The Need for an Organizational Resilience Assessment

Hypothesis: Given the accelerated pace of change and the performance demands

that an organization must respond to if it is to remain relevant and viable, a resilience

assessment can contribute to an organization’s productivity, sustainability and growth.

Definition of Resilience: For the past two decades, studies in the disciplines of

child development, psychology, psychiatry and sociology have focused on children and

youth who have overcome tremendous adversity, trauma and risk. From this research the

term resilience has broadly come to mean the ability of individuals to successfully cope

with a hostile environment. Higgins (1994) suggests that resilience describes “. . .the

ability to function psychologically at a level far greater than expected given a person’s

earlier developmental experiences” (p. 17). The following definitions further expand the

concept of resilience.

“Resilience is a global concept dealing with how a child copes with stress and

trauma. Resilience, like competence and adaptation as outcomes of coping,

deals with growth and hope” (Anthony & Cohler, 1987, p. 101).

Resilience is concerned with individual variations in response to risk. Resilience

refers to the positive pole of individual differences in people’s response to stress

and adversity; as well as hope and optimism in the face of adversity” (Rutter,

1987, pp. 3-6 – 317).

 2

Resilience, however, is not limited to individuals. Grotberg (1995) states that

resilience

is a universal capacity which allows a person, group, or community

to prevent, minimize or overcome the damaging effects of adversity

[or to anticipate inevitable adversities]. Resilience may transform

or make stronger the lives of those who are resilient. The resilient

behavior may be in response to adversity in the form of maintenance

or normal development despite adversity, or a promoter of growth

beyond the present level of functioning. (p. 2)

Conceivably, an organization falls into this broad definition

especially if it is viewed as an “extended family” with attendant interrelationships

and dynamics, subject to internal and external stressors or risks. Thus, resilience

is perceived as a fluid, dynamic, and global concept related to many individual

and multisystemic characteristics, whose process while not fully understood,

allows those individuals, families, and groups to overcome their difficulties and

get on with their life (Dyer & McGuinness, 1996). Taylor Cox (1993, 1994) and

others (Blank & Slipp, 1994; Loden & Rosener, 1991; Thomas, 1991, 1996,

1999) have suggested that an organization’s performance is affected by the

relationship between individuals, groups, and the organization itself. Descriptors

associated with human resilience such as “agile,” “flexible,” “adaptive,” “nimble,

and “inventive” have been applied to organizations that have successfully met the

challenges of change (Ackoff, 1974; Berquist, 1993;Collins & Porras, 1994, 1997;
 3

Conner,1992, 1998; Fulmer, 2000; Goldman, et. al, 1995). In organizational

behavior research, such terms are often viewed as synonymous with resilience.

Despite these differences in terminology, I believe it is possible to nurture

resilience in a culturally diverse organization by analyzing and applying those

factors that contribute to the development of resilience in individuals and families,

to organizations.

Rationale: The focus of this study is to develop an instrument that

measures resilience in organizations. By resilience, I mean the acquired ability

for positive adaptation and development in a hostile environment. It also “refers

to a capacity for continuous reconstruction, which requires innovation with

respect to those organizational values, processes, and behaviors that

systematically favor perpetuation over innovation” (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003,

p. 55). As individuals, we are a part of many organizations such as a family unit,

school, church, community, and workplace; all subject to the stressors and stimuli

of an uncertain and often chaotic world ( Burns, 1996; McCubbin et. al, 1998;

Satir, 1977). How we respond to those stressors and stimuli affect our

relationships within these organizations (de Geus, 1997; Gibson, 1997; Pedler, et.

al, 1991).

Conner (1992) defines resilience as “the capacity to absorb high levels of

change while displaying minimal dysfunctional behavior,” (p. 6). An

organization’s resilience may improve its ability to respond to rapid and

unpredictable change (Conner, 1992). . The pace of change, competing markets,

 4

technological innovations, a changing workforce and the ambiguity of the

external environment are factors that can affect an organization’s ability to meet

its objectives (de Geus, 1997); Drucker, 1995; Galbraith, et, al, 1993; Gewirtz,

1996; Hammer & Champy, 1993). According to Conner, the magnitude and

speed of change affects organizations, and individuals within the organization,

which creates information overload and uncertainty, resulting in signs of

dysfunction (1992, p. 12). He believes that both individuals and organizations are

most effective and efficient when moving at a speed that allows the appropriate

assimilation of any changes an individual or organization may face.

The intent of this research is to address the elements of resilience in an

organizational setting by measuring organizational resilience and identifying

contributory factors. By viewing an organization as a “family unit” under stress,

and using an assessment tool, an organization may come to gauge its capacity and

ability to reintegrate resources and thereby become more resilient ( Hamel &

Valikangas, 2003). The purpose of this study is to develop and test an instrument

that measures organizational resilience.