaptive behaviours (p.
13, 17);
Hayward
et al.
(2010)
Individual
(Entrepre-
neur)
Recovery from failure (p.
573); Emotional (p. 573),
cognitive, social (p. 574)
and financial resilience (p.
575)
Conceptual,
Modeling
Behavioural decision theory,
theory of positive emotions
and hubris theory; Resilience
through failure
Emotional,
cognitive, social and
financial resilience
indirect outcome of
overconfidence
(outcome, indirect)
Overconfidence
as a predictor of
subsequent
startup success
in response to
initial failure
Indirect measurement of
resilience; conceptual outline
of relationship between
overconfidence in one’s
abilities and the startup
success of entrepreneurs
Herbane
(2010)
Organisation
Recovery from crisis, no
formal definition outlined
Conceptual
Business continuity
management (BCM) as a form
of organisational crisis
management; resilience as a
meta-institution
Resiliency as an
outcome (outcome,
characteristic)
Resilience is
defined by BCM
and crisis
management
Determination of drivers that
force firms to implement
BCM; BCM as a form of crisis
management; Resilience as
the outcome of such activities

189
Table 10 – literature review summary VIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Branzei &
Abdelnour
(2010)
Organisation,
terrorism
activities
“Coping skills in the face of
unexpected adversity” (p.
806)
Natural
experiment
with 9000
households
2001-2005
Psychological resilience,
enterprise resiliency under
terrorism threat;
entrepreneurial activities
linked with higher levels of risk
(p. 809)
Enterprise resilience
summarised as
household needs
and resourcefulness
(outcome, input,
characteristic)
Enterprise
resilience leads
to better
income on
household level
Enterprise is empirically
shown to have a positive
effect on household income
in the face of adversity
Gifun &
Karydas
(2010)
Organisation
“ability to recover from the
manifestation of a threat by
way of its ability to respond
to an incident” (p. 58)
Case study
through a
workshop
setting with 6
people
Highly Reliable Resilient
Organization (HRRO) as an
extension and combination of
earlier work
Change in HRRO-
level (characteristic)
Assessment of
vulnerability,
prioritisation
and correction
criteria link
HRRO as a reconceptualised
combination of earlier
concepts such as High
Reliability Organization and
Resilient Enterprise
Gibson
(2010)
Organisation
“Resilience is thus a product
of an organisation’s
capabilities interacting with
its environment” (p. 247)
Case study,
model
community
extrapolation
Organisational resilience arises
from an organisation’s capacity
to deal with disturbances (p.
248)
Coping capabilities
determine levels of
organisational
resilience
(capabilities)
Organisational
and personal
attributes and
enabling culture
Resilience was enhanced
through enhanced
organisational and personal
attributes, e.g. tolerance to
ambiguity (p. 259)
Bhamra et
al. (2011)
Organisation,
SMEs,
Resilience in
wider context
“Resilience is […] related to
both the individual and
organisational responses to
turbulence and
discontinuities” (p. 5376)
Conceptual,
literature
review
Resilience in the SME context
Resilience as a
response (capability)
and outcome
“Resilience
against
disruptions to
organisations”
(p. 5377)
Resistant not equal to
resilient; reviewed by
perspectives, topics
(behaviour, dyanmics,
capabilities, strategy and
performance), methods

190
Table 10 – literature review summary IX (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Burnard &
Bhamra
(2011)
Organisation,
SMEs,
organisat-
ional
resilience
“resilience resides in both
the individual and
organisational responses to
turbulence and
discontinuities. This
involves both the ability to
withstand systematic
discontinuities as well as
the capability to adapt to
new risk environments” (p.
5583, following e.g. Starr et
al. (2003))
Conceptual,
modeling
Organisational resilience in the
SME context
Organisational
resilience as the
responses on
organisational and
individual level to
disruptions and
turbulence (process)
“The process of
linking
resoucres and
capabilities to
outcomes” (p.
5595)
Propositions for further
study; Resilient response
framework (p. 5589): Threat
detection and activation,
response activation, positive
or negative adjustment lead
to organisational learning
Lengnick-
Hall et al.
(2011)
Organisation,
Individual, HR
management
“Organizational resilience is
defined here as a firm’s
ability to effectively absorb,
develop situation-specific
responses to, and
ultimately engage in
transformative activities to
capitalize on disruptive
surprises that potentially
threaten organization
survival” (p. 244)
Conceptual
Strategic human resources
management as enabler to
develop the organisational
capacity for resilience (p. 243)
Resilience capacity
developed from
organisation-level
cognitive,
behavioural and
contextual
capabilities (p. 245)
(outcome)
HR pratices and
individual
contributions
lead to HR
policies that in
turn increase
organisational
capacity which
leads to desired
outcomes
Integration and summary of
prior research in
organisational resilience;
Cognitive, behavioural and
contextual dimension of HR
system contributions to
building resilience capacity
(p. 248-249)
Zobel
(2011)
Organisation
“the act of rebouding or
springing back” (p. 394), a
return to normal or
improved operations post-
event
Conceptual,
Modeling
Different views of resilience;
Disaster planning, mitigation;
resilience triangle (Bruneau et
al., 2003) and predicted
resilience (Zobel, 2010)
Multi-dimensional
disaster resilience
concept; adjusted
resilience included in
decision making
(process)
Integration of
initial impact,
recovery time
(triangle) and
perception
Extension of disaster
resilience concept to include
perceptions of the individual
about the true resilience,
associated loss and recovery

191
Table 10 – literature review summary X (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Winn et al.
(2011)
Organisation
“ability to withstand
external harm and to
recover from negative
external impacts” (p. 168,
following e.g. Sheffi & Rice,
2005))
Conceptual
Physical impact from climate
change on organisations;
massive discontinous change
(MDC)
Resilience as one
possible
organisational
response to MDC
(capability)
Capabilities and
competences to
“survive and
thrive under
conditions of
MDC” (p. 169)
Linkage of socio-ecological
and organisational view;
Ates &
Bititci
(2011)
Organisation,
SMEs
“ability to change
concerning the future
development” (p. 5602);
“Organisational resilience is
defined as the ability to
anticipate key opportu-
nities and events from
emerging trends,
constantly adapting and
changing, rapidly bouncing
back from disaster […]” (p.
5604, following e.g. Coutu
(2002); Hamel & Välikangas
(2003))
37 case
studies with
232
interviews in
European
SMEs
Change management: how
change is managed, and the
consequent impact on
resilience in the organisation
Resilience as an
outcome from
appropriate change
management
(outcome)
Measures of the
change
management
process
determine
organisational
resilience or the
content of the
change (p.
5607)
Change management
perspective: empirical
investigation of integration of
change management
perspective with the resilient
organisation as the outcome,
and the identification of main
drivers of change
management processes that
impact the building of a
resilient organisation (Fig. 5,
p. 5614)
Sullivan-
Taylor &
Branicki
(2011)
Organisation,
SMEs
RBV perspective (Barney,
1991); “identification of
relevant resources and
capabilities that enable an
organisation to prepare for,
and respond to, extreme
events” (p. 5567, Hamel &
Välikangas (2003))
11 UK SME
decision
makers over 3
years
SMEs suffer most (p. 5565,
following Ingirige et al., 2008,
pp. 108–109); RBV perspective;
Contextual factors relative to
firm size
Resilience as an
outcome of
managerial and
policy practises to
building resiliency
(outcome)
Four-category
framework of
perceived
resilience
(Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2001)
SMEs show distinct under-
standing and approach of
resiliency;

192
Table 10 – literature review summary XI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Carmeli &
Markman
(2011)
Society,
Organisation
“the history of Rome
suggests that, all else being
equal, organizational
resilience is a function of an
ongoing, methodical
pursuit of capture and
governance strategies” (p.
329)
Historical
data from
1000 years
history of
Rome
Capture strategy, governance
strategy (p. 324 -329) as well
as four supporting tactics:
saving power, maintaining a
stronhold base, isolating
adversaries and creating
forward outposts (p. 332)
Resilience as an
outcome of the
pursuit of capture
and govern strategy
(outcome)
Integration of
capture and
govern
strategies as
well as
corresponding
tactics
Strategy-tactic framework of
capture and govern, the
interaction between those
and four corresponding
tactics to sustain overall
resilience; research based on
ancient history of Rome
Chan (2011)
Organisation,
System-
perspective
Summary of various
definitions; “how a small
enterprise deals with an
adverse business
environment for survival”
(p. 5546)
1 Hong Kong
company, 5
subsystems
within
Combination of viable system
model (VSM, cybernetic
strengths and weaknesses)
and multi-criteria decision aid
(MDCA, systematic approach
to determining the most
preferred option)
Resilience as an
outcome from a
combination of VSM
and MDCA
(outcome)
Diagnose and
identify (VSM)
leads to options
development
(MDCA)
Extension of selection of
viable options for
organisational resilience (p.
5559); Integration of VSM
and MCDA approaches to
form an integrative and
holistic framework for
decision-making
Linnenluecke
et al. (2012)
Organisation
“capacity to absob the
impact and recover from
the occurrence of extreme
weather events” (p. 23)
Conceptual,
modeling
Combination of anticipatory
adaptation (p. 20) and
resilience (p. 21-22) to counter
the impact of extreme
weather conditions on the
organisation;
Resilience
(capacities) in
combination with
adaptative
responses
Anticipatory
(past
experiences) –
impact of
current event –
potential future
exporsure
First to produce five step
integrative framework of
anticipatory adaptation and
organisational resilience;
prioritisation of resiliency
over crisis management view
(p. 21)

193
Table 10 – literature review summary XII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Smallbone
et al.
(2012)
Organisation,
Small
businesses
“firm ability to respond to
changes in the external
environment in order to
retain competitive
advantage” (p. 761)
Survey
responses UK
(n = 343) and
NZ (n = 1438)
in 2009
Small firm responses to
economic downturns (p. 754)
Resiliency as one ot
two outcomes from
firms’ responses to
downturn (p. 761)
(outcome)
Buiness
performance
measured as
vulnerability vs.
resilience
NZ firms seem more reliant
on self-financing; particularly
financial positions seem to be
important for resilience;
impact of government policy
measures observed; small
firms show high levels of
adaptability and flexibility
Kantur &
Iseri-Say
(2012)
Organisation,
Individual
“This conceptualization of
resilience emphasizes
organization’s capable sub-
systems, members and
resources that are
organized to be able to
resist and survive against
sudden or predictive shocks
and adversity in a timely
manner” (p. 770)
Conceptual,
modeling
Integration of perpetual
stance, contextual integrity,
strategic capacity and strategic
acting to form organisational
resilience, which serves as an
input variable for
organisational evolvability (p.
765)
Resilience as the
mediating variable
between input
variables and output
variable
organisational
evolvability
(characteristic,
mediator)
Resilience
conceptually
operationalised
as robustness,
redundancy,
resourcefulness
and rapidity
Evolvability, not resilience, is
the ultimate aim of the
organisation; Superior
performance is not
automatically guaranteed,
the transformation however
may yield it (p. 770);
Contrasting an action and
innovation based view, better
sensing capabilities (p. 770) is
assumed
Amann &
Jaussaud
(2012)
Organisation,
family firm
“ability to take situation-
specific, robust and
transformative actions
when it confronts
unexpected and powerful
events that have the
potential to jeopardize its
long-term survival” (p. 207,
following Lengnick-Hall &
Beck, 2009))
98 matched-
pairs of
Japanese
family and
non-family
firms in 1997
Family firms perform better
than non-family businesses (p.
205); thus family businesses
should show stronger
resilience during and after a
crisis
Resilience as a
relation between
crisis planning and
adaptive behaviour
(outcome, indirect)
Performance,
financial
structure;
resilience:
facing down
reality, search
for meaning,
ritualised
ingenuity (p.
207)
Family businesses do indeed
perform better during and
after a crisis and show
stronger financial structures
over time

194
Table 10 – literature review summary XIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
van Trijp et
al. (2012)
Safety region
(network of
organi-
sations)
Operational resilience:
ability of an organisation to
prevent disruptions and
being able to quickly res-
pond to and recover from a
disruption to operational
processes (p. 668)
84 survey
responses
among safety
stakeholders
across Dutch
safety regio-
ns, modeling
Resilience described as
operational resilience to
prevent disruptions to the
operational processes and
recover quickly if necessary
Dynamic operational
resilience factor as a
decision support
tool to optimise
resilience (p. 674)
(process)
Via dynamic
operational
resilience factor
Resilience of emergency
respone organisations
described via operational
resilience factor; dynamic
operational resilience factor
variable; unique measures
per safety region
Fleming
(2012)
Organisation
Ability to spring back from
unexpected events; the role
of resilience in determining
the future state is
important (p. 33)
Conceptual
Incorporating strategic
management, risk and crisis
management
Resilience as a
determant of
current survival and
future success
(characteristic)
Proactive use of
strategic
management,
risk and crisis
management
Conceptual integration of
three concepts to ensure
current survival and future
prosperity
Chewning
et al.
(2013)
Organisation
“. . . ability of the affected
parties to communicate and
reorganize across periods of
rapid change or chaos” (p.
239)
53 in-depth
interviews in
various
sectors in
New Orleans
ICT and resilience literature:
the use of information and
communication technology
(ICT) supporting recovery post
crisis
Resilience as an
outcome as well as
behaviours
(outcome,
behaviour)
Active infor-
mation sharing,
(re)connection
and resource
acquisition
Highlighted importance of
connectivity, adaptability and
redundancy; added
dimension of resilience:
external availability (p. 256)
Wicker et
al. (2013)
Organisation,
community
sports clubs
Function of robustness,
redundancy,
resourcefulness and
rapiditiy (p. 512)
200 survey
responses
from
community
sports clubs
in Australia
Concept of organisational
resilience applied to
community sports clubs facing
natural disasters
Resiliency as one
input variable to
overall organisation
recovery (input
variable)
Robustness,
redundancy,
resourcefulness
and rapidity
(Bruneau et al.,
2003)
Human and financial
resources mainly used;
Resilience, members and use
of grants were signi-ficantly
positively related to overall
recovery (Table 4, p. 520)
Powley
(2013)
Organisation
Following Sutcliffe & Vogus
(2003); “healing involves
immediate repair and
subsequent strenghtening”
(p. 43, following Powley &
Piderit (2008))
Conceptual
Organisational healing,
subsuming resilience, coping
or recovery, “enables greater
organizational strength” (p.
62); Post traumatic growth
literature (PTG)
Healing concep-
tualised as a
combination of
resilience and
growth (input
variable)
Return to nor-
mal routines
and perfor-
mance growth
through
strength (p. 62)
Organisaiton healing
integrates resilience and PTG
views to foster return to
performance and growth (p.
62)

195
Table 10 – literature review summary XIV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Tadić &
Aleksić
(2013)
Organisation,
SMEs
Various definitions
reviewed (p. 187)
Conceptual,
mathematical
modeling
(extent
analysis)
The first step to specify
resiliency enhancement
strategies is the prioritisation
of organisational resilience
factors (ORFs)
Resilience is
estimated through
assessments and
prioritisation of
individual business
processes and
estimation of ORFs
(static appraisal,
outcome)
ORFs and
business
process
assessment
Identification of relevant
busines processes and ORFs
for process industry SMEs;
employment of fuzzy sets
theory; aggregation of team
to group level; ranking of
ORFs relative to combined
priorities index; ranking
enables learning (p. 196)
Whitman
et al.,
(2013)
Organisation
“behavioural traits and
perceptions linked to the
organisation’s ability to
plan for, respond to and
recover from emergencies
and crises” (p. 3)
3 datasets
used for the
approximation
The benchmark resilience tool
BRT-53 is a survey-based four-
point Likert-scale questions
tool that assesses the
organisations’ agreement with
individual statements of
various resilience factors (p. 4)
Organisation-level
resilience as
indicator of ability to
plan for and recover
from crises
(characteristic,
outcome)
BRT-53
(constrained by
13 factors) and
its abbreviated
versions BRT-
13A and BRT-
13B
Establishment of abbreviated
forms of BRT-53: BRT-13A
and BRT-13B whereas BRT-
13B shows slightly higher
Cronbach’s α thus should be
preferred moving forward
Teixeira &
Werther
(2013)
Organisation
“An organization that
adapts anticipatorily and
repeatedly can be called
resilient.”
50 companies
over 60 year
period
Competitive advantage is
achieved through a firm cul-
ture that enables continuous
re-creation of competitive
advantage based on innova-
tion; anticipatory innovation as
the key driving force of
competitive advantage
Resilience is
achieved through
the way and process
of firms managing
innovation (contin-
uous innovation as
capability, resilience
as outcome)
The level and
frequency of
constant rene-
wal creates the
competitive
edge and hence
the resilience
(p. 341)
The authors somewhat place
the sustained competitive
advantage in the same
dimension with resilience;
adaptive innovation enables
the achievement of compe-
titive advantage and as such
forms a resilient firm
Lee et al.
(2013)
Community,
organisation
“. . . ability to plan for,
respond to, and recover
from emergencies and
crises.” (p. 29)
249 indivi-
duals in 68
organisations
across 13
sectors
Community resilience is built
through organisational
resilience; resilience linked
with competitive advantage
Resilience as a
function of adaptive
capacity and
planning (p. 35)
(outcome)
Adaptive capa-
city and plan-
ning (Table 4, p.
34)
Reconceptualised model of
organisational resilience
comprising of two main
factors (adaptive capacity,
planning capability)

196
Table 10 – literature review summary XV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Bullough et
al. (2014)
Individual
(entre-
preneur)
“an ability to go on with life,
or to continue living a
purposeful life, after
hardship or adversity” (p.
478, as cited in Tedeschi &
Calhoun (2004))
Survey of 272
Afghan male
and female
working
community
members
Entrepreneurial intentions are
influenced by perceived
danger on the one and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy
on the other hand, such
relation is theorised to be
moderated by resiliency
Resilience as input
variable (H2) as well
as moderator
variable (H3) with
entrepreneurial
intentions being the
DV (p. 476) (input
and moderator
variable)
Entrepreneurial
intentions, per-
ceived threat
scale (p. 483),
self-efficacy (p.
484) and resi-
lience as brief
resilience co-
ping scale
(Sinclair &
Wallston, 2004)
Resilience is shown to have a
marginally significant impact
on the the relation between
perceived danger and
entrepreneurial intentions
(H3); significant positive
impact can be observed of
resilience on intentions (H2)
as well as on the interaction
between self-efficacy and
intention (H4)
Pal et al.
(2014)
Organisation,
SMEs
SME resilience framework
(Fig. 2, p. 412): resilience is
the outcome of
resourcefulness, dynamic
competitiveness, learning
and culture in combination
Case study
with 20 SMEs
Economic resilience as the
outcome, various antecedents
are investigated; underlying
patterns of antecedents are
being conceptualised
Resilience as the
outcome specified
through a number of
antecedents
(outcome, specified
antecedents)
Antecedents:
assets and re-
sourcefulness,
dynamic comp-
etitiveness,
learning and
culture (p. 412)
Resourcefulness and dynamic
competitiveness seem to be
direct key enablers for both
resilience and financial
performance; learning and
culture seem to be indirectly
related to resilience
Mamouni
Limnios et
al. (2014)
Framework,
Organisation
“the magnitude of
disturbance the system can
tolerate and still persist” (p.
104, following Holling &
Gunderson (2001))
Conceptual
Resilience can be both a
desirable and an undesirable
state – integrative view of
rigidity, dyanmic capabilities
and ambidexterity
Organisational
resilience assessed
through two
dimensions:
magnitude (the
system’s resilience)
and desirability (of
the system state by
e.g. stakeholders)
(outcome,
framework)
Resilience (y-
axes),
desirability (x-
axes);
transience,
vulnerability,
rigidity and
adaptability
quadrants
Resilience architecture
framework (RAF)
operationalised as magnitude
of resilience compared with
desirability of system-state by
stakeholders (Fig. 1, p. 109)

197
Table 10 – literature review summary XVI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Akgün &
Keskin
(2014)
Organisation,
ndividual
“‘a firm’s ability to
effectively absorb, develop
situation-specific responses
to, and ultimately engage in
transformative activities to
capitalise on disruptive
surprises that potentially
threaten organisation
survival” (p. 6919, as cited
in Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011,
p. 244))
112 Turkish
firms, 224
surveys in
firms with
frequent
product
innovation
and
exploitation
of new tech-
nologies
Product innovation and
organisational resilience: new
and better products enable the
organisation to take a
proactive approach to
resilience; resilience capacity
(Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011)
Organisational
resilience as
cognitive,
behavioural and
contextual resilience
capability
(capabilities)
Resilience capa-
city variables:
competence
orientation,
deep social
capital, un-
scripted agiliy,
pratical habits,
behavioural
preparedness,
broad resource
network (p.
6924)
Competence orientation and
unscripted agility enables
better and faster new product
development; environmental
turbulence influences the
relationship between
resilience capacity and
product innovativeness
(Table 5, p. 6927)
Gilly et al.
(2014)
Organisation,
territories
(regions),
pivot firms
“resilience as a response to
an external shock” (p. 596)
Conceptual
Maintaining high levels of
innovation whilst adapting to
changing environment and
turbulence; double capacity
view of resilience viz.
resistance to adversity and
adaptation
Resilience based on
two dimensions:
organisational and
territorial dimension
(outcome)
Territorial:
materialise
common pro-
blem, compro-
mises, joint
learning;
Two forms of crises: radical
crises and incremental
changes; Conceptualisation
of territorial resilience (p.
599); resilience
operationalised in two
dimensions; pivot firm key to
linking dimensions (p. 601)
Richtnér &
Löfsten
(2014)
Organisation
Resilience capacity (not the
realised capabilities):
“Resilience is a metaphoric
notion and refers to the
maintenance of positive
adjustment under
challenging conditions” (p.
150)
Qualitative
pre-study
with 1 case
study, main
study with 99
survey res-
ponses
Integration of organisational
resilience and creativity lenses;
firms need to develop capcity
for resilience to enable
creativity in the organisation
Resilience as the
antecedent for
organisational
creativity in
turbulent times
(antecedent,
capacity, input)
(Fig. 1, p. 141)
Structural,
cognitive, re-
lational, and
emotional re-
sources create
capacity for
resilience (p.
140)
Case study on 4 resouces for
resilient capacity
development (Appendix,
Table A, p. 149); in addition to
structural resources (p. 140),
strong emphasis on cognitive
and emotional resources is
necessary

198
Table 10 – literature review summary XVII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Lampel et
al. (2014)
Governance
forms,
organisation
“Resilience is clearly a
desirable property”, “In
effect, latent resilience is an
emergent property created
as a byproduct of what the
organization needs to do to
function normally” (p. 67);
no formal definition
Secondary
data on 204
non-EOBs and
49 EOBs from
2004-2009;
survey data
from 41 EOBs
and 22 non-
EOBs
Relationship between
organisational resilience and
alternative firm governance
forms (e.g. Employee-Owned-
Business, short EOB); added
notion of external factors (non-
family firm i.e. corporate
governance) that contribute to
organisational resilience
Resilience built
through variations of
governance forms
and characterisitics
(outcome)
Resilience
measured
through
performance
data (e.g.
increase in sales
turnover) and
resilience
factors
Combination of employee
stock ownership and
employee involvement in
governance to build a priori
resilience; longer payback
horizons and pioneering
innovations in EOBs seem to
foster more resilient
organisational respones
Jaaron &
Backhouse
(2014)
Organisation,
service sector
“ability of an organisation
to adapt to the
requirements of the
surrounding environment
and being able to
effectively develop new
capabilities to absorb and
manage environmental
variability” (p. 2028,
following e.g. Coutu (2002);
Hamel & Välikangas (2003))
2 case studies
in UK service
organisations
(Vanguard
delivery
method)
Integration of individual level
attributes and organisational
processes that build resiliency
Resilience as the
outcome of the
application of the
vanguard method of
systems thinking
(outcome)
Organically
structured
organisation
and affective of
core employees
Through application of the
Vanguard-method the
integration of organisational
and individual level
determinants of
organisaitonal resilience was
achieved: organically
structured organisations and
highly affectively commited
core employees enable
higher resiliency
Duchek
(2014)
Organisation
“ability […] to anticipate
trends and potential
threats, to cope effectively
with unexpected events
and to learn from these
events to produce a dyna-
mic capability that is direc-
ted toward facilitating org-
anizational change” (p. 2)
Conceptual
Capability based view of
resilience, contrasting earlier
views of resilience as outcome
or mere capacities; across
different time horizons
Three dimensional
resilience as
capabilities formed
through reactive,
current and
proactive actions
(capabilities)
Anticipation
(proactive),
coping (current)
and adaptation
(reactive)
capabilities
Integration of two research
streams (reactions to
unplanned events and high-
reliability organisations);
formulation of capability-
based view with three
dimensions

199
Table 10 – literature review summary XVIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Ho et al.
(2014)
Organisation,
Individual
Literature review of
resilience concept relative
to human resource
management (HRM)
156 articles in
final dataset
Relevance of organisational
resilience literature for HRM
Content analysis
through automatic
identification of
concepts by
Leximancer,
comparative
analysis of concepts,
focussed analysis
(review)
Concepts:
organisation,
capabilities,
dynamic capa-
bilities, process-
es, resource,
change, firm,
mangement,
environmental
and knowlegde
Literature review in three
stages; documented impact
of individual resilience on
organisational resilience;
definition of utility of
organisational resilience for
HRM
Sahebjamnia
et al. (2015)
Organisation
“it enquires organizations
to develop effective plans
for both short-term
resuming (i.e., BC plans)
and long-term restoration
(i.e., DR plans) of their
disrupted operations
following disruptive
events” (p. 261, following
Riolli & Savicki (2003))
Conceptual,
modeling
Integration of business
continuity (BC) planning and
disaster recovery (DR) lens to
form basis for resilience
Resilience as the
outcome from both
BC and DR (process
steps, different
continuity and
disaster recovery
plans)
Loss of resil-
ience as
reduced oper-
ating level and
required time to
recovery (p.
263)
Integrative framework
(IBCDR – Integrated Business
Continuity and Disaster
Recovery Planning)
conceptualised and modeled
Sawalha
(2015)
Organisation,
insurance
sector
“resilience is considered to
be the positive side of
vulnerability” (p. 348);
28 Jordan
insurance
companies,
surveys and
interviews
Understanding of resilience
concept in Jordan insurance
sector; the impact of various
factors on resilience
5 factor model of
resilience (outcome)
Vulnerability to
resilience
model (V2R) (p.
351) used to
measure
resilience
Study shows the significant
impact of culture on
resilience (p. 361); various
key factors of resilience were
absent in the responses
which signals potentially
lower resiliency levels

200
Table 10 – literature review summary XIX (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Mendonça
& Wallace
(2015)
System and
Organisation
Summary of various
definitions; no formal
definition
1 case study
on firm res-
ponsible to
restore po-
wer post 9/11
resilience from a broader lens
(both system and organi-
sation); Woods’ 4 factor
resilience model as basis
(Hollnagel et al., 2006) from a
systems engineering view
Factors determining
and processes
creating resilience
(outcome)
Buffering
capacity,
flexibility/stif-
ness, margin,
tolerance, and
boundary-span-
ning capability
Additional factor was
defined: boundary-spanning
capability
Valero et
al. (2015)
Organisation,
Individual
(leadership),
public sector
“organization’s ability to
respond and recover from a
disaster” (p. 4); “resiliency
should also capture
whether response
strategies to the disruption
were in fact effective
adaptive strategies” (p. 5)
112 survey
responses
from emer-
gency depar-
tments and
non-profit
organisations
in South
Korea
Effect of transformational
leadership on perceived
resilience in public sector;
Integration of (transfor-
mational) leadership perspec-
tive and organisational
resilience;
Transformational
leadership builds
resiliency through
identification of a
shared vision of how
to handle future
disruptions and
ensure cohesiveness
in execution (p. 6)
(outcome and
capacity to build)
Resiliency via
robustness,
rapidity, re-
sourcefulness
and redund-
ancy (p. 10) and
leadership
through influ-
ence, motiva-
tion, stimula-
tion p. 11)
Transformational leadership
is shown to have a positive (p
⩽ 0.01) relation with per-
ceived organisational
resiliency (p. 14); elected
officials (e.g. mayors) put
more focus and emphasis on
building resiliency compared
with appointed officials
Mafabi et
al. (2015)
Organisation
“responds to the demands
in the environment for
survival (organisational
adaptation), is efficient and
effective at service delivery
(organisational competi-
tiveness) and makes itself
reputable (organisational
value)” (p. 570)
51 parastatal
organisations
in Uganda,
242 survey
responses
Investigation of the mediating
role of innovation on the
relation between creative
climate and organisational
resilience
Resilience as
criterion variable,
creative climate the
input and innovation
the mediator (main
effect)
(outcome, criterion)
(Perceived)
resilience
through organ-
isational adap-
tation, compe-
titiveness, value
(Cronbach’s α =
0.893, p. 570)
Development of composite
measure for organisational
resilience; Strong positive
correlation between
innovation and resilience (p <
0.01) and limited mediation
effect of innovation (p. 580)
due to strong direct effect of
creative climate on resilience

201
Table 10 – literature review summary XX (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Cavaco &
Machado
(2015)
Organisation
Indirect: “competitiveness
can be defined as the
readiness to react to
disturbances that affect
company’s performance
and the willingness to
leverage performance in a
proactive way” (p. 158)
Conceptual
Reconceptualisation of
strategic planning such
through integration of
resilience and innovation to
form a new model of
competitiveness
Resilience as one of
the input factors
(input variable)
Competitive-
ness = 1 –
(Resilience +
Innovation)
where
Resilience = 1
2
(Severity x
Recovery Time)
Reconceptualised model of
competitiveness where
resilience and innovation are
key measurement
components (p. 163)
Manfield &
Newey
(2015)
Organisation
(action
perspective)
“remaining capable even
when things seem
incapable” (p. 373);
Longitudinal
case study
with Active-
Sky over 14
years
How do organisations remain
capable when capabilities are
gone? (p. 373); business
performance swings and
inflection points as indicators
of up- and downswings
Resilience
opertionalised as
capabilities enabling
organisations to
thrive in difficult
times (capabilities,
indirect)
Multi-cycle
capability as the
capability to
rebuild from
repeated
shocks as
resilience
Developed model of multi-
cycly capability that builds
resilience in the firm (p. 385);
deliberate building of
resilience in times of
resource abundance and
strategic coherence (p. 386)
Management
Today (2015)
Organisation,
individual
“the ability for businesses
to anticipate, prepare for
and adapt to change“, “In
2015 it’s about change,
disruption and being
prepared” (p. 58)
Forum-
discussion
How do organisations and
individuals anticipate, prepare
and adapt?
Resilience as the
capacity to
anticipate, prepare
and adapt in times
of turbulence
(capacity)
Alignment of
people and
processes with
strategy, values
and culture of
the organisa-
tion
Various conceptualisations
of what is resilience on
organisational and individual
level; what capabilities and
processes ought to be
developed and employed?

202
Table 10 – literature review summary XXI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
van der
Vegt et al.
(2015)
Society,
Organisation
“Resilience reflects the
ability of systems to absorb
and recover from shocks,
while transforming their
structures and means for
functioning in the face of
long-term stresses, change,
and uncertainty” (p. 972)
Conceptual,
literature
review
Integration of organisaitonal
and societal view relative to
resilience – organisations
enable societal resilience; How
do some societies and
organisations survive or even
perform better during and
after crises than others? (p.
917); Larger scale and impact
of adversity is due to increased
density of global people,
organisational and country
networks (p. 971)
Resilience through
“capabilities and
capacities that
create or retain
resources in a form
sufficiently, flexible,
storable, con-
vertible, and
maleable that
enables systems to
successfully cope
with and learn from
the unexpected” (p.
972, following
Sutcliffe & Vogus
(2003)) (capabilities,
capacities)
Characteristic of
a system;
through the
identification of
capabilities and
capacities of
subsystems and
parts of such
and the under-
standing of the
interaction am-
ong each other
as well as with
the enviro-
nment (p. 973)
Integration of various
research streams to yield a
state-of-the-art view of the
current resilience literature in
management scholarship;
various avenues for further
study have been proposed
Castellacci
(2015)
Organisation
“the ability of an
organization to adapt to
changes in its economic and
institutional environment”
(p. 46)
World bank
enterprise
survey
database with
about 13.000
firms in 20
Latin
American
countries
from 2010 to
2011
Organisational resilience the-
sis based on agency theory and
corporate governance as well
as evolutionary econom-ics
How country-
specific factors
affect the inno-
vativeness of group-
affiliated (GAFs) and
stand-alone (SAFs)
firms by employing
two contrasting the-
ses: institutional
voids and organi-
sational resilience
(p. 43) (thesis)
Indirectly
measured:
Finance, stock,
legal, trust,
labor, tertiary
enrollment
ratio (pp. 49,
53-54)
Innovation performance of
GAFs stronger for more resi-
lient economies (hypotesis 1b
is supported, which contrast
ealier views in the literature
on innovation and business
groups)

203
Table 10 – literature review summary XXII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Ortiz‐de‐
Mandojana
& Bansal
(2016)
Organisation
“the incremental capacity
of an organization to
anticipate and adjust to the
environment. Organiza-
tional resilience is not a
static attribute that organi-
zations either do or do not
possess” (p. 1617);
“Organizational resilience
provides firms with adap-
tive capacity that facilitates
continuous improvements
and improves the firm’s
viability” (p. 1627)
121 matched-
pairs across
industries in
the US be-
tween 1994
and 2008
Social and environmental
practises (SEPs) aid firms sense
and seize long-term
opportunities and mitigate
threats (p. 1615); “To become
resilient, firms need to invest in
processes that sense and
correct maladaptive
tendencies, and build
resources that allow firms to
cope with unexpected
circumstances” (p. 1628)
Resilience as
outcome from a
combination of SEPs
and business
sustainability
(outcome, capacity,
capabilities)
Indirectly
measured
through finan-
cial volatility,
higher long-
term growth
and higher sur-
vival rate over
time period
(p. 1628)
SEPs indirectly lead to more
reilient firm performance
over longer periods of time –
resilience here is indirectly
measured through e.g. low
financial volatility over 15
year period
Annarelli &
Nonino
(2016)
Organisation
“[…] is static, when found-
ed on preparedness and
preventive measures to
minimize threats probabil-
ity and to reduce any im-
pact […], and dynamic,
when founded on the abil-
ity of managing disruptions
and unexpected events to
shorten unfavorable after-
maths and maximize the
organization’s speed of re-
covery to the original or to
a new more desirable state”
(p. 3)
Cocneptual,
literature re-
view
(bibliographic
analysis
through co-
citation an-
alysis)
Resilience as both static and
dynamic capability
Resilience as
capability
(capabilities)
Dynamic,
supply
networks,
static, single
organisation
(Fig. 2, p. 9, 10))
Integration of definition,
categorisation of prior
research into four broader
themes (measurement) (p.
10); research is not infant
however also not fully
developed; future research
agenda proposed (p. 11) (e.g.
focus on design, imple-
mentation, improvement of
processes; measurement of
resilience; SMEs; anticipatory
innovation; strategic
approach and dynamic
capabilities)

204
Table 10 – literature review summary XXIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
De
Carvalho et
al. (2016)
Organisation
“Organizational resilience is
defined as the ability and
capacity of an organization
to withstand unexpected
changes, discontinuities
and environmental risks”
(p. 2)
10 of the top
50 most
innovative
companies in
Brazil (2008-
2009, 2011-
2014)
Innovation as a contributing
factor to resilience
Resilience as
outcome of
innovativeness of
firms
(outcome)
Resilience
indirectly
measured
through
innovation
performance (p.
8)
Higher performance for more
innovative companies within
same economic sector (p. 13)
Kolay
(2016)
Organisation
“organizational resilience
has been measured here by
the extent of successful
change over time to reflect
the strength of any
organization to withstand
‘sudden blows’” (p. 300)
Case study
with 2
companies in
food
processing in
SE Asia 2001-
2012
Following the definition of
resilience in engineering
Resilience as the
outcome of various
factors
(outcome)
Extent of
successful
overall change,
continuity of
change over
time and firm
size (p. 304)
Development of
measurement concept of
organisation resilience; one
of the cases was found to
outperform the other by
being 5.2 times more resilient
Kerr (2016)
Organisation
“the ability of an
organization to anticipate,
prepare for, respond and
adapt to incremental
change and sudden dis-
ruptions in order to survive
and prosper” (p. 40)
Conceptual
Resilience as a value driver for
long-term robust performance
of the organisation
Resilience as input
variable
(input, antecedent)
Product, people
& processes
(elements);
adaptability,
agility and
robust
governance
(qualities)
Practitioner-oriented model /
framework for enhanced
resilience in the organisation

205
Table 10 – literature review summary XXIV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Chen
(2016)
Teams
“the ability of an
organization to anticipate,
prepare for, respond to,
and adapt to incremental
change and sudden
disruptions in order to
survive and prosper” (p. 1)
509 Chinese
R&D teams
and 1 in-
depth case
study (JMC)
Organisational resilience of
R&D teams; applied early risk
warning theory
Resilience
operationalised
through various
factors
(outcome)
Five-factor
model: shared
vision, willing-
ness to learn,
adaptability, co-
operative awar-
eness, work
enthusiasm
Five factor model of
organisational resilience in
R&D teams; early risk warning
model is developed and then
tested based on the case
study
Andrew et
al. (2016)
Organisation
“ability of a community to
rebound from an adverse
situation […] a process of
adaptation manifested in
the psychological wellness,
functioning, and quality of
life of the community” (p.
65, Norris et al. (2008))
Semi-struct-
ured inter-
views with 44
Thai compan-
ies in 2011
Institutional collective action
framework – two theorised
hypotheses: bonding
(organisations collaborate
closely) and bridging
(organisation positions itself as
a central actor to acquire
resources)
Resilience as an
outcome
(outcome)
Robustness,
redundancy,
resourcefulness
and rapidity
(following
Bruneau et al.
(2003))
Bridging effect was observed
to be more closely related
with resiliency; Organisations
in rural provinces were more
resilient and public sector
organisations were generally
more resilient
Breda
(2016)
Organisation
(human
service
organisation)
“competencies and
processes that people
utilize to overcome
adversity” (p. 63)
Conceptual
Resilience theory – higher
levels of resiliency in human
service organisations ensure
more robust performance
Resilience as the
capacity of building
human service
organisations
Resilient work-
place, staff
complement,
resilience-ori-
ented model
Concptual three component
model for building a resilient
human service organisation
Buliga et
al. (2016)
Organisation
“organizational resilience is
the capacity to act robustly
in the face of
environmental turbulence
and to adapt to the ongoing
environmental changes” (p.
652, following Lengnick-
Hall et al. (2011))
Conceptual
Integration of business model
innovation (BMI), resilience
literature and regulatory focus
theory (individual), as well as
the integration of organisa-
tional ambidexterity (exploi-
tation and exploration)
BMI as an integral
part of the organi-
sational response to
foster resilience
(outcome)
Resilience
through robust-
ness and ad-
aptability
Conceptual integrative
framework of BMI and
organisational resilience, in
which BMI sits on the
adaptability side of the
continuum (p. 654);
conceptualisation of
resilience-continuum (p. 654)

206
Table 10 – literature review summary XXV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Clément &
Rivera
(2017)
Ecosystem,
organisation
“firms’ ability to maintain or
regain functioning despite a
major mishap or in the
presence of continuous
stress” (p. 1, following e.g.
Sutcliffe & Vogu (2003))
Conceptual
Resilience theory from socio-
ecological perspective; firms
and ecosystems as parts of
broader socioecological
systems; adaptation and
transformation as key concepts
Resilience as
adaptation through
cyclical process
(outcome, property
or characteristic)
Dynamic firm
property that
integrates
processes of
adaptation and
transformation
alike
extension of resilience
literature to ecological
adversity and thereby
extending the discussion on
organisational resilience to
ecological adversity
Teo et al.
(2017)
Organisation,
individual
(leadership)
Summary of both trait-
based (ability of the system
to return to a stable state)
and developmental view
(resilience develops in
response to crsies) (p. 137)
1 case study
of Tan Tock
Seng hospital
Singapore
SARS out-
break in 2003
Relational activation of
resilience model: how do
leaders activate and utilise
relationships to “activate
resilience during crisis” (p. 136)
Resilience as a
system-property
that is being
activated and
developed
(property, outcome)
Formation of
new social net-
works, relation-
al connections,
collective
meaning- and
sensemaking,
and commun-
icate mindfully
Relational Activation of
Resilience model (RAR)
Conz et al.
(2017)
Organisation,
SMEs,
mature
clusters
“resilience is the capacity to
act or react in response to
these unpredictable events
to prevent them from
having a negative impact on
profitability and even, in
some cases, turning them
to the firm’s advantage” (p.
187)
Exploratory
case study
with o 1 mat-
ched pair of
wineries in
Italy
Resilience at the interplay
between SMEs and firm
clusters – revision of the
adaptive cycle model to explain
how SMEs embedded in local
system (clusters) can foster
resilience; evolutionary
perspective of resilience
Resilience being
influenced by the
relationship cluster-
SME – connect-
edness and
resilience
(outcome)
Conceptual
Framework for resilience
strategies in SMEs: four
resilience strategies (adapted
from Reinmoeller &
Baardwijk (2005)) integrated
with the model of eco-
nomical resilience of regions
(Simmie & Martin, 2010)

207
Table 10 – literature review summary XXVI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Gimenez et
al. (2017)
Organisatiion
“Organizational resilience
goes beyond traditional risk
management methods and
it accepts that organi-
zations must prepare for
expected risk as well as for
the unexpected” (p. 161,
following e.g. Labaka et al.
(2016))
Delphi study
of 30 experts
in the field of
disaster
management
across 13
countries
Involvement in virtual
communities of practise
(VcoPs) potentially increases
the resilience of disaster
management organisations
Resilience being
enhanced through
involvement in
VcoPs by building on
resilience principles
(outcome)
Top manage-
ment commit-
ment, staff
engagement,
training and
preparedness,
situation
awareness,
flexibility and
networking
Six main principles of
resilience;
Resilience level of the
organisation can be
enhanced through
participation in VcoPs;
VcoPs are perceived to
improve resilience across all
six principles
Dalgaard‐
Nielsen
(2017)
Society,
organisation
“anticipate, prevent or
effectively contain familiar
risks, while rapidly
adjusting and adapting
when facing an emerging
unfamiliar threat or
hazard” (p. 343, following
e.g. Dahlberg et al. (2015))
interviews
with 12
Danish
national
security
bureau CEOs
Resilience as the guiding
principle to manage complex
and dynamic threats
Resilience competes
with fiscal austerity,
resilience and
accountability
(outcome)
Prioritisation of
fiscal austerity,
accountability
over delegation
and
experimentation
The structure and way of
public policymaking hinders
resilience-building in such
organisations
Villemain
& Godon
(2017)
Minimal
organisation
“A system is resilient if
workers adapt themselves
by understanding the
context in which adaptation
takes place” (p. 210)
Case study of
the polar
traverse
between
2012 and
2015
Organisational resilience
through a safety management
lens
Resilience strategies
through alternating
reactive and
proactive action
(tactics, outcome)
Dynamic convoy
organisation
(proactive) and
competences
and risk
evaluation
(reactive)
Mechanical, organizational
and interventions allowed for
unexpected crises; pro-active
alternating with reactive
actions; survival of vital parts
of the system needs to be
ensured at all cost (p. 217)

208
Table 10 – literature review summary XXVII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Ruiz-
Martin et
al. (2017)
Organisation
Various definitions
summarised, no formal
definition outlined
Conceptual
The application of the viable
system model (VSM) view to
organisational resilience
VSM inflicting the
ability to survive de-
spite changes exter-
nal to it (outcome)
Evolution, gr-
owth, absorb
variability, lear-
ning, adapting
Outline of micro-, meso- and
macro-economical view of
resilience (p. 96); Integration
of VSM and resilience theory
Tejeiro
Koller et al.
(2017)
Organisation
“incremental capacity of an
organization to anticipate
and adjust to the envir-
onment” ((Ortiz‐de‐Man-
dojana & Bansal, 2016)
52 surveys
across sectors
in Spain
(survived for
50 years)
Corporate culture (innovation
culture) key to competitive-
ness (resilient); key concept of
adaptive advantage (dynamic
capabilities)
Resilience as an
outcome of inno-
vative culture (adap-
tive advantage)
(outcome, indirect)
Innovative cul-
ture leads to
adaptive advan-
tage leads to
resilience
Innovative culture does help
companies survive (i.e. be
more resilient) however does
not necessarily lead to higher
returns (p. 350)
Mzid
(2017)
Organisation,
family firms
Following the definion of
Lengnick-Hall & Beck (2009)
5 case studies
surveyed in
2013 with fir-
ms in Tunesia
Impact of family capital (hum-
an, social, fin-ancial and survi-
vability) on resilience; sustain-
able family business theory
Resilience as the
resulting capacity
through leveraging
capital (outcome)
Absorptive ca-
pacity, strategic
renewal, appro-
priation (p. 51)
Social capital seems most cri-
tical for resilience where the
social interactions influence
resource allocation (p. 59)
Blades
(2017)
Economy,
organisation
Various definitions sum-
marised relative to the way
a firm manages it (p. 669)
Conceptual
By the way a firm manages
resilience, a different eco-
nomical perspective applies
Uni-, multi- and
beyond equilibrium
(characteristic)
According to
definitional
frame
Integrative view of resilience
across multiple perspectives
of equilibria and levels
Asch &
Mulligan
(2017)
Organisation
“[…] overcoming stress and
adversity, thriving in times
of chaos” (p. 54)
Opinion piece
(on the San
Diego Zoo)
Leadership as one of the key
drivers of resilience (p. 54)
Resilience as an
outcome of various
factors (outcome)
Workforce, bra-
nd equity
Resilience at Work model
(previously developed by the
author)
Linnen-
luecke
(2017)
Organisation,
individual
Various definitions
summarised
Conceptual,
literature
review
Summary of various theo-
retical lenses and perspectives
Various
Conpceptual
E.g. employee resilience, bus-
iness model adaptation; new
directions (Table 9, p. 26)
Williams et
al. (2017)
Organisation
“organizations, systems, or
individuals that are able to
react to and recover from
duress or disturbances with
minimal effects on stability
and functioning” (p. 740)
Conceptual,
literature
review
Integration of crisis manage-
ment and resilience literatures
to arrive at an integrative
framework (p. 751)
Various
Conceptual
“resilience evolves over time
as the actor (i.e., individual,
organization, or community)
interacts with the environ-
ment (i.e., adversity), high-
lighting the dynamism of
resilience” (p. 750)

209
Table 10 – literature review summary XXVIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Sahebjamnia
et al. (2018)
Organisation
“an organization could be
considered resilient if it is
able to continue its critical
functions at least in the
Minimum Business Conti-
nuity Objective (MBCO)
level within the Maximum
Tolerable Period of Disru-
ption (MTPD) after any
disruption” (p. 65, follo-
wing International Organ-
ization for Standardization
(2012))
Conceptual,
modeling,
case study
Integration of business
continuity and disaster
recovery palnning (BDCRP)
Resilience as the
outcome of inte-
grating business
continuity and disa-
ster recovery plan-
ning
(outcome)
Impact of dis-
ruptive incide-
nts on resour-
ces: human,
equipment,
facilities, raw
materials
The proposed BDCRP model
seems to “play a positive role
in the improvement of
organizational resilience” (p.
80) through e.g. enabling the
selection of the most
effective business continuity
and disaster recovery plans
or enabling the preparation
of resources according to
avoid shortage of such in
case of disaster (p. 80)
Korber &
McNaughton
(2018)
Organisation,
entrepreneur
Various definitions
summarised
Conceptual,
literature
review of 144
papers
Intersection of resilience and
entrepreneurship literatures
Various
Conceptual
6 streams, each of which
draws from distinct notions
of entrepreneurship and
resilience
Kahn et al.
(2018)
Organisation,
intercompany
groups
“an organization’s ability to
absorb strain and preserve
or improve functioning,
despite the presence of
adversity” (p. 509,
following Sutcliffe & Vogus
(2003))
Conceptual
“sustained adversity can
trigger strain that gets local-
ized as specific parts of orga-
nizations experience excessive
demands” (p. 510); dynamics
and pathways arising through
localised strain in specific
parts of the organisation
Resilience as the
outcome of inter-
group relations’
pathways and
dynamics in
responding to
creeping strain
(outcome)
Pathway dim-
ensions:
integration,
disavowal,
reclamation
Establishing contrarian view
to resilience of the
organisation as a whole;
resilience can be viewed as
dynamics and pathways
between various parts of the
organisation (p. 524)
Prayag
(2018)
Tourism
Sector,
Organisation
Various definitions
summarised
Conceptual
The shift from crisis manage-
ment and disaster planning to
resilience in tourism studies
Crisis management
(extraordinary only)
vs. resilience (both)
Conceptual
A case for a shift to resil-
ience rather than crisis ma-
nagement in tourism studies

210
Table 10 – literature review summary XXIX (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Tisch &
Galbreath
(2018)
Organisation,
agriculture
Following Linnenluecke et
al. (2012)
36 dairy
farmers in
New Zealand
Sensemaking as constraint and
enabler for resilience in
response to weather extremes
Resilience is enabled
(constrained) thro-
ugh sense-making
(outcome)
Community se-
nsegiving in fa-
miliar settings
Adaption to climate change
seems to be anticipatory;
social relationships are key
Duchek
(2018)
Individual
entrepreneur
Ability to anticipate, over-
come and change to emer-
ge stronger than before
Conceptual
literature
review
Entrepreneurial resilience
Result behaviour
and contextual
factors (outcome)
Individual, sit-
uational and
process-related
Study of resilience in entre-
preneurship is scarse; situa-
tional, process facets are key
Burnard et
al. (2018)
Organisation
Adjustment to disruption,
thus the ability of mana-
ging changing environment
Case study
with 3 UK
organisations
How do processes of response
support building (ex and post)
organisational resilience?
Resilience as the
outcome of adapta-
tion and preparation
(outcome, process)
Measured as
reactive/rigid,
proactive/agile
(4 config.)
Definition of iterative
reslience process consisting
of four response and three
decision-making nodes
Carlson
(2018)
Organisation
“[…] how a system reacts to
a disruption” (p. 213)
1 case study
on Canadian
energy firm
How can renewal discourse
(post-crisis communication)
build resilience?
Resilience being fo-
stered through pre-
paredness (comm.)
Renewal disc-
ourse, associ-
ated conditions
Illustration of different kind of
renewal, not focussed on
rebound to prior state, but on
building vigilance (p. 222)
Manfield &
Newey
(2018)
Individual,
entrepreneur
“positive adaptation to ad-
versity” (p. 1155, following
Hayward et al. (2010))
Conceptual
Different kinds of threats re-
quire different resilience
responses (capabilities)
Resilience as enact-
ment of a porfolio of
capabilities
(outcome,
capabilities)
Routine and
heuristics cap-
ability
Entrepreneurial organisatio-
nal resilience results from a
portfolio of capabilities that
is enacted contingent upon
kind of threat
Martinelli
et al.
(2018)
Individual,
entrepreneur
“a key feature in the resp-
onses individuals, systems,
or organizations exhibit to
adverse and unexpected
events” (p. 1224)
Natural ex-
periment of 8
retail entre-
preneurs in
Italy in 2012
Formative dimensions – dyna-
mic capabilities (DC) and social
capital (SC) as basis
Resilience through
dynamic capabilities
and social capital
(outcome,
capabilities)
Varying enact-
ment of DC and
SC time-varying
Contribution different DCs
and SC varies according to
temporal phase
Andersson
(2018)
Organisation,
individual
No formal definition
outlined
1 longitudinal
case study in
automotive
subcontractor
Social structures and follower-
ship as resilience factor
Resilience built
through entactment
of social structures
(outcome)
Engagement of
workers, distri-
buted leader-
ship, culture
Social structures are
important for building
organisational resilience,
particularly in certain sectors

211
Table 10 – literature review summary XXX (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Branicki et
al. (2018)
Organisation,
SMEs, indivi-
dual, entre-
preneur
Entrepreneurial resilience
as a combination of
individual resilience and the
entrepreneur (p. 1251)
11 UK focus
groups, 19
SME partici-
pants
Integration of entrepreneurial
with SME resilience as basis for
SME resilience (contrary to
traditional view) (p. 1251)
Resilience as out-
come of entrepre-
neurial capabilities
(outcome,
capabilities)
Connections,
Autonomy,
Innovation,
uncertainty (p.
1257)
Deleniation of individual and
entrepreneurial resilience (p.
1248); entrepreneurial resil-
ience leads to SME resilience
mechanisms lead to resilient
SME, organisational resilien-
ce constraining resilient SME
Edström
(2018)
Business
clusters,
organisation
No formal definition
outlined
1 cluster with
12 companies
in Sweden
Resilience of business clusters
over time, despite individual
members face difficulties rel-
ative to fundamental changes
Resilience as the
outcome from coll-
aborative efforts
(outcome)
Competition,
development,
spread of ideas,
spin-offs
A collaborative network bet-
ween industry, academia and
authorities;
Bouaziz &
Smaoui
Hachicha
(2018)
Organisation
“Resilience turns an unfav-
orable condition into an
advantage as it deals with
the situation” (p. 539, foll-
owing Kantur & Say (2015)
Sample of 97
firms in Tune-
sia from 2011
to 2016
Strategic Human resource ma-
nagement (SHRM) practises as
enabler for organisational resi-
lience
SHRM practises
impacting certain
dimensions of orga-
nisational resilience
(outcome)
Robustness,
agility and
integrity (p.
542)
SHRM practises do impact
organisational resilience; de-
pending on time period, ro-
bustness is enhanced while
agility, integrity influenced
Ishak &
Williams
(2018)
Organisation,
HROs
“the process of reintegrat-
ing from disruptions in life”
(Richardson, 2002, p. 309)
Conceptual,
case study
with US for-
est service
For certain organisations resil-
ience is the defining character,
as such it is more important for
HROs
Resilience is approa-
ched differently e.g.
non-HROs (outcome,
process)
Identity mana-
gement, re-in-
tegration, co-
mmunication
Dual spectral model of
resilience (p. 187): amount
(rigid – resilient) vs. type
(adaptive – anchored)
Morais-
Storz et al.
(2018)
Organisation
Strategic resilience: “resi-
lience needed in the ongo-
ing here-and-now of perva-
sive turbulence, complexity
and uncertainty (rather
than only in crisis) that is
faced by established firms
(who notoriously struggle
with renewal)” (p. 1182)
Conceptual
Aiming to create synergy
between strategic manage-
ment and entrepreneurship
Strategic resilience
as the response to
ongoing struggle,
rather than
organisational
resilience seen as
response to crises
(concept)
Problem
formation, TMT
future
orientation
(innovation)
and metamor-
phosis
Reconceptualisation of
organisational resilience as
strategic resilience which is
the response to ongoing
struggle through
organisational renewal and
survival

212
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Tengblad
& Oudhuis
(2018)
Organisation
“not only a capability but
also a philosophy of how
organizations can manage
surprises […]” (p. 233)
Conceptual
Organisational resilience not
only as capability but also as
philosophy on how to manage
adversity
Resilience as
capability and
outcome (outcome)
As trait, pro-
cess, resource,
capability, pri-
me sources
Organisational resilience
framework (p. 236)
Carden et
al. (2018)
Organisation
“individuals, or a system,
can withstand stress or
bounce back, or recover its
prior shape after a
distribution” (p. 26)
Case study
with
McDonald’s
Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) as the main underlying
premise of business operations
for building a resilient
organisation
Resilience as the
result from applying
the organisationl
resilience model
framework
(outcome)
Inputs (CSR),
processes
(project mana-
gement) and
outputs
Organisational resilience
model (p. 27)
Gover &
Duxbury
(2018)
Organisation
“an organizations’ capacity
to withstand changes over
time” (p. 477)
39 interview
respondents
in health care
Enablers and inhibitors of
organisational resilience
through employees perception
Resilience is impac-
ted (enabled, inhibi-
ted) by various fac-
tors (outcome)
People, con-
text, processes,
environment
Insider conceptualisation of
organisational resilience (p.
494)
Sincorá et
al. (2018)
Organisation
“survival and growth of
these organizations are
linked to their ability to
effectively use these large
volumes of data from
different sources” (p. 385)
82 survey
responses
from firms in
Brazil
Business Process Management
Maturity (BPMM) as antecede-
nt of organisationl resilience
(OR) moderated by organisa-
tional analytical capabilities
(OAC)
Resilience as the
result of business
process maturity
(outcome)
OR measured as
anticipation,
adaptability and
recovery
OAC and BPMM each
positively impact OR, where
OAC also positively impacts
the relation between BPMM
and OR
Van Trijp et
al. (2018)
Organisation,
Safety
Regions
“[…] outcome of situational
awareness, re-silience as a
generic, key-stone vulnera-
bilities, adaptive capacity
and quality” (p. 310, follo-
wing van Trijp et al. (2012))
Conceptual,
literature
review and
case study
Adaptive learning capabilities
and strong network relation-
ships foster strong organisat-
ional resilience levels
Resilience as the
result from a
combination of
capabilities and
network relations
(outcome)
Situational aw-
areness, key-
stone vulnera-
bilities and
adaptive capa-
city and quality
Six types of resilience,
quantitative organisational
resilience model for Dutch
emergency response
organisations
Tengblad
(2018c)
Individual,
leadership
No formal definition out-
lined
Conceptual,
case study
Leadership qualities as
enablers for firm resilience
Resilience indirectly
impacted (outcome)
Followership,
courage,
adaptation
Deduction of resiliency
impact factors from
leadership qualities

213
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Verreynne
et al.
(2018)
Organisation,
entrepre-
neurial firms
“capacity to respond, adapt
and transform in response
to sudden adverse events”
(p. 1122)
Conceptual
Resilience capabilities in
response to adverse events
Resilience as
capabilities
(capabilities)
Conceptual
Resilience and other concep-
ts; overcome context-speci-
ficity; methodological chal-
lenges; longitudinal study
Tengblad
(2018a)
Organisation
“ability to act swift, agile
and imaginatively for pre-
venting crises and to expl-
oit opportunities” (p. 39)
Concpetual
A resource-based view of
organisational resilience
Financial, technical
and social resources
as the foundation of
the model (concept)
Conceptual
Conceptualisation of a three-
dimensional resource-based
model of organisational
resilience (p. 40)
Jansson
(2018)
Organisation
“Financial resilience
includes the balance bet-
ween assets and debts and
also resources like profi-
tability, liquidity and own-
ership structure” (p. 111)
Conceptual, 6
case studies
Financial resilience view
Financial resilience
being fostered thro-
ugh ownership,
financial resource of
solidity, liquidity and
profitability
(outcome, concept)
Conceptual
Ownership seems to be one
of the most important
factors, followed by solidity,
liquidity and profitability
Tengblad
& Oudhuis
(2018b)
Organisation
“capacity to use its tech-
nical, economic and social
resources in order to
develop long-term skills and
competencies, in an
efficient, reliable and
flexible manner, and in a
way it could manage
challenges and exploit
opportunities” (p. 3)
Conceptual
Organisational resilience
defined as maintenance of the
vitality of the firm in an ever-
changing environment
Resilience as the
capacity to use
technical, social and
economical resour-
ces that in turn
enable the develop-
ment of long-term
capabilities
(capacity)
Conceptual
Organisational resilience
framework outlined that
encompasses capabilities that
both enable the management
of challenges and exploitation
of opportunities
Tengblad
(2018b)
Organisation
“organizational resilience is
seen as the capacity of a
company to over time be-
come a selected variation in
the marketplace” (p. 19)
Conceptual
Based in an organic view of
economic and organisational
development, using concepts
of variation, selection and re-
tention; complexity theory
Resilience as
anticipate, monitor,
respond and learn
(outcome,
framework)
Conceptual
A capability-oriented model
of organisational resilience
(p. 37)

214
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Eriksson
(2018)
Organisation
No formal definition
outlined
Comparative
case study
The highly reliable organisa-
tion in health care
Resilience by fol-
lowership (outcome)
Conceptual
Follower’s ability to improve,
cooperate and learn are key
Oudhuis
(2018)
Organisation
Stagnation and resilience
Case study in
fashion sec-
tor
Long periods of stagnation are
turned around triggered by
new ownership
Resilience through
economic, technical,
social resources
mediated by trust
(outcome)
Conceptual
Debt-restructuring, profita-
bility, remix of product lines
as well as an innovative orga-
nisational structure needed
Ma et al.
(2018)
Organisation
“an organizational capab-
ility to survive in, adapt to,
bounce back from and
often thrive in unexpected,
sometimes disastrous
events and, in more broad
sense, turbulent environ-
ments” (p. 253)
Conceptual,
literature
review
Dynamic (capability) view or
organisational resilience;
Resilience as: capability to
cope with crises, emphasis on
survivability, adaptability and a
multi-level concept that is
related to organisational
resources, routines and
processes (p. 255
A multi-level,
dynamic capability
(p. 255); multi-
dimensional capab-
ility and closely
linked to coping
strategies (p. 256)
(capabilities)
Adaptability,
agility, flexi-
bility, improvi-
sation, recov-
ery, redund-
ancy and
robustness
(Table II, p. 254)
A dynamic (capability) view of
organisational resilience that
integrates a variety of factors
(Table II, p. 254), which
should further be viewed at
from three diff-erent levels
(individual, group and
organisation)
Butler
(2018)
Organisation
“the ability to learn and
adapt in real time, to
emerge from the crisis
stronger, better and fitter
than before” (p. 105)
Conceptual
Resilience from a dynamic,
innovative and proactive view
(p. 103); integrative view of
resilience and risk
management
Resilience is built
through a five-step
approach; internal,
external, vertical and
horizontal
collaboration
(outcome, steps)
Execution of
five-step
approach
Dynamic view of resilience;
integration of risk
management view (p. 106);
five step approach to building
resilience
Hillmann
et al.
(2018)
Individual
“cope with turbulence that
encompasses uncertainty
and unexpected events” (p.
464)
Exploratory
experimental
character
study with 22
students
The individual manager as a
microfoundation of organisa-
tional resilience; managerial
education, learning;
managerial cognition
Resilience capacity is
built through skilled
individuals
(cognition)
(outcome, capacity)
Combination of
strategy frame-
work and ex-
periential lear-
ning (indirect)
A positive outcome of the
learning intervention could
be observed; positive impact
on anticipation and sense-
making was analysed (p. 485)

215
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXIV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Barasa et al.
(2018)
Organisation
“a system’s ability to
continue to perform and
meet its objectives in the
face of challenges” (p. 496)
Conceptual,
health care
sector focus,
literature
review
Summary of various
theoretical lenses
Resources, prepa-
redness, informa-
tion flow, redund-
ancy, governance,
leadership, culture,
human capital,
social networks and
collaboration (p.
497-500) (outcome)
Conceptual
Resilience is not just the
system’s ability to withstand
shocks but also to adapt and
transform (p. 491)
Pradhan &
Bhattacharyya
(2018)
Organisation,
individual
Various definitions
summarised
Conceptual
Integration of personal and
organisational level to form
organisational resilience
Cherishing at work
leads to personal
resilience and
directly to organi-
sational resilience
(outcome,
antecedent)
Conceptual
Integration of personal and
organisational resilience;
cherishing at work impacts
both personal and organisa-
tional resilience directly
Collier (2018)
Organisation,
MNEs
“complex system respon-
ses to challenges that
allow organizations to
resist and recover from
disruptions” (p. 2)
Thesis, 109
MNEs in 123
countries
Organisational resilience in
conjunction with organi-
sational learning and inter-
nationalisation literatures
High internationali-
sation efforts of
MNE contribute to
resilience; how does
MNE resilience
relate to perfor-
mance? (outcome
and mediator)
International-
isation impacts
magnitude of
resilience which
then impacts
performance
maintenance
and recovery
“high magnitude of resilie-
nce MNEs tend to outper-
form low magnitude of resil-
ience MNEs following a crisis
event and that stakeholder
[desirability] moderate the
relationship between magni-
tude of resilience and MNE
perfor-mance” (p. ii)
Leszczynska
(2018)
Organisation,
weather
extremes
“capacity to survive the
period of disruption and
quickly restore organisa-
tional structures” (p. 663)
Conceptual,
literature
review
Resilience as response to
extreme weather conditions
Resilience as a res-
pone based on four
categories
Communica-
tion, coordina-
tion, authority
and learning
Four categories of organi-
sational resilience in res-
ponse to adverse weather
changes were identified
through literature review

216
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXV (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Koronis &
Ponis
(2018)
Organisation
“Organizational resilience
can be looked as not only
the ability to absorb or
adapt to disturbance,
disruption and change but
also the developed capacity
to recognize and adapt to
unexpected changes” (p.
34)
Conceptual,
framework
Organisational resilience as a
new strategic lens on crises
management – organisational
resilience as the preferential
Resilience combined
as (1) stra-tegic, (2)
functional and (3)
people (p. 34) to a
strategic view
(outcome, capa-
bilities, strategic
perspective)
Drivers:
Preparedness,
responsiveness,
adaptability,
learning;
cultural traits:
trust, perceived
identity, firm
culture (p. 39)
Summary of three
approaches to resilience;
proposed framework for
organisational resilience:
drivers based on cultural
traits yield a resilient
organisation (p. 39)
DesJardine
et al.
(2019)
Organisation
“both the ability of a sys-
tem to persist despite dis-
ruptions and the ability to
regenerate and maintain
existing organization
(Gunderson & Pritchard,
2002, p. 6)
963 US-based
firms across
various sec-
tors in their
responses to
the 2008 fin-
ancial crisis
Social and environmental
business practises (SEP) as
contributing factors to
organisational resilience
Resilience as a latent
variable that is
measured through
organisational out-
come (outcome,
latent)
Severity of org-
anisational los-
ses (stability),
time to reco-
very (flexi-bility)
(p. 1437)
Strategic SEPs contribute
more to organisaitonal
resilience than do tactical
SEPs (p. 1450ff)
Branicki et
al. (2019)
Individual
“. . . [cap]ability to adapt,
endure, [recover] . . .”
(Markman & Venzin, 2014,
p. 1106)
47 semi-
structured
interviews, 11
focus groups
and 137
managers
Individual resilience in res-
ponse to day-to-day stressors
and how human resource
management interventions can
support organisational
resilience building
Resilience as the
outcome of
individual micro-
processes (outcome,
individual micro-
processes)
HRM interven-
tions lead to
enhanced indi-
vidual resilience
whih leads to
firm resilience
Identified micro-processes
have significant implications
for individual and organisa-
tional resilience; two-
dimensional framework for
literature review (p. 1264);
Wood et
al. (2019)
(large)
Organisation
No formal definition
outlined
Case study on
US state dpt.
Of the Army
Quantification of resilience in
large organisations
Across threat event
cycles, domains
mapped to metrics
(measure)
Across domains
and cycle phase
Matrix: Plan, absorb, adapt
phases; physical, informa-
tion, cognitive and social
domain
Mzid et al.
(2019)
Organisation,
family firm
“. . . pool of individual and
family resources that
protect a family firm from a
disruption . . .” (p. 253)
4 case studies
with Tunes-
ian firms
2011-2014
Sustainable family business
theory; “How does being a
family business contribute to
resilience? (p. 249)
Resilience strenght-
ened through social
capital of the family
business (outcome)
Human, social
and financial
capital of the
family firm
Social capital contributes the
most to resil-ience of the
family firm; financial capital
determined by social capital

217
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXVI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Darkow
(2019)
Organisation
“. . . to cope successfully
with crises, organizations
need to enact varying
practices during different
phases . . .” (p. 146)
Conceptual
Two basic approaches in
resilience research: plan to
resist and containing crisis
approach
Resilience as latent
characteristic that
can be observed
post crisis survival
(outcome, latent)
Conceptual
Integral, capability-based
concept of organisational
resilience is presented where
threat is seen as inherent
rather than one-off (p. 150)
Herbane
(2019)
Organisation,
SMEs
“. . . an adaptive process
and capacity of an
organisation to address
major acute and strategic
challenges through
responsiveness and
reinvention to achieve
organizational renewal” (p.
478)
265 SMEs in
UK
Integrative view of strategic
renewal and organisational
resilience
Differences in
formalisation of
activities for growth
and resilience
impact resilience
(outcome and input)
Planning, tes-
ting, aware-
ness, training,
role assign-
ments, net-
works, certi-
fication for con-
tinuity / risk
management
Four clusters are identified:
attentive interventionists,
light planners, rooted
strategists, reliant neighbours
(p. 485ff); growth-survival-
maturity perspective on SME
reliance is developed (p. 490)
Barton &
Kahn
(2019)
Team, group
“. . . absorb strain and
maintain functioning in the
face of adversity” (p. 1409)
Conceptual,
framework
Group relations theory;
relational perspective on how
adversity triggers anxiety in
teams and how this affects
organisational resilience
Adversity-triggered
anxiety forces indi-
viduals on either one
of two paths which
then impacts overall
resilience (outcome)
Conceptual
Two intragroup behaviour
trajectories are conceptua-
lised: brittle (defensive
patterns, vulnerability) and
resilience (defuse and
mitigate adversity)
Witmer
(2019)
Organisation
“. . . agile capacity to
rebound, learn, and trans-
form when impacted by
severe disruption” (p. 511)
Conceptual
Degendered model of organi-
sational resilience based on the
model, practises and other
research on gendered
organisations
Power structure,
actions and lang-
uage of gendered
organisational prac-
tises (framework)
Conceptual
Conceptual framework sum-
marising three different
aspects of gendered organi-
sational practises is pre-
sented (DOR model, p. 518)

218
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXVII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Andersson
et al.
(2019)
Organisation,
structures
“. . . activities that aim to
prevent the unexpected
from happening or directing
activities to stop
undesirable events.” (p. 37)
Case study
Different organisational struc-
tures have differing impact on
the building of traits for
organisational resilience; long-
term, anticipatory view of
resilience
The capacity to build
traits such as risk
awareness, coop-
eration, agility,
improvisation
(capacity)
How do certain
organisational
structures
enable or
hinder building
of traits
Power distribution and
normative control can create
preparedness and action
orientation as well as aid
organisational alignment
Hsu et al.
(2019)
Organisation
“the incremental capacity
of an organization to
anticipate and adjust to the
environment” (Ortiz‐de‐
Mandojana & Bansal, 2016,
p. 1617)
Dual case
study
Risk management through
building organisaitonal resil-
ience to counter risks in cross-
border mergers and
acquisitions (M&A)
Resilience as the
main way for man-
aging risks, mitigates
risks that arise
during cross-border
M&A (input)
Financial,
strategic and
organisation,
process
Conceptual outline of how
organisational resilience can
act to mitigate risks in a cross-
border M&A project
Siltaloppi
et al.
(2019)
Organisation,
individual
(academia)
“. . . an organisation’s ability
to absorb strain and
preserve or improve
functioning under
adversity” (p. 4, following
Kahn et al. (2018))
Case study at
Aalto Univer-
sity, Finland
How do academics constantly
find new ways to promote their
agendas despite man-agement
intervention
“Resilience as
values-based
resistance against
managerial control”
(p. 3)
(behaviour)
Protective,
independent
and adaptive
resilience
Three forms of resilience
were observed: protective,
independent and adaptive
Haase &
Eberl
(2019)
Startups
“organization’s capability to
anticipate, prevent, and
mitigate potential adversity
prior to its escalation to
secure an organization’s
existence and prosperity”
(p. 579)
Case study
Organisational resilience in the
startup context: large
organisations rely on embedd-
ed routines, young firms must
enact routinizing to creating
and maintaining such routines
Resilience being
fostered through
routinizing of
routines / capabil-
ities within startups
(outcome,
capabilities)
Anticipate,
prevent and
mitigate
potential
adversity
Certain startup-specific
context factors hinder
routinizing, e.g. time and
personnel constraints (p. 591)
Michel‐
Villarreal
et al.
(2019)
Agri-food
systems
Economic resilience;
definition following
(Annarelli & Nonino, 2016,
p. 3)
Mexican Agri-
culture, Live-
stock, Fores-
try Census
2007
Resilience as one of the four
sustainability pillars evaluated
by the Sustainability
Assessment of Food and
Agriculture System
As the ability to gen-
erate a positive cash
flow and maintain
effective buffer
(capabilities)
Investment,
vulnerability,
product quality
and local eco-
nomy (p. 282)
Definition of themes and
subthemes of economic
resilience (Figure 1, p. 282);
comparison of two
measurement tools (p. 286)

219
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXVIII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Jilani et al.
(2019)
Organisation,
SMEs,
individual
“the ability of the
organization to cope with
modification through
continuous replenishment
of business operations to
prevent deterioration and
disuse” (p. 140, following
Scott (2007))
239 Bangla-
deshi SMEs
(SEM
method)
Structural paths from
organisational factors (such as
creative climate and know-
ledge management) to
individual employee resilience
to organisational resilience
Organistional resil-
ience (indirectly) and
employee resil-ience
(directly) im-pacted
by creative climate
and know-ledge
management
(latent, outcome)
Creative clim-
ate and know-
ledge manage-
ment as predic-
tors of emplo-
yee resilience
and further
organisational
resilience
Creative climate, employee
resilience and knowledge
management significantly
impact organisational
resilience at different levels
and they are shown to also be
significant predictors of
organisational resilience
Morales et
al. (2019)
Organisation
“adaptation capabilities,
survival, and esponse of the
organizational structure to
keep the system in
operation” (p. 3-4)
159 Mexican
manufactur-
ing firms
(SEM
method)
Companies develop a resil-
ience profile to either recover
to equilibrium or new growth
Organisational
resilience factors are
identified (model on
p. 4)
(outcome)
Resilience lead-
ership, organi-
sational culture,
capacity to or-
ganise and ad-
aption capacity
Resilience leadership influen-
ces culture and capacity to
manage and organise oper-
ations (indirect), adaptation
capacity has a direct impact
on resilience
Ingram &
Bratnicka-
Myśliwiec
(2019)
Organisation,
family firm
“. . . as a dynamic,
ambidextrous capability to
recover from and positively
adjust to an unexpected,
adverse situation.” (p. 186)
193 Polish
SMEs in the
manufac-
turing sector
How is organisational
resilience beneficial for the
competitive advantage of the
family firm? Organisational
ambidexterity and dynamic
capabilities theories
Organisational
resilience linked to
competitive
advantage of the
family firm
Community
robustness and
creative agility
as key duality of
resilience
Ambidextrous organisational
resilience is positively related
to the competitive advan-
tage; Competitive advantage
is fostered through rapidly
and efficiently coping with
adversity (p. 187)
Turgeon
(2019)
Organisation,
individual
(leadership)
“. . . emerging from the
crisis stronger and more
resourceful than prior to
the crisis” (p. 54)
30 managers
and
educators
(delphi study)
Required leadership skills to
promote organisational
resilience in the post-crisis
phase
Organisational
resilience being built
through leadership
skills post-crisis
(outcome)
Postcrisis visi-
on, view crisis as
a catalyst,
positive adjust-
ment, . . . (p.
115)
Identified skills: (a) adaptable,
(b) commun-ication, (c)
transparency, (d) personal
mastery, € learning and (f)
emotional intelligence

220
Table 10 – literature review summary XXXIX (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Werran
(2019)
Organisation,
food sector
“. . . ability to adapt – to
continually innovate, learn
and improve — in order to
manage uncertainty and
risk and seize those new
opportunities” (p. 26)
Conceptual
(viewpoint)
Organisational resilience in the
food industry measured
through the BSI organisational
resilience index (The British
Standards Institution, 2019)
Conceptual
16 core
elements being
ranked
Adaptive capacity seems be
to be an area for
improvement in the food
sector
Beuren &
dos Santos
(2019)
Organisation
“. . . organization’s survival
by dealing with shocks,
risks, and changes.” (p. 309)
144 mana-
gers of M&A
involved
parties (SEM
method)
Understanding the role of
enabling and coercive
management control systems
(MCSs) in creation and use of
organisational resilience
capacities (p. 307)
MCSs as antece-
dents of resilience
capacity (capacity,
output variable)
Conceptual ori-
entation, con-
structive dir-
ection, impro-
vised agility,
behavioural
preparation,
psychological
security, net-
work (p. 314)
MCSs as antecedents of
resilience capacity in
organisations; organisations
seek to manage dynamic
tensions, e.g. balancing
effieciency versus experi-
mentation (p. 318)
Bang et al.
(2019)
Organisation
First, organisational
resilience with stable
institutions and second,
capacities to absorb shock,
learn from and adapt and
recover better from an
event (p. 268)
Semi-
structured
interviews
with disaster
managers in
Cameroon
Physical and social
vulnerabilities relative to
organisational resilience and
adaptive capacity
Adaptive capacity via
the evaluation of
vulnerabilities and
organisational
resilience (p. 267,
269) (outcome,
corresponding with
adaptive capacity)
Coping/recover,
crisis manage-
ment, (non)-
structural mea-
sures and orga-
nisational and
community re-
silience (p. 276)
Institutional performance for
flood management in Camer-
oon is ineffective, flood man-
agement legislative frame-
work is weak and simply the
government’s “negligence,
incompetence and co-
rruption” (p. 279) are at fault
Al-Ayed
(2019)
Organisation
Summary of various
definitions (e.g. Lengnick-
Hall et al., 2011; Mallak,
1998; Somers, 2009;
Youssef & Luthans, 2007)
449 staff
responses
from private
hospitals
The impact of strategic human
resource practises on organi-
sational resilience
Resilience in
cognitive, behav-
ioural and contex-
tual dimensions
(outcome)
Cognitive,
behavioural,
contextual
organisational
resilience
Stragic human resource
management practises are
observed to have an impact
on resilience; strategic aspect
most influential (p. 183ff)

221
Table 10 – literature review summary XL (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Carmeli et
al. (2020)
Organisation
Summaries of various
definitions presented
(Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003;
van der Vegt et al., 2015)
Conceptual
How can financially and sus-
tainability driven organisations
translate negative and positive
performance gaps into
resilience? (p. 154)
Different search
behaviours promote
or limit behaviours
that further resil-
ience (outcome)
Social and
environmental
resilience and
financial resil-
ience (p. 156)
Both promoting (internal
search) and limiting (vicarious
search) behaviours can
improve resilience
Mitsakis
(2020)
Organisation
Human resource develop-
ment (HRD) resilience as a
new success element that
can, with other elements,
enhance organisational
resilience
Conceptual
HRD as organisational change
leader, can additionally con-
tribute to organisational
resilience through strategies
and policies (p. 322)
HRD resilience as
one potential
success element of
organisational
resilience
Conceptual
Conceptual outline of the
definition of HRD resilience
and the integration of such
with organisational resilience
theory as one of the potential
success factors
Karman
(2020)
Organisation
“. . . ability to resist and
respond to an external
shock and recover once it
has occurred . . .” (p. 276)
61 survey
responses
from Euro-
pean firms
Resilience is built through the
application of various
resilience mechanisms in
response to weather extremes
The frequency and
depth of application
of various mechan-
isms varies
Extreme-rela-
ted, organisat-
ional, commu-
nity, individual
factors (p. 278)
Various mechanisms fre-
quency (p. 284) and signi-
ficance (p. 285) was analy-
sed; overall application level
was a significant predictor of
adaptive resilience
Cruickshank
(2020)
Organisation
“. . . ability to function dur-
ing a shock and then return
to normal function” (p. 1)
Conceptual
Resilience not as a reserve
capability that is called upon
when crisis arise; proactive
view of resilience
Anticipatory innova-
tion (Teixeira &
Werther, 2013) as
the main driver
(outcome, capacity)
Conceptual
Proactive view of resilience;
introduction and integration
of anticipatory innovation as
main driver of resilience (p. 8)
Hillmann
(2020)
Organisation
Various definitions
summarised
Conceptual,
systematic
review
Various lenses summarised
Conceptual
Conceptual
Five broad disciplines
summarised: ecology, safety
and reliability, engineering,
positive psychology and
organisational development,
strategic perspectives

222
Table 10 – literature review summary XLI (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Senbeto &
Hon (2020)
Individual
“. . . employees’
adaptability and intention
to manage changing market
demand.” (p. 4)
298 + 78 em-
ployee res-
ponses in ser-
vice, Ethiopia
Ongoing challenging dynamics;
employee resilience as
mediator variable
Employee resilience
mediates between
turbulance and inn-
ovation (mediator)
9 item measure
of employee
resilience (p. 9)
Employee resilience partially
mediates the relation be-
tween turbulance and service
innovation (Fig. 2, p. 12)
Santoro et
al. (2020)
Organisation,
family firms,
individual,
entrepreneur
Resilience from two
perspectives: (1) capability
to withstand shocks and (2)
capability to develop new
capabilities and growth
Survey with
195 small
family firm
managers
Resilience in the entrepre-
neurship context; different
levels of analysis of resilience
are investigated
Relation between
employee resilience
and performance
moderated by entre-
preneurial resilience
(input, moderator)
Employee resil-
ience (cogni-
tive, behaviour,
context) (p. 8),
entrepreneurial
resilience (p. 9)
Employee-level resilience
positively affects perfor-
mance when there are higher
levels of entrepreneurial
resilience
Beech et
al. (2020)
Organisation,
family firm
Various definitions summ-
arised; “. . . resilience . . .
needs to be tempered to
accommodate the system”
(p. 173)
Conceptual
Resilience in the family firm
context; how do familiness and
e.g. relationship dynamics
impact performance?
Conceptual
Conceptual
Familiness mediates between
organisation and individual,
which is theorised to mediate
between organisational and
individual resilience
Conz &
Magnani
(2020)
Organisation
Resilience as “. . . a firm
attribute that evolves in
time” (p. 401)
Conceptual,
systematic
review
Dynamic perspective of
resilience and increased
emphasis on the temporal
dimension of resilience
Conceptual
Conceptual
Reconceptualised framework
of resilience (dynamic view);
two paths outlined: absorp-
tive and adaptive (p. 409)
Gracey
(2020)
Organisation
“A people-centric capability
based on the strategic co-
ordination of organisatio-
nal resources, adaptive
leadership, intelligence,
communication and staff
development which enab-
les the identification and
analysis of strategic threats
. . .” (p. 320)
Review of
military
documents
from 2004 to
2016
Based on observations from
the military and drawing on
academic study, the authors is
outlining the development of a
common organisational
resilience model;
Resilience as the en-
abler for awareness,
agility business pla-
nning, business gov-
ernance, business
development (p.
323)
Corporate cul-
ture maturiy,
strategic cor-
porate vision,
adaptive
leadership
framework (p.
323)
Organisational maturity
framework (ORM) tool (p.
323)

223
Table 10 – literature review summary XLII (continued)
Study
Unit of
analysis
Definition of Resilience
Data
Theoretical lens
Treatment
Measurement
Outcome,
main results
Beuren et
al. (2020)
Organisation
Amongts others, Lengnick-
Hall et al. (2011)
161 manag-
ers of Bra-
zilian firms
involved in
M&A
The effect of managerial
control systems (MCS) on
psychological empowerment
and organisational resilience
Resilience influen-
ced by the enabling
perception of MCS
through increased
managerial motiva-
tion (outcome)
Enabling MCSs
favor the em-
powerment of
managers which
resilience (p.
218)
The results indicate a relation
between the enabling
perception of MCS and
psychological empowerment
as well as capacity for
organisational resilience
Filimonau
& Coteau
(2020)
Organisation,
desitnation
(tourism
resilience)
“. . . a destination’s ability
(DM1) to adapt, learn, and
self‐organize following
disasters (DM2; . . . ), thus
offering an integrated
management vision
(DM2).” (p. 207)
Tourism
destination
Grenada
The integration of disaster
management with destination
management principles to
enhance destination resilience
(Fig. 2, p. 210)
The successful inte-
gration depends on
stakeholder colla-
boration (outcome)
Proactive, coll-
aborative ways
of disaster
management
Local tourism stakeholders
are aware of the potential
threats but fail to develop
measures and resilience
Sweya et
al. (2020)
Water supply
organisations
in Tanzania
“. . . the ability to adapt, the
need to detect the drift
toward failure or weak
signals, the organization’s
preoccupation with failure,
and the level of organiza-
tional reliability” (p. 7)
32 member
panel in
water supply
sector in
Tanzania
(delphi study)
Organisations need to
prioritise and allocate res-
ource efficiently and effec-
tively to develop resilience; a
focus on service coverage
rather than resilience created
vulnerability
Resilience as the
outcome of various
factors (outcome)
E.g. awareness,
emergency res-
ponse plan,
learning about
resilience, lead-
ership (p. 17)
Various factors emerged as
factors influencing organi-
sational resilience (p. 14-15)
Duchek
(2020)
Organisation
“. . . resilience is a funda-
mental organizational
ability that is directed
toward organizational
advancement. It enables
firms to withstand stresses,
continuously innovate, and
quickly adapt to changes.”
(p. 238)
Conceptual
Capability-based view of
organisational resilience
Conceptual
Conceptual
Capability-based view of
resilience that suggests three
stages of resilience: anticipa-
tion, coping and adaptation
(p. 223ff) which in
combination with various
underlying capabilities (p.
225ff) form organisational
resilience (p. 224)

224
Appendix C – propositions summarised (Chapter 2)
Table 11 – propositions: summary of propositions
Proposition
Impact on
Antecedents
Proposition 1a
Instability of the
environment
the more instable the environment (volatile, disruptive,
turbulent), the more likely the firm will engage in the
development of potential RESCAP capabilities.
Development
of potential
RESCAP
Proposition 1b
Number of
disruptions
the higher the number of disruptions over time, albeit less-
intense volatile environments, the more likely the firm will
engage in the development of potential RESCAP over time.
Amplifying (moderates)
Proposition 2a
Prior experience
the higher the level of prior experience, the more the positive
relationship between disruption and the development of
sensing capabilities will be amplified.
Effect of
disruption on
sensing
Proposition 2b
Slack resources
low levels of slack amplify the positive relationship between
disruption and the development of opportunity seeking
capabilities while high levels of slack impede the positive impact
of disruption on the development of opportunity seeking
capabilities.
Effect of
disruption on
exploring
Proposition 2c
TMT attention
the higher the TMT attention orientation on sensing activities,
the more the positive relationship between disruptions and
sensing will be amplified.
Effect of
disruption on
sensing
Proposition 2d
TMT attention
the higher the TMT attention orientation on explorative
activities, the more the positive relationship between
disruptions and exploring will be amplified.
Effect of
disruption on
exploring
Integrating (moderates)
Proposition 3a
Corp. coherence
the higher the level of corporate coherence, the better the focal
firm can realise the potential RESCAP.
Realisation
of potential
RESCAP
Proposition 3b
Firm size
the larger the firm, the more resources a firm can deploy and
redistribute and thus the better, quicker and more efficiently the
firm can realise its potential RESCAP.
Proposition 3c
Organisational
flexibility
the higher the level of organisational flexibility, the better the
focal firm can adapt processes, structures and strategy to better
realise potential RESCAP.

225
Table 11 – propositions: summary of propositions II (continued)
Proposition
Impact on
Resilience Outcomes
Proposition 4a
Potential
RESCAP
the better developed potential RESCAP, the more the firm will
outperform competitors and prior levels of performance through
enhanced sensing and exploring capabilities. Firms with higher
levels of potential RESCAP are better able to sense (weak) signals,
to sense both opportunity and threat as well as seek new
opportunities that allows for future competitive advantage.
Performance
Proposition 4b
Realised
RESCAP
firms with well-developed realised RESCAP capabilities tend to
more likely adapt to changing environmental conditions shaped
by instability and disruption through enhanced flexibility and
efficiency in asset (re) allocation. Firms with higher levels of
realised RESCAP tend to better be able to exploit current and
future assets as well as reduce risk and uncertainty through
transformative action.
Adaptation
Leveraging (moderates)
Proposition 5a
Industry
clockspeed
at lower levels of industry clockspeed, the positive impact of
RESCAP on resilience outcomes is amplified, while at higher levels
of clockspeed the positive impact of RESACP on resilience is
negatively moderated as attention is drawn away from RESCAP to
satisfy demands arising from high industry clockspeed.
Impact of
RESCAP on
resilience
outcomes
Proposition 5b
Industry
innovativeness
while at lower levels of industry innovativeness, the positive
impact of RESCAP on resilience outcomes will be amplified through
increased managerial attention being drawn to RESCAP, at higher
levels of industry innovativeness, the more negatively will the
positive impact of realised RESCAP on resilience outcomes be
moderated.
Proposition 5c
Institutional
support
the higher the financial institutional support, the more the positive
relationship between RESCAP and resilience outcomes will be
amplified.

226
Appendix D – comparing conceptualisations and definitions (Chapter 2)
Table 12 – comparing prior and new conceptualisations and definitions
Issue
Traditional view of RESCAP
Reconceptualised view of RESCAP
Definition
o Resilience as the outcome of firm-level
responses to crises
o Resource-based view
o Adaptability and flexibility
o Threat-rigidity perspective
o Shock absorption and robustness
o Capability perspective
o RESCAP is the capacity of a firm to recover
from disruptions through development
and deployment of sensing, exploring,
seizing and transformative capabilities to
produce a dynamic capability of the firm.
o Emphasis on RESCAP as a dynamic
capability of the firm
Dimensions
o Multiple dimensions discussed
o Some works lack dimensional clarity as the
focus is different (e.g. equilibrium
perspective by (Meyer, 1982) in which
resilience is the property)
o Multidimensional construct with four
underlying capabilities
o Two distinct subsets (potential and
realised) of RESCAP
o Addition of exploring
Antecedents
o Resilience as proactive capabilities
(Conz & Magnani, 2020)
o Knowledge base (Duchek, 2020)
o Assets & resourcefulness, dynamic
competitiveness, learning & culture (Pal et
al., 2014)
o Endogenous and exogenous stressors
(Riolli & Savicki, 2003)
o Perceptual stance, contextual integrity,
strategic capacity, strategic acting (Kantur
& Iseri-Say, 2012)
Disruption specific characteristics impact the
development of RESCAP:
o Munificence, instability, complexity
(Dess & Beard, 1984; Keats & Hitt, 1988)
o Number of discontinuities over time
(Rudolph & Repenning, 2002)
Drivers
o Resource availability, social resources,
power & responsibility (Duchek, 2020)
o Stakeholders (Collier, 2018)
o Prior work is mostly silent on drivers,
moderators or boundary conditions
Three distinct sets of drivers:
o Amplifying: moderates the negative
impact of disruption on RESCAP
o Integrating: moderates the realisation of
potential RESCAP
o Leveraging: moderates the impact of
RESCAP on resilience outcomes
Outcomes
o Resilience as latent outcome variable
o Organizational evolvability (Kantur & Iseri-
Say, 2012)
o Performance maintenance & performance
recovery (Collier, 2018)
o Agility, flexibility (Conz & Magnani, 2020)
o Cope effectively with unexpected events
(Duchek, 2020)
o Performance reversion
o Adaptability of the firm

227
Appendix E – questions for interviews (Chapter 3)
Questions outlined below represent a sample of the questions used in the qualitative research
interviews, conducted in a semi-structured manner.
I. Introductory questions
- What is your role within the firm and what are your responsibilities?
II. Disruption-specific questions (antecedents)
- What were disruptive events that shaped the past 12 months?
- How did you feel the shock, the disruption?
- What were the main impacts?
III. Questions on the amplifying effect on the impact of disruptions (amplifying)
- How did previous experiences shape your perception / behaviour?
- Did the company utilise excess resources? Can you provide examples?
- What does the TMT focus on? Did that focus change?
IV. Responses to disruptions Capabilities that allow for the development of potential
RESCAP
- What were the responses to the disruption?
- How does your firm purposefully scan the environment for changing dynamics?
- How is your firm thinking about possible future solutions, scenarios?
V. Questions on the integrating effects of firm characteristics (integrating)
- Can you explain how the different parts of the business are related? Did this change?
- I’m interested in how the firm size impacted your decisions and behaviour?
- Can you elaborate on the way (i.e., flexibly) your firm reacted to disruptions and why?
VI. Questions about the capabilities that enable the realisation of RESCAP
- How is your firm making the changes in the organisation to respond crisis?

228
- How is your firm portfolio changing during and after a disruption?
- What are characteristics of capabilities that allow them to impact firm performance?
VII. Questions about performance (outcomes)
- What are some of the reasons why the firm is performing at the current level?
- Have you been able to recover to previous levels of performance? Or outperform?
- Has your competitive advantage changed compared to prior to the disruption?
- How did you know you were on the right path?
- What were your aha-moments? Surprises?
- How do you feel about the disruption now?
VIII. Questions on the leveraging effect of industry characteristics (leveraging)
- How would you describe the level of change (technological and competitive) within
your sector? (clockspeed) Do you think your competitors see the rate of change?
- Would you describe your sector as innovative? (Innovativeness)
- I am interested in how institutions (i.e. the government, region) has supported you
over the last few months. Has this changed compared to previous periods?
IX. General questions
- What advice would you give other firms in a similar situation?
- How would you handle a disruption if you were the CEO / manager of another firm?

229
Appendix F – list of interviews (Chapter 3)
Table 13 – list of interviews
#
Case firm
Role in the firm20
Level in
firm21
Location of
informant22
1
SteelCo
Head of Global Operations
C-1
Austria
2
SteelCo
Member of the Management Board
C
Austria
3
SteelCo
President Asia Pacific
C-1
Singapore
4
ServCo
Head of China office (Beijing)
C-1
China
5
BioTech
Chief Production Officer
C
Thailand
6
Conceptual
Associate Partner
C-1
Austria
7
BioTech
CEO and co-founder
C
Thailand
8
BioTech
CTO and co-founder
C
Thailand
9
SteelCo
Divisional Head of Benelux
C-3
Netherlands
10
ChemCo
COO, Member of the Management Board
C
France
11
SteelCo
President North America
C-1
Canada
12
BioTech
COO
C
Singapore
13
ChemCo
President and CEO Americas
C-1
US
14
ServCo
Head of Philippines office
C-1
Philippines
15
Conceptual
CEO and founder
C
Austria
16
ServCo
Head of Thailand office
C-1
Thailand
17
ServCo
Head of South Korea office
C-1
South Korea
18
ServCo
Head of Hong Kong office
C-1
Hong Kong
19
SteelCo
Global Head of Marketing and Sales
C-1
Austria
20
Conceptual
Innovation and Start-Ups Manager
C-2
US
21
ChemCo
Exec. VP Strategy, Member of the Management Board
C
France
22
ServCo
Head of Singapore office
C-1
Singapore
23
ChemCo
Managing Director and Regional Manager SE Asia
C-1
Singapore
24
Conceptual
CEO
C
Germany
25
Conceptual
Professor of Strategic Management & Leadership
-
Austria
Total number of participants: BioTech (4), ChemCo (4), ServCo (6), SteelCo (6), Conceptual (5)
20
Role in the firm is a description of the informants role, rather than the exact title of said role
21
The level within firm describes the level of hierarchy that the informant holds: C = CEO, COO, CTO, CPO; C-1 =
reporting to C-level; C-2 = reporting to C-1 level; in cases where this could not clearly be determined, an
assumption was made
22
It seems important to note the location from where the informant participated in the interview as this implies
the cultural context in which those statements were made; this however shall not represent any inference to
the demographics (i.e. that persons’ origin or citizenship or race) of the participant or firm information

230
Appendix G – emerging concepts (Chapter 3)
Table 14 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Disruptiveness
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts23
1A. Crisis as catalyst
Crises are often described by
informants to act as a catalyst for
pre-existing dynamics. Rarely,
informants outline dynamics that are
purely and only induced by the
disruptive environment. Important
to note is that accelerated or
intensified dynamics are not always
negative for the firm.
Technological change is mainly coming from digitalization, of course, and also artificial intelligence on and those
things, and this is happening faster than it was before course [001]24
This was maybe not new in the pandemic, but I would say we could see that this has become more important during
the pandemic . . . I would say not to because, but it has underlined the importance even once more. It was already
important before, of course [003]
I actually, look at Covid as a very positive disruption. Actually, 'cause it allowed us to actually take stock of where we
are. Reflect on who we are as a company, what our core strengths are and where we want to go [005]
I think […] those basic trends have been existing already before the pandemic problem, and now they've been
intensified […] the pandemic accelerated some of those impulses, that's for sure and are forcing companies into
[…] decisions they would have not considered before the pandemic that these decisions are necessary at all [006]
We [had] not started to discover digitalization at the day of the crisis. But we were already embarked on the [journey,
but with accelerated is more the speed or momentum […] a crisis enables you to accelerate [010]
Most of what we are seeing is an acceleration because the trends have been there […] at least not a major change
that has been caused by COVID-19 and was not there before [025]
1B. Increased
uncertainty
The disruptive environment in
particular increased the level of
uncertainty for firms. Uncertainty
that manifests in a variety of issues
(further outlined in category 2,
impact of disruption)
This is now getting much more uncertain, getting much more unprecise because the people you have, the market
system they are working in is, facing the same uncertainties. […] cannot justify decisions based on assumed facts.
Whichever likelihood of only less than, let's say 10 or 20%, that means on the other side giving that as a fact, the
companies have to learn to decide under uncertainty, and certainly also the risk involved […] will increase [006]
A lot of uncertainty and a lot of disruption, and that's been a huge […] challenge for us in the last 12 months [011]
Well I think uncertainty is probably the one thing that we fear most. 'cause we are like. A company like us is not just
[company]. There are many companies like us, but you know. Making changes and yeah. You know it. You called
manoeuvre as if you were on the bicycle and decide to turn left or turn right or to go back. Um? So we hate
uncertainty, and the crisis with when it brings initially is uncertainty [021]
23
Exemplary statements were selectively chosen and were copied from the transcripts verbatim
24
The informants who made the respective statement are noted in [brackets], for example [001] represents informant 1 in Table 14, Appendix G

231
Table 14 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Disruptiveness (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
1C. Underlying dynamics
Informants detailed a number of
underlying dynamics, that were
accelerated and intensified,
examples of which are given in
the description
In the first wave I thought there is going to be a shift away from global economy to more local business, but I changed
my mind in the meanwhile nothing that's not going to happen. I think the global value chains are that strong that
they have. They have not been interrupted heavily and they are not going to be interrupted heavily [006]
For example here in this crisis it was obvious that it was a unique opportunity to accelerate digital transformation of
the company [010]
Another […] really critical transformation initiative that's taking place across the industry is sustainability [013]
The digitization topic is actually already very old, so talk of this trend of this megatrend digitization at least already
10 years rather longer [015]
The […] climate, crisis continues. Of course, questions such as "How does digitization affect my business model? Of
course, questions such as global migration continue. […] issues such as global migration or climate will perhaps
have a much greater impact [024]
1D. Nature of the
disruption
Statements relating to the nature
of the disruption, suggesting a
differing impact of the disruptive
environment contingent upon
the nature (or source) of the
disruption
It was basically a worldwide […] sanitary crisis, which basically hit everybody. Of course, depending on where your
position is a chain you're hit slightly differently, but it's not like if you experience a quite a crisis where you're hit
because you have an accident internally, or whether you have an issue with some of the product or whether you
have a cyber-attack or whatsoever [010]
The trigger was different. This was a health crisis rather than an economic crisis [011]
And when we talk about current disruptions like covid, so it's not a technology, so that is not the disruption in the
sense of Clayton Christensen. So it's totally different things [025]
2A. Changes in consumer
behaviour
One of the ways how the
disruptive environment impact
firms is through changes in
consumer behaviour
Before you said you have to look at the watch and you have to feel the touch or luxury cars and like s-class in China
is now sold 90% via Internet [002]
Covid's had a slowdown effect on some of our clients cause they weren't able to react as quickly as they could because
other parts of their business was impacted by Covid, so that threw back their budgets [008]
We were getting a call from a customer back in March saying, you know, I need to build a mould for [product].
Typically this is a 12 week build. I have to build it in 12 days so I need you to deliver [product] to me this afternoon
when we might typically take […] two weeks. So speed is one thing [011]
Changes in consumer behaviour. Changes in shopping behaviour those consumers that first started to shop online
will continue shopping online [025]

232
Table 14 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Disruptiveness (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
2B. Changes in decision
making behaviour
Another way how the disruptive
environment impacted firms is
through changes to the decision-
making behaviours
Speed before perfection is maybe good synonym speed before perfection [003]
Anyway, by definition you never have enough information, so you can always find the excuse that you need additional
elements, additional calculation documentation and what you see is that sometimes this is used as an excuse to
delay decision and to protect yourself so whatever you do at a certain point in time, somebody's got to say it's
enough. Now it's time to decide there's enough rationale [010]
The second topic is how our managers make decisions, even in moments of total uncertainty, because no one knew
what was going to happen [024]
2C. Reconfiguring
distributive work
A major impact that the
disruptive environment induced
is the notion of a change in way
of working
I mean the work, the work life is changing dramatically and people are working from home. […] nobody thought of
that a year ago that it's possible at [company] to work 100% from home and now it's widely accepted [001]
The disruption for every business activity I could witness in Morocco still last year and also here in China, we're dealing
with that every day is the practical impossibility to make business travel [004]
What we did do, for example, is reduce the number of days that we work in the lab and switch to working home […]
Yeah, yeah for sure, and it's something that never […] would have crossed my mind if we weren't forced into that
circumstance [005]
Obviously Covid has had a big influence on our the way we do our business. It's […] very different now to wait was
let's say 18 months ago where we were in a system where we travelled a lot [008]
2D. Demand disruption
Statements that detail the impact
of the disruptive environment on
demand in a variety of ways, e.g.,
a reduction in demand, increase
in demand volatility
And, the biggest difference is that we did not have a market anymore. During the other crisis we had the market and
everything was just homemade. Now there was all customers shut down [002]
What you see is that the demand from the market has dropped [009]
The fluctuation in demand was very important, not for very long, but very important [i.e., negatively significant].
What was the most probably the most difficult thing to handle is uncertainty […] People are very often very much
influenced by the context in the short term, there was very soon a belief that the crisis was to stay [021]
Huge impact of course first of all on the demand […], which has suddenly brutally collapsed [024]
2E. Supply disruption
Statements that refer to the
impact of the disruptive
environment on the supply side
of the business (i.e., supply chain
disruptions)
There are other [phenomena], for instance like the […] incredible increase in transport costs between China, Europe
and the US [004]
Essentially what that did for us was really disrupt our supply chain. Because most of the consumables that we buy we
purchased from local distributors, but they are actually imported [005]
You know there is no movement [in the] supply chain. We have problems shipping the material [to] our customer
and had problem[s] receiving the material [023]

233
Table 14 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Disruptiveness (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
2C. Reconfiguring
distributive work
A major impact that the
disruptive environment induced
is the notion of a change in way
of working
I mean the work, the work life is changing dramatically and people are working from home. […] nobody thought of
that a year ago that it's possible at [company] to work 100% from home and now it's widely accepted [001]
The disruption for every business activity I could witness in Morocco still last year and also here in China, we're dealing
with that every day is the practical impossibility to make business travel [004]
What we did do, for example, is reduce the number of days that we work in the lab and switch to working home […]
Yeah, yeah for sure, and it's something that never […] would have crossed my mind if we weren't forced into that
circumstance [005]
Obviously Covid has had a big influence on our the way we do our business. It's […] very different n ow to wait was
let's say 18 months ago where we were in a system where we travelled a lot [008]
People happy to work from home because you know it might cost them. Yeah I don't know. Bit of extra air Con or
something but they're saving a lot on traveling on lunches on coffees, on work, clothes [012]
2D. Demand disruption
Statements that detail the impact
of the disruptive environment on
demand in a variety of ways, e.g.,
a reduction in demand, increase
in demand volatility
And, the biggest difference is that we did not have a market anymore. During the other crisis we had the market and
everything was just homemade. Now there was all customers shut down [002]
What you see is that the demand from the market has dropped [009]
The fluctuation in demand was very important, not for very long, but very important [i.e., negatively significant].
What was the most probably the most difficult thing to handle is uncertainty […] People are very often very much
influenced by the context in the short term, there was very soon a belief that the crisis was to stay and if you had
a demand of let's say 100 before dropping at 70 overnight, almost […] OK, yeah, and the thesis was that there
had to be a reset demand, the demand reset concept [021]
Huge impact of course first of all on the demand […], which has suddenly brutally collapsed [024]
2E. Supply disruption
Statements that refer to the
impact of the disruptive
environment on the supply side
of the business (i.e., supply chain
disruptions)
There are other [phenomena], for instance like the […] incredible increase in transport costs between China, Europe
and the US [004]
Essentially what that did for us was really disrupt our supply chain. Because most of the consumables that we buy we
purchased from local distributors, but they are actually imported [005]
You know there is no movement [in the] supply chain. We have problems shipping the material [to] our customer
and had problem[s] receiving the material [023]
This means that we had to ensure that the production and supply chains were stable for the future. What does that
mean in a bipolar market I really have to look very closely at what suppliers are there who might also fail because
of this situation? [024]

234
Table 14 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Disruptiveness (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
3A. Intensity of the
disruption
Statements that describe the
intensity of the disruptive
dynamics. Dimensions include
prevalence (both geographical
and firm-level impact), duration
of the disruption, sequence of
disruptions (Rudolph &
Repenning, 2002)
But one year later, there was there was 9/11 when you remember, it was 2001. This was basically one year after the
.com bubble burst and this made the crisis even more severe than it was before. I think the crisis wouldn't have
been so bad when 9/11 didn't happen [001]
With Covid, it's probably the first time where everyone, regardless of what field they are in, what industry they're in
and everyone around the world is kind of like facing a crisis at the same time [005]
So this time is much more dramatic. There are only […] very few sectors which take advantage [016]
Well, I think the Corona Crisis is […] second to none. So actually I have never seen so dramatic changes within such a
short period of time [017]
I see the whole world, you know, being kind of hostage of this health crisis with the Ups and Downs, but everyone
suddenly has to cope […] with the same yeah [018]
3B. Previous disruptions
Statements that compare the
current disruptive environment
with previous disruptions
defining a variety of
characteristics essential for
comparison, leading to a further
characterisation of the disruptive
environment
Two major disruptions apart from this one. This was obviously the global financial crisis in 2009, which was from
nature a bit different because it came from the from the financials side, but from the consequences quite similar
and I remember very well the first of the of the .com bubble in in 2000, so this was also a major disruption [001]
I think maybe […] in the in the in the past I mean there once the […] other big disruption that I came across was the
financial crisis in 2008 [014]
When we had the 2008 2009 crisis, I remember this very well at the very start it was totally unexpected, never
happened before [021]
3C. Speed of disruption
Statements referring to the
speed of induced changes and
the acceleration or intensification
of such speed of changes
Different here was now the speed in which this crisis has spread across the globe. I believe this is something we have
not seen before and we had to deal with a lot of different topics in a matter of hours or days to find some quick
emergency solutions [003]
Speed of of the disruption we had was far quicker than normal [011]

235
Table 15 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Sensing
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
4A. Observing the
environment
Statements relating to the
abilities of the firm to observe
(i.e., sense) the environment for
dynamics that might impact the
firm. Dimensions include
proactive sensing, listening to
customers, ability to predict,
scenario planning and stress
testing.
I think we have also of this crisis, we have learned that we need to be much more proactive in sensing out possible
disruptive technologies or disruptive developments, referring to our business [003]
But I want to listen as much as possible to what I hear from my customers from my team. That's what I want. What
are the drivers and this public opinion for me is less important than you know the noise around it [009]
Your ability to navigate it has a direct correlation in terms of your ability to anticipate it or to see it coming. You know
if it arrives on your doorstep at, you know 8:01 in the morning on Monday, then you're in far worse shape than
if you know you saw it coming you know six months before […] I think we've been much more invested in
strengthening our external focus and in the US we invested very specifically […]o enable our commercial people
to have the right information at their at their hands […] So you know, they could help make decisions. Be more
responsive [013]
This is something that banks are doing for […] like adverse scenarios and all this and […] I think it's something that
every company should […] think about, is stress testing [020]
4B. Risk management
Statements that detail the way
how firms do risk management in
disruptive times and the
importance of such. Inference is
made also to the notion of firm
size, in that firm size might
determine the way risk
management is done purposely
Which is risk Management today and probably even more in crises […] risk management is vital. You need to not so
much to gamble necessarily about what the future is going to be rather than to have a scenario-based analysis
and see in terms of risk. What makes more sense, knowing that nothing is risk free? You cannot be totally be risk
adverse, but you need also to manage your risk and to figure out what happens if you make a big mistake. For
me this risk management is sometimes more important than the budget per se [010]
I know there's companies now that have these risk assessment or risk management or and the you know you with all
the money in the world you have people to, especially to do this kind of stuff, but we you know we're two were
too small for that. We've been too lean for being able to do things like that [012]
5A. Assessing
Statements that explain the
firms’ ability to make sense of the
signals in the environment. Here,
informants also details ways of
how they try to make sense of the
disruptive dynamics in the
environment
Looking at raw material prices makes sense that'll maybe understand disruptions, in particular when there is a
development what is simply not reflecting real world, what is simply a crazy development [001]
Uncertainty is, is it a trend? A do we have to adapt to this trend or is it another hiccup? […] And so the […] name of
the game is to […] see the trend and disregard the noise. [...] So making the difference between the signal and
the noise and today more which depending on who you talk to [021]
And so if we now take the volcanic eruption, relatively early to decide. That sounds, if you look at it backwards, always
very simple, to decide relatively early, does that have an impact on my business model yes or no? [024]

236
Table 16 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Exploring
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
6A. Finding new
opportunities
Statements that detail the way
how firms find new opportunities
in times of disruption. This
concept entails a number of
dimensions, such as business
model innovation [003],
formulating strategy for the
future [005, 007], M&A activities
[006], where can current
capabilities be redeployed [008],
new business acquisition [019]
So that's why we try to keep all the market channels all the let's say, existing market activities, but we add up new
ones, so this is also kind of transformation [002]
I would say starting at the last quarter of last year and we are looking intensively into new business models. We could
interact our customers with [003]
it's like only the best will survive. You know somehow because they are, they are still active, although they are
hindered in doing their business. They really prepare a strategy for the aftermath [004]
Whereas if that disruption didn't really happen, I think you get so busy in your day-to-day work you don't get that
opportunity to like sit down and plan […] trying to figure out like OK, what next? Like what do we do? And then
from there I think we actually came up with the. A very good strategy that is going to lay the foundation for like
the next phase of our company [005]
Now, if you are in a business environment where you have the chance to buy a competitor in March 2020 as an
answer to the development of this of this disruptive revolution then you would probably say, well, let's wait till
October. Maybe I get him cheaper. […] That means this kind of yes, I am aggressive, but the opportunity might
be even cheaper in the future. I might buy a competitor. It's at out of bankruptcy eventually even, and by just
the machines and the people from the market [006]
We got now in types of capabilities that other companies could utilize that may not lie within our normal core area,
[…] and those can also be used for other things. So there are a lot of companies out there who are looking for
new locations where they could have a company like ours manufacture just [product] but just [product] for yeah,
[…]. So that was a chance for us because this was a new opportunity in the market we have the facilities [008]
6B. Cultivating new
relationships
Statements specifically relating
to the notion of acquiring new
relationships that detail the
changes to the ways this is done.
Informants detail the challenges
that the reconfiguration of
distributive work has brought,
and the changes firms’ make
accordingly. This also denotes a
new way of customer acquisition
is done by firms
Can we establish a virtual contact which in the end leads to a concrete business? OK well create contract. Yeah will
we succeed to bring business partners together virtually? And then we agree on effective and concrete business
contract [004]
If you looking for new partners and there is more difficult because you don't always get those sort of subliminal
signals. As is my message coming across or not, it's more difficult when you see somebody meet for the first time
on[line] [007]
How do you? How do you create now this kind of […] business relationships? […]there's a company that that was that
is still focused on having their […] employees, you know, meet customers so they actually are a fine with them.
Traveling going into quarantine for two weeks just to, you know be somewhere then and then meet people for
a week. So I think that's a different also different kind of commitment [014]

237
Table 16 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Exploring (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
7A. Path finding
Statements that relate to more
longer-term strategising in
response to the disruptive
dynamics, that are distinct from
finding new opportunities as
strategising is inherently longer-
term and more strategic in nature
than finding new opportunities
There will be opportunities which were unthinkable before this pandemic, which might be something which is now
on the table, which you might look at and say, well, why not? Let's go that way. Let's extend into the value chain
for example or target new markets with new competence, which I have. So proactive transformation [006]
Thinking, and I take the third thing we did was think take the opportunity to not have to run it around airports and
catch trains and airplanes and things to sit down and think in a much more holistic manner. Where can we move
the business? Yes, will get better. Let's say part of the revenue stream to us [008]
I think the basic principle […] has been shown to us again, how important it is, simply to deal with the future and
simply to ask in principle which topics have how strong an effect on my industry, but also on the industry in my
target markets [015]
That is a major discussion here, and this is really going on because there are many tourism resource that say we
cannot continue how we have done tourism business in the last years and we have to reposition ourselves. We
have to change our strategy, so I think in this industry [025]

238
Table 17 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Buffering
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
8A. Ensuring liquidity
Statements that emphasise the
importance of ensuring firm
liquidity, that is an appropriate
cashflow, optimised working
capital and capital expenditure in
times of disruption. This concept
is related to the notion of slack
resources, where the availability
of such resources might have an
impact on response formulation
We reduced the investment budget and this is survival mode [002]
To the most, the things you don't really need, you have to ask yourself, what do I need to survive? And you reduce
according to the necessities and possibilities to the strict minimum, which would guarantee that you survive
[004]
I would spend more time in in finding those reserve resources which I would need in the case that something goes
completely wrong. So these, contingent resources which you need to remain in the position where you can act
where you are not forced to react to something which is out of your control [006]
So you started cash conservation without losing your essential core activity abilities so. That was the first thing to get
[008]
We've tried to do immediately and obviously and you start immediately to evaluate the short term risk starting with
the liquidity risk [010]
8B. Keeping operations
running
Statements referring to the firms’
activities ensuring ability to
operate and produce.
Dimensions of this concept
include external dynamics that
force a closure of operations, the
commercial implications and the
criticality of the operations for
the firm and the public
Then we tried to keep open all our operations [002]
The focus of the key management team changed to keep the operations going [003]
Yes, so if we talk about the financial services sector in New York City, even as a financial service industry is a critical
infrastructure, especially within large banks, you need to have a trading floor active [020]
When it is time to get organized, to invest and to get prepared to, you have to build up your inventory. You have to
reduce your inventory. You have many decisions to make and you haven't certainty, so you don't know if you will
be having a recovery in the [redacted] market anytime soon same for the other markets have to get prepared
[021]
Also, under the aspects given in Lockdown 1, do we continue production, do we have to separate production [024]

239
Table 17 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Buffering (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
9A. Communicate and
motivate
Statements emphasising the
importance of the ability of firm
managers to adapt
communication behaviours and
the ability to motivate employees
in times of disruption.
Dimensions include internal
communication and motivation
of employees, stakeholder
communication, sharing of
knowledge within the firm
So we let's say we transfer the plans and the action plans from Singapore or China to 1st Italy […] Let's motivate
people in terms of how we lead people and what is leadership in times like these. The precise question was like
which leadership principles to be apply until we can travel again [002]
You have to motivate your people and not putting negative [redacted] over the people all the time [009]
there's a lot of management involved in keeping everybody's morale up [012]
One element in all of this is key and key is a communication is key. OK so you can be a startup you or even in like
existing large Corporation. OK, usually as a startup you get more credit from the public [020]
Because we believe communicate communication is very important. So we started to prepare ourselves […] the
company is that first we make sure that the spirits, the spirits of people, the. People are not being demotivated
because already we are in a crisis where the in order when people don't go out [023]
9B. Nurturing customer
interactions
Statements defining how firms
changed their way of nurturing
existing customer relationships
as a consequence of the
disruptive dynamics. Dimensions
include the channels used (e.g.,
digital vs. face-to-face), the level
of intimacy with customers,
prioritisation of interactions
Also we recovered in that respect, and now we're back with the personal visits between 3000 and 4000, but we have
additional up to 11000 thousand calls, we record [002]
You have to keep in mind that we could not visit the customer now so everything was done there in the digital way
[003]
Your intimacy with your customer base. And this can be a key differentiator if you know, uh, the people you do
business with is certainly much easier than if you don't know and here you also see a limit in the digitalization
[010]
I'm a firm believer that the interactions with our customers will not return the way there were. Of course there will
be a an opportunity for face to face visits, but they will be less frequent in my opinion, and they'll be less tolerance
from customers for the type of sales call [011]

240
Table 17 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Buffering (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
10A. Enacting
implementation
(advancements)
Statements that describe the way
how firms implement changes.
Dimensions include the method
of implementation, speed and
risk-taking involved (i.e., speed of
change)
What we typically would do? Would be we would take a few people, 1-2 maybe 3. We would, people we have
confidence in. We would challenge them to engage the organization, the rest of the organization and build
followership right and build excitement build followership, build a willingness of people to say I'm prepared to
invest in your idea [013]
Judging by the character of the last crisis. Many of the initial changes were quick and dirty [020]
10B. Step-by-step
approach
Statements that describe how
firms have enacted changes,
adaptation step-by-step.
Dimensions include temporal
dependence, contextual
dependence and managerial
focus (i.e., the ability of the
management to shift their
attention focus)
I told my team is its first cut, second one is survive and the third point is rebuild [002]
So, cutting down our costs in a in a way which wouldn't affect our ability to carry on and be productive. Then looking
at where unused capacity isn't trying to use that also for other things outside our central. And finally trying to
look at the whole value chain and see what else can we do it downstream of what we have to do with other
partners which will bring us more income [008]
First, our first steps were focused on the health and safety of our employees back in March […] of course it moves on
to business continuity seeing the majority of our market close in April, May and June because the automotive
industry shut down, so then it was focused on, you know, business continuity […] then recovery after August
when things started to recover. It was then a case of how do we ramp up our business at the same pace to ensure
that we can continue to service our customers. So there's been different stages [011]
First liquidity and if you if you have enough liquidity and if you know that you can survive then you can think about
strategic issues [025]

241
Table 18 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Reconfiguring
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
11A. Strategic change
(pivot)
Statements that detail how firms
enact strategic changes to their
firm strategy, some even
engaging in pivot during times of
disruption
I mean I would go as far as to say that we've almost pivoted the company to a different direction completely [005]
But a lot of revenue generation is downstream of that. So when you've actually made the product and you're going
to the consumer and saying we're selling the product for consumers, there's a very large revenue, yes, ability
there, which we weren't really cashing in on up to now [008]
But let's just take this to the next level and see how we can pivot our business model and actually […] not only react
to crisis but then also pivot into crisis and in order to actually turn this into maybe something even better [020]
Yes, even in the pharmaceutical sector, we now see completely different players that we hadn't heard of before. One
of them is our customer [name]. They had their entire research facilities organized before as a laboratory, now
converting into a company that brings in money for the first time yes, they didn't have a product on the market
before. That means therefore, you need now a completely different organization [024]
11B. Diversification
Statements that re-emphasise
the importance of diversification
for resilience performance of
firms in disruptive times.
Dimensions of diversification
include customer size and
financial stability, geographies,
product portfolio, market
segment and position in the value
chain
Geographic footprint as we are in the position that when China was down, we still have good business in Europe and
the United States. And then when the pandemic arrived in Europe and the United States, China already was
working like it was before, almost. So we had quite of a smoothing of the of the effect of the pandemic [001]
We always proclaimed over the last years is to get a little bit away from the complete dependence of the European
market to more diversify to overseas markets [004]
So, besides our core activities, which are still our main focus, we're bolting on these extra things around our power
kind of center thing to generate more revenue to generate [008]
I strongly believe that one key factor to remain robust to deliver resilient results is diversification. At the end of the
day, the over dependence on one specific country, sector, end usage, a customer makes yourself very vulnerable
[…] So I think it's very important not to rely on only one pillar. We can debate how many you should have, but at
the end of the day, this is what keeps you alive [010]
I mean my experience or my how to say my result of the covid dynamic is actually to really build up a strong local
presence in time. So that you can rely on a local partner local agent [016]
I think one big strength of our companies would be very diversified. We operate in a lot of different segments […] the
regional diversification has helped a lot [019]
In fact, we have a rather diversified portfolio of products applications [...] geographies yeah, which means that unless
the whole economy is collapsing, this is what we have seen in October 2008 yeah so then everything goes down
at once. No warning, no notice. And we had the demand all over the place all over the place, dropping by 30%.
OK, yeah. Um, in the case of a pandemic, it was different. Like you before we had some market or where we have
proven to be resilient [021]

242
Table 18 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Reconfiguring (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
12A. Restructuring of the
organisation
Statements relating to changes of
the organisational structure, that
are changes to organisation,
hierarchical structure, footprint,
personnel
So, we did a lot of restructuring. We closed a lot of locations [002]
So basically, reduced our footprint in [country] to just focus on our laboratories and that saved us a lot of cash, which
is important in in these times [008]
For me it's simply how do you build organization? What's my understanding, how does something work? And I think
I need the logic there, that decision-making hierarchy should never be structured in such a way that everything
goes to the top decision-making level, but I actually need to enable many members of the organization so that
they are able to develop cool solutions themselves [015]
I mean we did some rationalization, so we closed down several of the offices we […] reduce the footprint [019]
12B. Network activation
Statements relating to the notion
of firm- and personal-networks in
the ecosystem of the firm. This
concept entails multiple
dimensions, such as network
breadth and depth, network
strength, ability to activate the
network when necessary, the
quality of the within-firm
network. An important notion is
that of co-creation as part of
network activation, therefore
part of the distributive
capabilities of the firm
What is also new is there was a lot of interaction between different in different segments so […]So a kind of global
team, from different segments and different industries. This was also new. New approach and this also helped a
lot because people so that they are not alone and this is this was thanks to the development of the
communication tools. This wouldn’t have been possible in 2008 nine and it would have been impossible to
arrange in 2001 [002]
But I strongly believe that the quality of the networking is part of the assets of the company and people and today's
world tend to undervalue [010]
I think you know also is very, very fundamentally driven by connectivity to your organization […] think another
capability is frankly, how would I say intimacy you know, organizational intimacy and communication. And
probably one of them. Is fundamental in communication is active listening […] So I think you have to organize
your networks. Both externally and internally to facilitate information flow [013]
I would rather much more focus on co creation and being closer to customers and also other partners at the end of
the day trying to build up a network of Co creation of innovation. Do we need to be able to do test very quickly
also to success [019]
These are all stakeholders in any good company. In order to secure a feasible like disruption plan should have
stakeholder map and should know whom to call in crisis and should not call those people meant the crisis happen
but should maintain like frequent communications with their stakeholders [020]

243
Table 18 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Reconfiguring (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
13A. Developing parallel
capabilities
Statements describe how firms
develop and deploy in-part
contradictory capabilities in
parallel, that is e.g., the focus on
short-term survival and future
business outlook of the firm
concurrently. Dimensions include
the ability to manage
contextually different issues (e.g.,
survival vs. future growth),
objectives in decision making
(e.g., speed and rationale)
But to generate these excess funds, you need to reserve funds you need to make very quick and fast, you had to
make very quickly fast decisions, and this is a mix of a mix of capabilities if you like, which is not usual [006]
So, managing this balance between speed and rationale something critical, and it's up to the management to reassess
this […] What shall we do? Should we cancel this strategy update and focus only on the daily business? The
answer actually was finally to change a bit the format, but to stick with the date to transform the event which
was supposed originally to be a one and half day face to face event […] transform it in a 2 hour or three-hour
virtual meeting, which actually was very successful. Where despite the crisis we were able to explain what was
of 2024 objectives or five-year vision [010]
You know it's as a as a someone in a leadership position obviously the pandemic has been the primary focus, but it
cannot be the only focus of the management and you know you need to still think about the other things that
are out there. The other growth projects that we have underway [011]
One of the key feature of what we did was we need to have a two-fold mind to manage the crisis and prepare the
future [021]
13B. Stimulating agility
Statements relating to the
managements’ ability to
stimulate agility in the firm in
disruptive times.
Something I've been very proud with and think we've been able to be very, very agile in this period. So stimulating
agility was one of my major focus. Not necessary because I had to, but making people understand that there is
no time so waiting cannot be the easy answer [010]
I think in the world we live in, when I say mid-term, I'm talking like three years, not 15 years. […] Because I think you
have to have you know a flag in the ground that you know you continue to try and orient your organization
towards doesn't mean you go in a straight line. The agility means sometimes you go to the northwest, other
times you go to the Northeast. Hopefully all the time you're going North, but you do need to move […] [013]
When I say dynamics have, I need very agile organizations, so that you are able to quickly adapt when I notice that
something is not working. That is of course from industry to industry different, agile is a stretchable term. That
is of course something different than if I am now a brand manufacturer in the field of fashion items or industry,
it's completely different, but in both cases of course it's about agility [015]
I think it's fair to say that we are a centralized company. And there were a number of decisions that were made by
the comex on the basis of you know things being reported to the […] crisis committee. But at the same time
there were many, many things decided at the local level because it's impossible [to do otherwise]. First, I think
we have 140 production sites in the world and there is no way a group of eight people can decide on the day-by-
day basis So, it was a real combination of decisions made at the top of a company decision and the local level
within the business unit [021]

244
Table 19 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Situational moderators
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
14A. Managerial focus
Statements relating to the
managerial attention focus
within the firm. Dimensions
include the focus on
transformational, strategic
aspects (e.g., new business
models), the focus on operational
issues (e.g., efficiency driven
operations)
Of course, we're not so much dealing with the new business models and new things. And, and we're more focused
on how can we maintain the current business […] It's a little bit in the other direction and I'm sure in in a years’
time we're going again in the other direction as it's not dramatic [001]
I think the action has surely overtaken proactive analysis in the first six months […]I think in the second half we came
back to what's key management is actually paid for, to look into the future [003]
My personal belief is like in an ideal scenario, […] the COO should be the one who's probably handling the day-to-day
and then the CEO is just thinking about the long term [005]
I think it's um strengthened things slightly in anything that we still talk about. We spend time strategizing that maybe
more than we did before [007]
The focus in your management team becomes over more to costs [009]
during the crisis you don't have you, you don't have enough time to do both. So first you have to focus all your energy
on liquidity. So there is usually there is no time and there are many companies that have strategic potential is
that have new business models emerging and then comes to crisis and they see now we have to stop these
strategic activities because we have to focus on survival [025]
14B. Prior experience
Statements describe the role of
prior experience in formulating
and enacting responses in
disruptive environments.
Dimensions in this concept
include path dependency,
learning (i.e., experience), the
impact of prior experience and
accompanied learning
We had all of these factors influencing us. Uh without a history without a knowledge base, I mean typically 90% of
the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis. I believe even probably even higher than 90% there is a foundation
of history to that decision […]for the first time in our lives, we had a management team of a dozen people who
none of us have been through this before [011]
You know it's just the knowledge that however tough things get, that is possible to come out the other side is and
experience having done that before is an important component of that for sure [012]
It definitely has advantages and disadvantages because if you have prior experience in a crisis you know how to react
and you are probably better able to react soon, to react sooner, you probably react stronger because. You know
how harmful a crisis can be. Um, and you also probably know which measures can be taken. […] digitalization is
it is a major topic, probably younger managers have more ideas or are more willing to change [025]
14C. Slack resources
Statements referring to slack
resources (e.g., excess cashflow)
that firms can draw back on.
Important contingencies are e.g.,
firm governance type
I would spend more time in in finding those reserve resources which I would need in the case that something goes
completely wrong [006]
If you as companies that that were easier to adapt, they have a stronger financial base, they had a stronger source of
internal funding, so when you have already an established business model, your revenue funded [...] and then of
course we ideally also have reserves to like weather a crisis [020]

245
Table 19 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Situational moderators (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
15A. Firm governance &
size
Statements explaining the impact
of firm characteristics on
response formulation.
Dimensions include firm size
(that is both number of
employees and size of fixed
assets), firm type (i.e.,
governance) and hierarchical
structure of the firm
We are a public listed company, so we have to report quarterly figures. So we are not in a position to say OK, so
pandemic will last for a year for a year. I don't make any profit and forget everything and after the year OK, we
start off again [001]
OK, I mean. I think this situation would have been much tougher if I was handling a bigger company. OK, yeah, so I
think definitely having a small team worked in our favour [005]
The other USP, that I'd say we have, is that we were small facility. That means that our costs are a little lower […]What
I've learned from all this is there must be a balance of a size of company. Which is the best to work with? I mean,
it's certainly more than 12, but it's probably less than you know 600 [008]
So, very hierarchical structures I think are not really useful, for adopting quickly [019]
15B. Organisational
culture
Statements relating to the impact
of organisational culture on
resilience behaviour of the firm.
Dimensions include cultural
distance and firm culture (e.g., is
willingness to change engrained
in the firm culture)
And I see also it huge difference in cultures, country wise [009]
But it is also a weakness because we don't bring in enough people who want to think differently who want to disrupt
our organization when you have a group of people who already think about the way things have always been
done, it's hard to change. When you bring people in who think differently, have a different idea, different vision,
and give them a voice [011] (firm culture impacted by the diversity of the team)
Another interesting dynamic is that I think as a global company, the strength of the signal on different aspects will
differ, of course [013]
Especially South or East Asia like Japan, South Korea, a country where personal relations are very important [017]
15C. Team cohesiveness
Statements describing how team
dynamics affect firm-level
behaviour. Dimensions include
the change in team closeness and
the impact of team closeness
(e.g., the better you know your
team members, that is, the
higher the level of trust among
the team members, the easier
adaptation might be)
So just this is this was it was it was tying us closer together [002]
But when you know people very well as well […] you probably don't really need [to meet face-to-face], you know you
know each other well enough, and you can tell from the picture of the boys if somebody is happy with her
decision or not happy [007]
The dynamic of our management has also changed. We have become closer as a management team. From a
communication standpoint from a best practice sharing standpoint from a knowledge management standpoint
[011]
Change in a good way, I would say you know, changing in a way that I think we we're closer basically I will objective
and our principle. Actually, the getting the title and then more the inclusive, than exclusive [023]

246
Table 19 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Situational moderators (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
16A. Government
support
Statements that describe the
impact of firm-environmental
characteristics. Dimensions
include financial support (both
direct and indirect) as well as
strategic governmental support
(e.g., the push of the Singaporean
government for certain firms to
pivot into new sectors and
markets)
We had lots of support from the government, obviously, so we had this short-term work makes life much easier [001]
Rebound must be seen different because there is a lot of political actions to let's say to minimize the effects of the
pandemic on one side and on the other side there is the regional and local, the local performance [002]
A lot of governments came to the party and supported us in quite a few countries, and I believe the same is true in
Austria and other European markets [003]
The only support we really got entitlements and we got our reduction in our rent [007]
If you look at the Singaporean companies, but this was also due to the help from the government is huge
transformation process […] That thing was government. It was government, giving them incentives, telling them
OK. If you in this industry you get a support until the end of the year and by the end of the year if you haven't
changed or did anything the financial support is gone [022]
16B. Innovativeness &
clockspeed
Statements referring to the
impact of market characteristics.
Dimensions include the level of
(regulatory and innovative)
change, market maturity
(established vs. emerging)
I would say high level of change for sure because it's a constantly evolving industry and if you don't adapt you're
going to fall behind. In terms of like equipment that you use in manufacturing is changing all the time. So like
every five years almost you need to get in new equipment to be able to do what you need to do. And like products
that are being made are getting more and more complex so you know you need the tools and equipment to be
able to make them and the regulations are evolving all the time as well, often to become stricter and stricter.
[005]
I don't think that's changed at all. Actually, I would say that's about the same. OK, obviously biology biotech, whatever
is always been inventive and it's always constantly moving, as though someone claiming they've got the next
best thing [007]
Generally speaking at disruption as an act or as a as a risk or opportunity, yeah, more often than not it's in the
emerging spaces. Yeah, competitiveness in the capability by which you manage your business is a good, in my
view, at least is where you see the dynamics of change in existing markets. Not to say that disruption can't happen
in an existing market. It certainly does. It's just a question of the intensity and frequency [013]
16C. Physical resources
Statements relating to physical
resources that enable firms to
better create value and enhance
adaptiveness. Physical resources
include, production sites, plants,
equipment, human resources
We're running round about 140 hundred 30 locations worldwide [001] 140 sites in 40 countries with 30 languages
and roughly 5500 people [002]
We have like a small scale GMP manufacturing facility and an R&D lab [005]
If you are more exposed downstream, it's much easier to cut cost because you have smaller plants, you have a batch
process. You have a handy so you can adjust. In your constructure decrease your labor not necessary in
proportion to the decrease of sales, but at least a bit more in proportion than if your upstream in the chain [010]

247
Table 20 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Resilience
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
17A. Competitive
advantage
Statements relating to how firms
measure competitive advantage
as a measure of success in
disruptive times. Dimensions
include a change in market
position (i.e., market share),
stronger company (i.e.,
competitive advantage has
improved), change in business
model (e.g., value proposition),
strengthened customer relations,
sustainability (beyond ecological
sustainability)
Did we gain market share? How do we fare against our competitors? We have list of competitors which we always
benchmark ourselves against [003]
Yes, I think those who are ready to take new risks who trying to seize the opportunities they will be in a better
situation than before. Yeah, provided to have survived [004]
Expand the services that we offer […] and like we've managed, I think to find a niche in the market. We previously
didn't realize that we could capitalize on [it] [005]
Probably if you end up in a stronger market position, whatever this position is defined of, it means if your position in
the market has strengthened either because you had a longer breath than your competitors, or you had a better
customer relation which you nurtured during this stage [006]
I mean, so the combination between share price and sustainability performance, which includes, by the way, diversity
talent management and so on and so forth is part of it, so if you want to be long term successful you need
certainly to have a good share price or good valuation, but also to be attractive to people. So people need to
think that you're good company to work for [010]
You know is you look at some of your core markets and you evaluate your position overtime? You know we have
several markets today that are extremely dynamic [013]
And I think what happens is how you react to the disruption and how you react to mega trends make it make it
successful in the end is really how open you are to change how open you are to innovation, how willing you are
to innovate yourself [014]
Securing supply chains and market access, and on the other hand, how does it actually look with the people and my
own employees […]and on the other hand, what public expectations are there [024]
17B. Employee retention
Statements explained how
employee retention can be a
measure of success in disruptive
times
So if you put off your most qualified people, you might not be able to get them back. Once business can be done
again, you know if you have as a famous restaurant with the Star Chef and you say to your Star Chef well and
your customers come because of him, and if you put off your star chef and when you open again you don't have
him anymore, then you might not have the same attractiveness to your clients [004]
We didn't have to like let go of any staff, the fact that we throughout the whole time did not need to reduce anyone's
pay [005]
First because he's very skilled workers and you cannot, you know, layoff these people and have to hire them back
three months later. It's impossible [021]

248
Table 20 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Resilience (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
17C. Financial
performance
Statements outlining measures of
financial performance.
Dimensions include positive
financial result (this could be net
income, profitability), sales &
marketing performance (e.g.,
new customers acquired),
Our business year starts in with April 1st and ends on March 31st and we managed to be over the whole period above
the zero line [002]
I wouldn't say we're in survival mode, so I mean if I look at our business figures, we're actually doing this year better
than in the pre covid year […] another benchmark is profitability […] KPIs maybe change going forward you get
more and more into new business ideas or different business logic. Maybe some of the KPIs I have mentioned
now need also to be revisited in the next couple of years. [003]
We're just looking at basically how many leads we acquired during this time and how many of those were going to
close this actual projects [005]
I think we were I mean successful, I think that's been evidenced by we've got new clients or partners, customers [007]
You know I'm very I'd be very simplistic and at the end of the day, especially with public listed company and it will be
the share price [010]
I mean disruption basically, paves the way to look at success on a more broad range [020]
The key driver again is cash generation. Who is at the end of the day just for survival standpoint [021]
17D. Increased efficiency
Statements detailing the increase
in efficiency as one of the success
metrics firms are observing.
Dimensions include improved
cost efficiency, time efficiency,
increased efficacy of
communication
But on the other side and I'm gaining a lot of efficiency if I'm sitting at home and doing some kind of […] without
having to travel 4 hours […] and this positive effects on efficiency [006]
For the moment, we're taking the upside of having a huge saving in the in the in the monthly budget by not having a
lot of these things [012]
A form of doing export business specifically abroad when it's very time consuming and in the end expensive to travel
all the time. Also, the companies have learned a lesson we have seen that certain parts of their business can be
done virtually can be done digitally remotely. I think that's the essence [016]
Video conference call is like 1000 times less expensive then then a flight to a certain country. And if one can see OK I
have more or less the same outcome or more or less the same result. So why bother stepping into a plane? [017]
On the other hand, communication become much more efficient because […] we don't have to waste time on
traveling. You spend less money as well. At the end of the day, we also can communicate often easier between
Countries [019]
17E. Survival
Statements referring to the
notion of survival detailed by
informants as one of the main
components of resiliency
outcomes
I think the 1st and important thing is the survival that the company can survive and then tries to make out the best
of the situation [004]
if you don't survive, you don't save the cash for the only survive and all the other side. Then you have a better position
in market [006]
One of the biggest problems at the moment so if someone can survive, this is a cash flow problem [017]

249
Table 20 – concepts, description and exemplary statements: Resilience (continued)
Theme
Description
Exemplary statements from transcripts
18A. Flexibility
Statements detailing how success
can be measured as a form of
flexibility (implied
transformability, ability to act
quickly and decisively).
Dimensions include structural,
strategic and operational
flexibility (that is, have these
changed over time)
Some changes are improvised and, on the spot, and out of the necessity [004]
Yeah, and that's how you can measure a company how flexibly they are if they will be successful, yes or no [009]
At which speed you can adapt yourself to a situation [010]
You have to quickly change depending on the opportunities [012]
As I mentioned the beginning, I think the most successful ones were the ones who moved early into digital [016]
The challenge with the disruption is there is there are no reliable forecasts here and you don't really know. What is
going to happen when it is going to happen and so it is extremely difficult to have reliable indicators and this is,
I think this is the main characteristic of this disruption. And that means during a disruption you must be able to
manage without reliable indicators. So there's. Uncertainty in every aspect and even the aspect of how do we
know that we're going the right direction? [025]
18B. Preparedness
Statements that describe the
notion of preparedness (i.e.,
being prepared for changes in the
environment and act quickly in
accordance). Dimensions include
structural (that is e.g.,
organisational structure),
financial (that is financial
stability, i.e. have enough cash to
be able to act in crises) and
strategic (e.g., the notion of a
diversified portfolio, the notion
of sensing and exploring the
market) preparedness
But what would be different now that we would be much better prepared because we have now structures, in place
and what every company should have anyhow […] We would be much better prepared [003]
At the end of the day, it's a very important checking point in the list of things that need to be monitored and better
to do it before the crisis and when it's not too late because you cannot change the profile of the company all of
a sudden. If you're not prepared the ground, then it's probably hopeless [010]
That you know you have to be ready for even the most crazy circumstance that you could never even think of. Yeah,
none of us knew that I knew that you know, 18 months ago that that we would be in in a pandemic and it would
affect everything we do [011]
Yeah, exactly. And I think the better you position yourself in now in in tackling that, the future, the better is it [014]
For me resilience is a topic I am prepared and prepared [...] how can I be prepared […] I deal with the big trend fields
to understand where are fields where I need to make preparations? [015]
Sometimes you have hiccups, sometimes you have bumps and having it and it was so in fact the most important
things to weather the crisis has been done before [021]

250
Appendix H – codebook (Chapter 3)
Table 21 – qualitative study: codebook from data analysis
25
Name
Files
References
A Disruptiveness
25
191
01 Triggers
20
71
1A Crisis as catalyst
11
28
1B Increased uncertainty
3
6
1C Underlying dynamics
18
33
1D Nature of the disruption
4
4
02 Impact of disruption
23
82
2A Changes in consumer behaviour
5
6
2B Changes in decision making behaviour
7
11
2C Reconfiguring distributive work
20
44
2D Demand disruption
9
15
2E Supply disruption
6
6
03 Temporality
21
38
3A Intensity of disruption
15
25
3B Previous disruptions
8
9
3C Speed of disruption
3
4
B Sensing
13
32
04 Scanning
12
23
4A Observing the environment
10
21
4B Risk management
2
2
05 Sensemaking
5
9
5A Assessing
5
9
C Exploring
21
55
06 Opportunity seeking
20
51
6A Finding new opportunities
20
45
6B Cultivating new relationships
5
6
07 Strategising
4
4
7A Path finding
4
4
D Buffering
22
82
08 Maintaining
14
32
8A Ensuring liquidity
12
20
8B Keeping operations running
6
12
09 Levelling-up
15
32
9A Communicate and motivate
9
14
9B Nurture customer interactions
11
18
10 Pacing
13
18
10A Enacting implementation (advancements)
9
11
10B Step-by-step approach
5
7
25
Status of analysis: April 2021

251
Table 21 – qualitative study: codebook from data analysis (continued)
Name26
Files27
References28
E Reconfiguring29 , 30
21
86
11 Diversifying
17
36
11A Strategic change (pivoting)
7
7
11B Diversification
12
29
12 Resourcing
14
30
12A Restructuring of the organisation
9
14
12B Network activation
8
16
13 Fungibility
9
20
13A Developing parallel capabilities
9
15
13B Stimulating agility
4
5
F Situational Moderators
24
105
14 Cognitive-Amplifiers
15
35
14A Managerial focus
12
21
14B Prior experience
6
12
14C Slack resources
2
2
15 Decision-Enablers
17
39
15A Firm governance & size
14
25
15B Organisational culture
8
9
15C Team cohesiveness & trust
5
5
16 Resource-Levers
17
31
16A Government support
10
16
16B Innovativeness & clockspeed
8
10
16C Physical resources
5
5
G Resilience
24
90
17 Value creation
22
67
17A Competitive advantage
17
26
17B Employee retention
5
6
17C Financial performance
13
23
17D Increased efficiency
7
7
17E Survival
5
5
18 Adaptiveness
17
23
18A Flexibility
12
13
18B Preparedness
8
10
26
Name of code representing a first- or second-order concept or a construct
27
Number of documents (i.e., interview transcripts) where this code has been used
28
Number of instances where this code has been used across documents
29
A, B, C, D = constructs, 01-12 = second-order concepts, 1A-12B = first-order concepts
30
Numbers are cumulated at the next highest level

252
Appendix I – analysis of coding per interview (Chapter 3)
Table 22 – analysis of coding per interview
31
#
Group
Role in the firm
References32
Coverage33
1
SteelCo
Head of Global Operations
33
25.75%
2
SteelCo
Member of the Management Board
26
30.08%
3
SteelCo
President Asia Pacific
27
15.41%
4
ServCo
Head of China office (Beijing)
24
30.06%
5
BioTech
Chief Production Officer
29
42.79%
6
Conceptual
Associate Partner
28
62.49%
7
BioTech
CEO and co-founder
22
33.63%
8
BioTech
CTO and co-founder
25
44.19%
9
SteelCo
Divisional Head of Benelux
18
22.53%
10
ChemCo
COO, Member of the Management Board
36
53.72%
11
SteelCo
President North America
37
32.69%
12
BioTech
COO
22
36.66%
13
ChemCo
President and CEO Americas
18
42.23%
14
ServCo
Head of Philippines office
17
32.32%
15
Conceptual
CEO and founder
24
22.12%
16
ServCo
Head of Thailand office
18
38.18%
17
ServCo
Head of South Korea office
21
39.51%
18
ServCo
Head of Hong Kong office
26
55.08%
19
SteelCo
Global Head of Marketing and Sales
38
47.27%
20
Conceptual
Innovation and Start-Ups Manager
19
37.23%
21
ChemCo
Exec. VP Strategy, Member of the Management Board
25
57.65%
22
ServCo
Head of Singapore office
21
44.31%
23
ChemCo
Managing Director and Regional Manager SE Asia
24
26.91%
24
Conceptual
CEO
23
15.63%
25
Conceptual
Professor of Strategic Management & Leadership
17
26.64%
31
Average references per interview: 24.72, Average coverage per interview: 36.60%
32
References denote to the number of instances of coding per document
33
Coverage refers to the percentage of text coded in each document, that is including questions by PA

253
Appendix J – secondary data for triangulation (Chapter 3)
Table 23 – secondary data examples (inductive study)
34
Source
Exemplary statements from transcripts
Interpretation
Interim
report35
[…] programs aimed at cost optimization, […]
adjustments in personnel […] declines […]
within limits. Restructuring […] carried out
[…]. The use of [government support] partly
[absorbed temporary declines in orders].
The firm focussed on buffering activities to absorb
negative consequences of increased volatility on
demand side of the business. Additionally, the
availability of government support provided added
(moderating) assistance
Interim
report
[the firm’s diversified] positioning with a focus
on […] niche markets [was advantageous for
the firm]
The lockdowns also [created a huge] boost to the
e-commerce [sector]
The diversified portfolio of the firm contributed to
buffering of the negative consequences of
disruptive dynamics. The diversified portfolio was in
addition beneficial where sectors showed growth
during disruptive periods
Interim
report
Beyond the short term, [the firm pursues] to
implement [the] strategy. Good progress
has been made [to] sustainable
transformation […] social commitment.
While the firm focussed its attention on ensuring
financial stability across the portfolio, the pursuit of
the firm-wide strategy was done in parallel. This
notion strengthens the idea of parallel focus on in-
part contradictory notions, that is, buffering and
transforming
Interim
report
In order to mitigate [the firm] put in place
measures to reducing its costs and its capital
expenditure […] compared with the amount
originally planned. Moreover, the [firm
benefits from] diversity of its end markets
and geographic footprint
While focussing their efforts on buffering and mitigation,
the firm recognises the importance of diversification
across the firm-portfolio. Moreover, the interim
report re-emphasised the importance of pursuing
strategically important initiatives concurrent to
buffering. However, what remains open is whether
the concept of diversifying includes the ex-ante
meaning of the state of diversification or it is the act
of diversifying in times of disruption. Important to
note is, that this might need to be viewed in
conjunction with preparedness as mentioned in the
interview data.
Press
release
[the firm will] continue to implement its long-
term strategy, major projects, targeted
acquisitions and innovation initiatives [to
achieve] sustainable development
opportunities, as well as its strategic review
The firm details its initiatives to pursue strategy
enactment in parallel to ensuring survival of the firm
by project implementation, acquisitions and
strategy formulation processes. The degree to
which a firm is able to pursue both buffering and
reconfiguring concurrently, may however be
contingent upon a number of factors, such as the
structure of the current balance sheet, that is, if the
firm exerts exceptionally high attention to survival,
reconfiguring might not be viable
34
Excerpts from secondary data sources have been fully anonymized. To ensure anonymity of firms and,
consequently, informants, extracts from those secondary data sources have been in-part loosely
paraphrased herein or redacted. Information added by the author is denoted as “[text]”
35
Mid-year or quarter financial reports of publicly listed firms, including financial performance and updates

254
Appendix K – approach, summary and results (Chapter 2 & 3)
Table 24 – summary of approach, theoretical lens, results across papers (Chapter 2 & 3)
Aspect
Conceptual paper (chapter 2)
Inductive paper (chapter 3)
Approach
Theory-driven
Inductive research
Theoretical lens
Dynamic capability view
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;
Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997)
Contingency view
(Hofer, 1975; Luthans & Stewart,
1977; Tosi & Slocum, 1984)
Based on (data)
Systematic literature review
(initial 452 studies, final set of 168 studies)
In-depth qualitative interviews (25 interviews)
Secondary data for triangulation
Summary
A dynamic capability view of resilience
enhances our understanding of how
firms develop, deploy and nurture the
capabilities essential to formulate
resilience responses in times of
disruption
An understanding of the environmental
conditions (Keats & Hitt, 1988) that
constitute disruptive times and the
capabilities that firms should develop
to reverse firm-level performance and
enhance adaptiveness of the firm
The ideas of potential and realised
resilience capacity represent a useful
ground for understanding how firms
develop and deploy capabilities that
underpin resilience capacity
Further, the moderating variables that
impact the relationships within the
model are grounded in the received
literature and grouped by their impact
in the model
A contingency-based view of resilience
emerged as a result of the inductive
research process. That is, a focus on
the situational factors that constitute
the firm environment contributes to a
more nuanced view of how firms
respond to disruptive environments
Constructs emerged from the data analysis
that describe the disruptiveness of the
environment, dynamics, processes and
capabilities that underpin resilience
response formulation, situational
moderators and resilience perfor-
mance as measured by outcome
variables
The fluidity and dynamism of relationships
within the inductive model warrant a
contingency perspective to demon-
strate how there is no one solution for
resilient response formulation and
enactment in disruptive times across
firms
Results
The proposed conceptual RESCAP model
differentiates between potential and
realised RESCAP to achieve
performance reversion and adap-
tiveness of the firm
Extension of dynamic capability view
through the addition of the inherently
entrepreneurial explorative dimension
of firm-level capabilities
Identification of endogenous and
exogenous factors that moderate the
relationships within the model
An inductive-contingency-based model of
firm-level resilience under disrupt-
tiveness that illustrates the
capabilities, dynamics and processes
that underpin firm-level resilience
The contingency-based view of firm-
resilience allows for a more nuanced
and holistic view of how firms
formulate and enact responses
contingent upon situational factors
and dimensions of disruptiveness,
owning to dynamism and fluidity

255
Appendix L – contributions and limitations (Chapter 2 & 3)
Table 25 – summary of contributions, limitations and future research (Chapter 2 & 3)
36
Aspect
Conceptual paper (chapter 2)
Inductive paper (chapter 3)
Contributions
o Dynamic capability view of resilience
o Emphasis on disequilibrium as the
focal research setting
o Definition of dimensions of RESCAP
o Addition of exploring dimension to
dynamic capability view
o Conceptualisation of potential and
realised RESCAP
o Multi-dimensionality of constructs
o Integration of environmental condi-
tional view of disruption
o Contingency-based view of resilience
o Dynamics and processes of resilience
o Distinctiveness of sensing & explor-
ing dimensions
o Addition of Buffering construct
o Firm resilience described as a
recursive, dynamic and flexible
concept through a contingency lens
Limitations
o Generalisability of findings
o Potential endogeneity in model
o Disruption-specific behaviour
o Intention vs. intuition
o Survival and recall bias
Future research
directions
o Empirical (quantitative) study
o Applying a different theoretical lens
o Extending the dynamic capability view
o Empirical (quantitative) study
o Counter potential endogeneity
o Non-disruption-specific behaviour
o Analysing Intuition versus Intention
36
An overview of general future research directions can be found in Table 8 in the limitations of the thesis and
future research section. The here presented limitations are narrower in scope and specifically concern the
respective paper in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3

256
Appendix M – contingency theory in Strategic Management
A brief review
37
. The below outline shall provide a succinct overview of contingency
theoretical views in the strategic management domain. The contingency view re-emphasised
in early work by Hofer (1975) on business strategy assumes a general view of “any theory of
business (corporate) strategy must be a contingency theory” (p. 786). That is, the optimal
strategy for a firm is contingent upon a set of environmental, situational and endogenous
factors (Luthans & Stewart, 1977, p. 182). Consequently, this means that there is no optimal
strategy or managerial practise across all firms, sectors and exogenous as well as endogenous
factors. A contingency theoretical view, therefore, places emphasis on the contingent effect
of environmental, and other, variables on the formulation and enactment of strategy.
Luthans & Stewart (1977) extend earlier views the discussion towards a general
contingency theoretical view of management. A useful perspective for the development of
such a general view was developed by Child (1974), who related the notion of situational
variability in management to systems thinking. While the situational perspective was
previously discussed in detail (e.g., Mockler, 1971) and related to open systems thinking in
(Child, 1974). Luthans & Stewart (1977) expand upon earlier work that relates the situational
view to open systems thinking and the universalist view to closed system thinking (Child,
1974), to arrive at a general contingency theory. That is, the general model of contingency in
the management domain integrates primary, secondary and tertiary system variables
(Luthans & Stewart, 1977, p. 186-189). According to this view, the general contingency
perspective of system performance is contingent upon performance variables (integration of
37
This summary shall only serve as a general overview of a contingency theory of the firm and by no means
serves as a literature review. For the purpose of this study (Chapter 3), the focus lies on the basic tenets of
contingency theory as the assumption that variables that are endogenous and exogenous to the firm impact
strategy formulation and enactment (Hofer, 1975)

257
managerial and environmental variables), organisational variables (the integration of the
management- and resource-subsystem) and the situational variables (resources and
environment) (Luthans & Stewart, 1977, p. 187).
A way of determining the contingency effect of the environment was advanced by Dess
& Beard (1984). The authors proposed a model of task environmental conditions, that are,
munificence, dynamism and complexity, through collapsing the environmental conditions
advocated in earlier work (Aldrich, 1979; Aldrich & Herker, 1977) by means of factor analysis.
These studies, however, focussed on the environmental dimensions as the main contingent
variables, while the stream developing the contingency theory of management (Child, 1974;
Hofer, 1975; Luthans & Stewart, 1977) takes a broader view of contingency in the firm-
context. The basics principles of contingency theory have been applied in a variety of settings
such as corporate governance characteristics (Boyd, 1995), family business succession (Royer
et al., 2008), leadership (Ayman et al., 1995; Fiedler, 1971), the management of firm resources
(Sirmon et al., 2007) and alternative forms of structural fit (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985).
Discussion. While in the early stages of contingency theory development in the
management domain scholars questioned the basic tenets of the theoretical foundations
(e.g., Schoonhoven, 1981), consequent work across various fields applied contingency theory
to a variety of issues as outlined above. A contingency-based view of any issue in essence
assumes an impact of the situational or environmental conditions of the firm, team or
individual on the focal phenomenon and the relationships within these models. A contingency
theoretical view therefore shall investigate how environmental and situational factors impact
the formulation and enactment of firm-level responses under disruptiveness. The model shall
therefore put particular emphasis on the impact on both response formulation as well as
resilience as an outcome variable, measured by performance and adaptiveness.