International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.

23, 7–44 (2021)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12239

Organizational Resilience: A Valuable

Construct for Management Research?
Julia Hillmann1 and Edeltraud Guenther 2,3
1
Faculty of Business and Economics, Technische Universität Dresden, Muenchner Platz 1/3, Dresden, 01062,
Germany, 2 Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and Resources (UNU-FLORES), United Nations University,
Ammonstrasse 74, Dresden, 01067, Germany, and 3 Technische Universität Dresden
Corresponding author email: ema@mailbox.tu-dresden.de

Recently, the concept of resilience has gained new momentum in organization studies.
It is held to be a very promising concept to explain how organizations can survive and
thrive amidst adversity or turbulence. However, findings from an earlier review about
resilience in the organizational and business context show that, although empirical re-
search on the concept has increased, there is still a need for more clarity in terms of
its measurement. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of the orga-
nizational resilience construct that covers both conceptual and operational issues. We
discuss why researchers criticize resilience for being fuzzy and move on to identify and
analyse existing literature under the lens of construct development and taxonomies.
With this study, we aim to point out conceptual problems for future researchers to
address conceptual clarity and to develop a clearer, more parsimonious concept. We
conclude with a suggestion about future measurement.

Introduction Bagozzi 2000; Podsakoff et al. 2016). Empirical re-

‘Make your organization more resilient’ seems to
be the buzz phrase in management practice recently.
Practitioner journals or daily newspapers (e.g. Har-
vard Business Review, Strategy and Business or New
York Times) propose how to make organizations more
resilient. The concept has recently gained new mo-
mentum in high-quality management journals (e.g.
Clement and Rivera 2017; DesJardine et al. 2017;
Limnios et al. 2014; Linnenluecke 2017; Williams
et al. 2017). Although the concept is considered
promising, it has been criticized for being vague
and lacking a consistent definition, thus reducing
the significance of the concept for practice and re-
search (e.g. Amann and Jaussaud 2012; Burnard and
Bhamra 2011; Linnenluecke 2017). A clearly de-
fined and measurable concept, however, is needed for
scientific relevance (Bacharach 1989; Edwards and
[Correction added on January 7, 2021, after first online
publication affiliation Technische Universität Dresden was
added for Edeltraud Martha Guenther].
search on organizational resilience – although it has
increased – is still sparse in terms of a valid measure-
ment scale of organizational resilience (e.g. Aleksić
et al. 2013; Mallak 1998a; Pal et al. 2014; Richtnér
and Löfsten 2014).
Over the last years, the body of research on re-
silience in business and management has increased
strongly (Linnenluecke 2017). There are existing lit-
erature reviews on resilience already with different
aims or objectives (Table 1).
Taken together, these reviews have been very use-
ful in advancing our understanding of the nature of
organizational resilience. Following a recent review
by Linnenluecke (2017), measuring organizational
resilience is one remaining avenue for future research
– to which some challenges are attached.
Challenges in the conceptualization
of organizational resilience
Researchers criticize the concept for being fuzzy
and, therefore, lacking a consistent definition, which

This is an open access article under the terms of the CreativeCommonsAttribution License, which permits use, distribution
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA
8 J. Hillmann and E. Guenther

Table 1. Outline of reviews on resilience in the business and management context

Review Key focus

Williams et al. (2017) Integrates two research streams and develops a framework related to the key themes of crisis and
resilience research; defines capabilities for durability, organizing and adjusting, responding to
major disturbances, and a feedback loop from these experiences.
Linnenluecke (2017) Focuses on historical development of resilience in business and management literature; identifies
five streams of literature based on a Histcite-analysis.
Limnios et al. (2014) Develops a typology for organizational resilience; authors show that resilience can have desirable
and undesirable aspects.
Bhamra et al. (2011) Reviews the literature on resilience in the context of organizations and identifies the ecological
perspective as most prominently reflected in the literature; based on that they define resilience
for organizations.
Erol et al. (2010) Reviews the literature and conceptualizes resilience with the focus on concepts of ecology and
systems; authors aim to provide a holistic definition of resilience.

reduces the significance of the concept for practice
and research (e.g. Amann and Jaussaud 2012; Brand
and Jax 2007; Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Linnen-
luecke 2017).
First, organizational resilience is defined in many
ways, for example as a capability, capacity, char-
acteristic, outcome, process, behaviour, strategy or
approach, type of performance or a mix of these.
Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) criticize resilience re-
search for being descriptive and outcome focused,
thus investigating only antecedents or sources that
lead to a resilient outcome. However, other studies
follow the idea that organizational resilience is the
substance for development and a priori measurabil-
ity (e.g. Akgün and Keskin 2014; Stephenson 2010;
Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003). Some researchers have
conceptualized resilience as a process that ultimately
leads to a resilient outcome (Sutcliffe and Vogus
2003). Here, resilience is a process of how organi-
zations deal with adversity to achieve a resilient out-
come (Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003), or a process that
links together ‘a set of adaptive capacities to a posi-
tive trajectory of entrepreneurial functioning after a
crisis, disturbance, or challenge’ (Sun et al. 2011,
p. 185). Following Carmeli and Markman (2011),
it is an ongoing process of capture and governance
strategies. Conceptualizing resilience as a process is
problematic for two reasons: first, it makes it hard
to recognize resilience as the process is somehow a
‘black box’; second, it renders measuring it difficult
as it can only be assessed ex-post – in case the pro-
cess was successful (Boin and van Eeten 2013).
Other researchers understand resilience as a capa-
bility or capacity, and thus apply a capability-based
understanding of the concept (e.g. Duchek 2014;
Williams et al. 2017). Richtnér and Löfsten (2014)
critically raise the idea that a capacity is to be distin-
guished from a capability. The resilience literature,
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
however, is unclear about what it means to have a
resilience capacity and a resilience capability. The
words seem to be used interchangeably. Lengnick-
Hall et al. (2011) specify that having a resilience ca-
pacity is not equal to having a resilience capability.
Richtnér and Löfsten (2014, p. 138) elaborate and
point out that ‘having a capability means having both
ability and capacity, and it is only when a capac-
ity for resilience is transformed into action in an or-
ganization that resilience becomes an organizational
capability’.
Second, resilience is studied in relation to sev-
eral events (see Linnenluecke 2017 for a review of
conceptual development based on historical events).
Therefore, the change phenomenon does play a cru-
cial role in conceptualizing resilience, which, fol-
lowing Koslowski et al. (2013), is another reason
for fuzziness of the concept. As Martin-Breen and
Anderies (2011) address, researchers need to answer
the question ‘resilience to what?’ to study resilience.
Hereby, it is assumed that resilience differs according
to the nature of change and can only be assessed or
described for a specific phenomenon. In that sense,
a clear resilience definition should include common
aspects of resilience as well as context-specific as-
pects in order to better understand the kind of re-
silience the researcher is investigating. Resilience has
been related to a multitude of change phenomena
such as surprises (e.g. ecological surprises) or unex-
pected events, disruptive events (e.g. terrorism, ex-
treme weather events, data loss, fire) or more general
types of change (e.g. climate change, environmental
change). Besides that, resilience has also been re-
lated to the characteristics of the environment (e.g.
dynamic, complex, uncertain and turbulent).
Third, another confusion about the concept evolves
around whether resilience is a single or multi-level
concept (Linnenluecke 2017). The literature has
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience
constructed resilience at different levels or empha-
sized that organizational resilience is achieved at
collective levels, that is through employees and
teams. One section of the literature has constructed
resilience at the organizational level. Here, organi-
zational resilience is ‘derived from a set of specific
organizational capabilities, routines, practices, and
processes by which a firm conceptually orients
itself, acts to move forward and creates a setting of
diversity and adjustable integration’ (Lengnick-Hall
et al. 2011, p. 246). Another section of the litera-
ture focuses on resilience at the individual level to
understand organizational resilience. This infers that
the organization can only be as resilient as its indi-
viduals (Coutu 2002; Horne 1997; Horne and Orr
1998; Mallak 1998a; Shin et al. 2012). McCoy and
Elwood (2009) refer to the ‘psychological contract’
(the way employees feel treated), which influences
organizational resilience. Thus, individual resilience
and organizational resilience are linked and recipro-
cally influence each other (Riolli and Savicki 2003).
Understanding individual resilience is only a starting
point to understand organizational resilience, which
is an additive composite of individual capabilities
and actions (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011). However,
Horne and Orr (1998) also point out that just having
resilient individuals is not the key to organizational
resilience – as too many strong resilient individuals
can even be a barrier to the development of the shared
vision that is needed for resilience. It is the collective
level of actions that make up the resilient response.
Therefore, a further section of the literature fo-
cuses on a more collective level, such as groups or
organizational units (e.g. Gittell et al. 2006; Pow-
ley 2013; Salanova et al. 2012; Sutcliffe and Vogus
2003). This is important, as actions and decisions are
enacted at a more collective level (Antunes 2011;
Chewning et al. 2013; Horne and Orr 1998). Git-
tell et al. (2006) point out that social relationships
influence organizational outcomes such as resilience
as they are shaped by how people work together to
achieve those outcomes.
Fourth, with regard to capability-based under-
standings, the question arises whether there are com-
mon pathways to resilience, whether resilience is
equifinal to the organization or if resilience exhibits
both aspects. This raises the issues of idiosyncrasy,
equifinality and commonalities of capabilities that
are discussed in research on dynamic capabilities and
the resource-based view. There are diverging views
regarding the assumption about the degree of het-
erogeneity of each organization’s resilience. The as-
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
9
sumption that resilience differs for every company
or industry is obvious, since resilience is inherent
to an organization and is dependent on its resources
and capabilities, which differ between companies
and also differ between industries. Horne (1997)
points out that every organization has its own way
to achieve resilience, thus there is no ‘magic ten-
step formula’. This idea is not new to organizational
resilience research. It is already well discussed in
contingency approaches in management research. An
organization’s resilience is therefore path-dependent
and idiosyncratic (Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal
2016). Authors have discussed the equifinality of
resilience-related capabilities and showed that small
and medium-sized companies have different ways
of achieving it than large companies (Aleksić et al.
2013; Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Chan 2011; De-
wald and Bowen 2010; Gunasekaran et al. 2011; Is-
mail et al. 2011; Pal et al. 2014; Sullivan-Taylor and
Branicki 2011). Other researchers have discussed dif-
ferences of resilience between family and non-family
firms (e.g. Acquaah et al. 2011; Amann and Jaussaud
2012; Danes et al. 2009). Others have tried to com-
pare resilience across organizations and industries,
and aimed to identify commonalities across organi-
zations (e.g. McCann et al. 2009; Seville et al. 2007;
Stephenson 2010).
Finally, it is discussed whether resilience is a
strategic or an operational-level aspect. The supply
chain resilience literature clearly sets its focus on the
operational level and is about maintaining function-
ality and service delivery (e.g. Jüttner and Maklan
2011; Pettit et al. 2010; Ponomarov and Holcomb
2009; Sheffi and Rice 2005; Zsidisin and Wagner
2010). Other researchers focus on the strategic role
of resilience (e.g. Carmeli and Markman 2011; de
Oliveira Teixeira and Werther 2013; Hamel and
Välikangas 2003). Some authors argue that resilience
is only achieved through the alignment of both
levels. For example, Acquaah et al. (2011) state
that resilience is the ability to align manufacturing
strategies with competitive strategies. Carmeli and
Markman (2011) state that organizational resilience
means that a company is able to balance expan-
sion strategies with governance issues. Ismail et al.
(2011) provide a similar view and state that a re-
silient company is able to grow and capitalize upon
trends in the market, but at the same time is able
to meet the current market demands. Consequently,
true organizational resilience seems to be a sum of
partial resiliencies that are strategic and operational
(Ismail et al. 2011; Välikangas and Romme 2012).
10
Based on these challenges, in the next step this
paper sets out to review existing organizational re-
silience literature under a more specific lens than
prior literature, that is construct development and
measurement. We analyse definitions, existing mea-
surement scales and conceptualizations of the hypo-
thetical organizational resilience constructs. This is
important, since constructs being used in research
are sometimes confused with an umbrella or pseudo-
multi-dimensional construct – being a group of in-
terrelated constructs (Hirsch and Levin 1999; Wong
et al. 2008) for which the concept of resilience is crit-
icized (Carpenter and Brock 2008).
Although the field may not yet be sufficiently ma-
ture enough – due to sparse empirical research –
this review is timely for the following reasons. First,
a systematic coverage of the literature allows us to
critically reflect and highlight conceptual and op-
erational challenges. Scholarly constructs follow a
lifecycle. In their article, Hirsch and Levin (1999)
point to the necessity of a dialectical process in con-
struct development that includes taking the role of
the validity police on the one hand and the oppos-
ing perspective as umbrella advocate. They demon-
strate what happens otherwise, taking the case of or-
ganizational effectiveness (Hirsch and Levin 1999).
Since the construct of organizational resilience is not
in its infancy nor is mature, we believe that now is
a good time to approach the construct from a ‘valid-
ity police’ perspective. Clearly defined constructs are
of paramount importance for theoretical contribution
and theory testing (Brahma 2009; Suddaby 2010).
To assess the existing literature, we draw upon the
methodological literature on construct taxonomy and
development (Law et al. 1998; Podsakoff et al. 2016;
Wong et al. 2008). We highlight problems and issues
in conceptualizations and measures. At the end, we
develop and propose a measurement of the concept
that is formative, integrating prior conceptualizations
and measures.
Approach for systematic literature
review
This paper is based on a systematic literature re-
view (Fink 2014; Hodgkinson and Ford 2014; Huff
2009; Tranfield et al. 2003). We searched in the
databases Business Source Complete (EBSCO) and
ISI Web of Knowledge’s Social Sciences Citation In-
dex (SSCI). We searched in the title for the terms
‘organi?ational resilience’ or ‘business resilience’ or
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
‘management resilience’ or ‘corporate resilience’ or
‘enterprise resilience’ or ‘industry resilience’ or ‘re-
silient organi?ation’. As the concept of organiza-
tional resilience has just recently moved from the pe-
riphery to the forefront of business and management
literature, we extended our search by text search ap-
plying the same search strings – to see whether the
concept has been applied in other studies as, for ex-
ample, an independent variable. We also combined
the prior search terms with a search in abstracts using
the search strings suggested by David and Han (2004)
to identify empirical studies that are ‘data’ or ‘em-
pirical’ or ‘finding*’ or ‘test’ or ‘statistical’ or ‘evi-
dence’ or ‘result*’. Based on methodological litera-
ture on construct taxonomies (Law et al. 1998; Wong
et al. 2008), we included the search terms ‘construct’
or ‘measur*’ or ‘scale’ or ‘indicator’ or ‘factor’ or
‘dimension’ as the focus of this paper lies on the mea-
surement of the organizational resilience concept.
Defining inclusion and exclusion criteria is an
important step in a systematic literature review (Fink
2014; Tranfield et al. 2003). An article was included
in the reference sample that addressed resilience
as a major concept in their study, and discussed
resilience at the organizational level. Grey litera-
ture was only included in so far as some databases
cover conference proceedings. We excluded articles
from the review that focus only on the individual
level, mention resilience only as a side concept,
are practitioner-oriented articles or periodicals (see
the flowchart in the online supplementary material
A). Following the invisible college (Crane 1969)
and ancestry approach (Cooper 2010), we added 14
references (online supplementary material B). The
added references represent fundamental literature on
resilience in the business and management context
which has been omitted due to the specific search
strategy. Clearly, this can be seen as a disadvantage
of a systematic literature approach. However, the
systematic approach is valuable with regard to the
specific aspects investigated in this paper. Beyond
that, a systematic approach was favoured to reduce
the subjectivity of review and analysis (Hodgkin-
son and Ford 2014). Overall, 126 references were
analysed. The review protocol and coding sheet is
provided in supplementary material C.
Since the focus is on analysing existing mea-
surements, the collected references were assigned
to four categories in terms of their relevance to
assess measurements. Category A represents arti-
cles that provided a measurement scale for organi-
zational resilience. Category B includes articles that
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience
contributed with measurement advancements in
terms of suggested constructs or conceptualization
at the organizational level. Category C includes ref-
erences that provide measurement advancements at
different levels or use different methods to assess re-
silience (instead of scale development). Category D
has resilience as the core concept but is not focused
on measurement advancements, instead contributing
theoretical ideas.
First, we discuss important conceptualizations of
organizational resilience and then move on to anal-
yse existing definitions (N = 71) and existing mea-
surement scales (N = 14). Based on this analysis,
we discuss current problems and issues in defini-
tions and measurements. We reflect in this regard on
influential conceptualizations and construct clarity
aspects. Finally, we provide a comprehensive mea-
surement suggestion that reconciles different aspects
of organizational resilience and existing resilience
understandings.
Sample description
An analysis of the study design shows that there is
a high share of empirical studies (see supplementary
material D), however, the majority is qualitative. Of
the quantitative empirical studies, the studies with the
strongest contribution in terms of construct measure-
ment were published in the past 5 years. This em-
phasizes the rapid development of the concept, the
actuality of the debate and the growing interest in the
concept in business and management science.
The majority of references were published after
2001 (see the Appendix). This backs up findings
that the concept of resilience came into the focus
of researchers particularly after 9/11 (Linnenluecke
2017). Overall, we found articles within 75 different
journals. The broad range of journals reflects how
many different professions address the topic of or-
ganizational resilience. There are four journals that
stand out: International Journal of Production Re-
search (11 articles), Work (6 articles), Journal of
Contingencies & Crisis Management (5 articles) and
Strategic Management Journal (5 articles).
Development of conceptualizations
of organizational resilience
Suggested conceptualizations and dimensions of re-
silience are manifold (see supplementary material E).
Early conceptualizations focus on specific behaviour
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
11
that resilient organizations show (Coutu 2002; Hamel
and Välikangas 2003; Horne and Orr 1998), which is
extended by a recent article of Ishak and Williams
(2018) within a typology of resilience behaviour
based on the communicative mindset within the or-
ganization. The second group moved on to inte-
grate resilient behaviour with resilience resources
(Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2005; Sutcliffe and Vogus
2003; Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007). Within their con-
ceptualizing about resilience, the notion of social-
mechanism-based theorizing seems to be reflected.
The third group is strongly influenced by resilience
engineering in their understanding of organizational
resilience (e.g. Chewning et al. 2013; Erol et al.
2010; Ismail et al. 2011). A fourth group has relied
on capability-based theorizing of organizational re-
silience (e.g. Duchek 2014; Parker and Ameen 2018;
Williams et al. 2017). A fifth group has suggested ty-
pologies as a conceptualization of organizational re-
silience, such as the one of Limnios et al. (2014), who
suggest a typology with opposite poles at the dimen-
sions of magnitude of resilience and desirability of
the system state. Last, there are conceptualizations
that draw mainly from ecology (Linnenluecke and
Griffiths 2012). Each approach has identified several
aspects that describe a resilient company. In those
conceptualizations, resilience is suggested as a la-
tent hypothetical construct. The conceptualizations
of Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005), Mallak (1998a)
and Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) set the basis for ex-
isting measurements.
Problems and issues in the
measurement of organizational
resilience
Following Podsakoff et al. (2016, p. 165), a clear con-
ceptual definition identifies fundamental attributes
‘that are common (and potentially unique) to the phe-
nomenon of interest’. In their article, they suggest
several techniques to approach conceptual clarity.
First, we examine definitions of the concept to
identify attributes of the concept. Second, we ex-
amine existing measurement scales and conceptu-
alizations. Hereby, we refer to the methodologi-
cal articles of Law et al. (1998) and Wong et al.
(2008) to understand types of constructs and under-
stand existing measures of organizational resilience.
We examine four aspects more closely: one- versus
multi-dimensionality of the construct; gestalt of the
core construct; the relation of the dimensions to the
12
overall construct (measurement model); and con-
struct validity by investigating both content and
nomological validity.
Definitions of organizational resilience
In order to identify the general attributes of orga-
nizational resilience, definitions are dissected into
their explicit components in terms of entity, prop-
erty, attributes and related change. Only references
in which the authors provided an explicit definition
of the concept are included in the analysis (N = 71).
Since the findings of the prior analysis showed that
one fuzziness of the concept is related to the change
phenomenon, definitions are sorted by change phe-
nomenon (Table 2).
Key attributes. With regard to change phenomenon,
no noticeable pattern emerged. Across those 71 defi-
nitions we found 22 distinct attributes that have been
used to define organizational resilience.
In order to specify a conceptual definition and
reach more clarity, we follow Jaccard and Jacoby’s
(2009) recommendation of identifying shared and
surplus meaning of a concept. We analyse attributes
and their reoccurrence across definitions based on
simple vote counting (Popay et al. 2006). Attributes
most often used for defining organizational resilience
are ability to adapt (N = 27; 38%), ability to cope
(N = 20; 28%) and ability to reinvent/reconfigure (N
= 15; 21%) (supplementary material F). With cau-
tion, we conclude that a shared meaning of resilience
lies within those attributes. Nevertheless, the analysis
shows the diversity of attributes related to organiza-
tional resilience definitions. An integral part is that,
within the majority of definitions, organizational re-
silience is defined by two or more attributes.
Conceptual domains. Podsakoff et al. (2016) rec-
ommend keeping track of the different definitions
that have been used. Therefore, we include all defi-
nitions for examination of conceptual domains. The
domain reflects the essence of the concept and spec-
ifies what attributes and variables are included and
excluded from the definition (Podsakoff et al. 2016).
The attributes relate to different conceptual domains
and are summarized in the following.
Awareness and sensemaking domain. This cate-
gory includes the ability to anticipate, which is re-
lated to anticipating risks and possible future devel-
opments (Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Carvalho et al.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
2012; Gilly et al. 2014; Hamel and Välikangas 2003;
Starr et al. 2003) through which organizations can re-
duce their vulnerability and raise awareness (Burnard
and Bhamra 2011; McManus et al. 2007; Stephenson
2010). It refers to the attention organizations give to
anticipating unexpected events (Hamel and Välikan-
gas 2003). This can be achieved through foresight,
which includes thinking in multiple futures (Ramirez
et al. 2010; Välikangas and Romme 2012). For exam-
ple, scenario planning can enhance the ability to rec-
ognize or sense future situations by creating aware-
ness (Fink et al. 2005). Furthermore, organizations
that ‘attempt to anticipate events, are more likely to
take the form of ongoing monitoring of their environ-
ment and/or simulating possible unexpected events’
(Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007, p. 2). The important el-
ement about anticipating trends and risks is further
that the organization is able to understand its effects
on the organization’s goals or earning drivers (Hamel
and Välikangas 2003; Starr et al. 2003). Anticipation
and awareness-building are further important in order
to avoid failures (Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003).
An organization can try to anticipate risks or mul-
tiple futures, but it can lead to blindness regard-
ing other events which were not expected. There-
fore, some authors emphasize that the ability to make
sense and the related process is more important than
anticipation. It is the most critical ability as it pre-
cedes problem-solving or action (Weick 1993), and
is essential to avoid failures (Chan 2011). Some au-
thors argue that sensemaking is an essential part of
this process, and that organizations must be able to
sense or recognize changes and their interpretation
(Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Teo et al. 2017; We-
ick 1993; Weick and Sutcliffe 2007; Whiteman and
Cooper 2011). This is necessary to take appropriate
action, as it helps to translate the information to the
goals of the organization and how it will influence the
goals and success of the organization (Hamel and Vä-
likangas 2003; Mantere et al. 2012; Weick and Sut-
cliffe 2007; Whiteman and Cooper 2011).
Stability domain. This category includes several
abilities that aim to provide stability in times of dis-
ruption. Most importantly, organizational resilience
is about an ability to maintain an organizational
configuration (McCarthy et al. 2017), such as criti-
cal business functions (Antunes 2011; Clement and
Rivera 2017) or above-average returns (de Oliveira
Teixeira and Werther 2013). It is also about main-
taining a positive mindset in the organization while
undergoing a critical event or change (Salanova et al.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Table 2. Dissection of definitions into main components

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

(1) Definitions related to adversity
Demmer et al. 2011 An organization’s ability to continually evolve and thrive in the face of adverse which naturally arise
over time and sometimes in dynamic
hostile environments.
Organizational Resilience

circumstances
Freeman et al. 2003 An organization’s ability to spring back to original form from stress, illness or
adversity.
Glover 2012 (An organization’s) ability to (1) adapt in the face of
(2) grow adversity.
Lampel et al. 2014 An organization’s ability to ‘bounce back’ (from) unanticipated
events with adverse
effects.
Salwan and Gada 2018 An organization’s capability to (1) alleviate (1) adverse effects of
(2) bounce back as quickly as disruptions;
possible (2) from a crisis
situation.
Teo et al. 2017 An organization’s emergent to (1) learn to adjust (1) to adversity;
property (2) strengthen its capability (2) to overcome future
challenges.
van der Vegt et al. 2016 An organization’s ability to (1) withstand stress from traumatic events.
(2) bounce back or recover
Williams et al. 2017 An actor’s process by which (he) builds and uses its prior to, during and
capability endowments to following adversity.
interact with the
environment in a way that
positively adjusts and
maintains functioning
(2) Definitions related to crisis
Clement and Rivera 2017 An organization’s ability to (1) maintain despite a major
(2) regain functioning mishap or in the
presence of
continuous stress.
Fleming 2012 An organization’s ability to (1) weather crisis-associated
(2) withstand challenges.

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
13
 14

Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Gittell et al. 2006 (An organization’s) (ability) to cope with crisis due to relational
reserves and
financial reserves to
maintain relational
reserves.
Salanova et al. 2012 An organization’s capacity to (1) maintain positive (1) under challenging
adjustment conditions;
(2) bounce back (2) from untoward
(3) maintain desirable events;
functions and outcomes (3) in the midst of
strain.
Salwan and Gada 2018 An organization’s capability to (1) alleviate (1) adverse effects of
(2) bounce back as quickly as disruptions;
possible (2) from a crisis
situation.
Vargo and Seville 2011 An organization’s ability to effectively manage a crisis while ‘finding the
silver lining’ of
strategic
opportunity.
(3) Definitions related to disruption or shock
Boin and van Eten 2013 An organization’s ability to (1) accommodate (1) change without(2) (1) catastrophic
capacity (2) absorb shocks failure;
(2) gracefully.
Dewald and Bowen 2010 An organization’s capacity to adopt new organizational to address the threats
routines and processes and opportunities
from disruptive
business model
innovation.
Gimenez et al. 2017 An organization’s capacity to (1) prevent the occurrence of once a disaster occurs.
a disaster
(2) absorb the impact
(3) efficiently recover
Horne and Orr 1998 An individual’s, fundamental to respond productively to significant change without engaging in
group’s or quality that disrupts the an extended period
organization’s expected pattern of of regressive
events behaviour.

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
 Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Kantur and Iseri-Say 2012 An organization’s capability for (1) turning adverse brought about by an without being stuck

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

conditions into an unexpected and too long in the
organizational opportunity disruptive event or stagnation (inertia)
(2) positive attitude of a series of them stage.
‘bouncing back’
Organizational Resilience

(3) relatively agile

deportment
Linnenluecke et al. 2012 An organization’s capacity to (1) absorb the impact from the occurrence
(2) recover of extreme weather
events.
McCann et al. 2009 An organization’s capacity for (1) resisting to fast and/or
(2) absorbing disruptive change.
(3) responding
(4) reinventing if required
McCarthy et al. 2017 An organization’s ability to (1) withstand (1) disruption;
(2) that
(2) maintain its original better fits the new
configuration environmental
(3) develop a new conditions.
configuration
Sahebjamnia et al. 2015 An organization’s (ability) to (1) develop effective plans for following disruptive
both short-term resuming events.
(i.e. BC plans) and
long-term restoration (i.e.
DR plans)
Stewart and O’Donnel 2007 An organization’s capacity and to (1) respond positively/(…) (1) disruptive
ability adaptively to change;(4) external
(2) for adaptation shocks.
(3) for learning
(4) withstand
de Oliveira Teixeira 2013 An organization’s (ability) to maintain above-average (after absorbing the)
and Werther returns shocks of the
competitive
environment.
van der Vegt et al. 2016 An organization’s ability to (1) withstand stress from traumatic events.
(2) bounce back or recover

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
15
 16

Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Wilkinson et al. 2003 An organization’s ability to return to its original state after a disturbance.
Williams and 2016 An organization’s ability to (1) absorb (1+2) from shocks;
Shepherd (2) recover (3) in the face of
(3) transform structures long-term stresses,
and means for functioning change and
uncertainty.
(4) Definitions related to stress
Clement and Rivera 2017 An organization’s ability to (1) maintain despite a major
(2) regain functioning mishap or in the
presence of
continuous stress.
Coullahan and 2008 An organization’s (1) agility despite a turbulent to achieve success in
Shepherd (2) adaptation and stressful developing an
(2) rapid response environment enduring diverse
portfolio.
Coutu 2002 An organization’s capacity to be robust under enormous stress
and change.
Danes et al. 2009 An owning family’s ability to (1) adapt stressful events.
(2) respond
(3) problem-solve
effectively
Freeman et al. 2003 An organization’s ability to spring back to original form from stress, illness or
adversity.
Mallak 1998a An organization’s ability to (1) expeditiously design and matched to the while enduring
implement positive immediate situation minimal stress.
adaptive behaviours

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes
Organizational Resilience

Salanova et al. 2012 An organization’s capacity to (1) maintain positive (1) under challenging
adjustment conditions;
(2) bounce back (2) from untoward
(3) maintain desirable events;
functions and outcomes (3) in the midst of
strain.
Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003 An organization’s (ability) to (1) maintain positive under challenging
adjustment conditions.
(2) emerge from those
conditions strengthened
and more resourceful
Williams and 2016 An organization’s ability to (1) absorb (1+2) from shocks;
Shepherd (2) recover (3) in the face of
(3) transform structures long-term stresses,
and means for functioning change and
uncertainty.
(5) Definitions related to turbulence
Borges and Menegon 2012 An organization’s ability to adapt to new or complex without disrupting the
problems operation.
Burnard and Bhamra 2011 An organization’s emergent of adaptive qualities and during turbulent
property capabilities that enable the periods.
organization’s adaptive
capacity
Chewning et al. 2013 Affected parties’ ability to communicate and reorganize across periods of
rapid change or
chaos.

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
17
 18

Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Coullahan and 2008 An organization’s (1) agility (that achieve success

Shepherd (2) adaptation in developing an
(2) rapid response enduring diverse
portfolio) despite a
turbulent and
stressful
environment.
Omidvar et al. 2017 (An organization’s ability) to successfully deal with complexity
under demands.
Williams and 2016 An organization’s ability to (1) absorb (1+2) from shocks;
Shepherd (2) recover(3) transform (3) in the face of
structures and means for long-term stresses,
functioning change and
uncertainty.
(6) Definitions related to dynamic/competitive environment
Chan 2011 An organization’s trait to thrive in a dynamic and
volatile business
environment.
Cho et al. 2006 An organization’s ability to thrive in a dynamic
environment.
Demmer et al. 2011 An organization’s ability to continually evolve and thrive in the face of adverse which naturally arise
over time and sometimes in dynamic
hostile environments.
circumstances
Erol et al. 2011 An organization’s capability to (1) decrease the level of its (1) to expected and in the least possible
vulnerability unexpected risks; time.
(2) increase flexibility to (2) against its
change itself changing
(3) adapt to and recover environment;
Gunasekaran et al. 2011 An organization’s adaptability, responsiveness, in evolving markets.
sustainability and
competitiveness

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Hamel and 2003 An organization’s (1) ability to (1) continuously anticipate to deep, secular trends that can permanently
Organizational Resilience

Välikangas (2) capacity and adjust impair the earning

(2) change before the case for power of a core
change becomes business.
desperately obvious
Ismail et al. 2011 An organization’s capability to (1) meet current market anticipated trends in
demands the marketplace.
(2) take into account
alternative options for
growth to capitalize upon
Limnios et al. 2014 An organization’s strategic to (1) adapt (internal and external (resulting from a) set
ability (2) integrate organizational of dynamic
(3) reconfigure skills, resources capabilities.
and functional
competences) to
match the
requirements of a
changing
environment
Mafabi et al. 2012 An organization’s (ability) to (1) respond to the demands in the (1) for survival
(2) be efficient and effective environment (organisational
(3) make itself reputable adaptation)
(organisational value) (2) at service delivery
(organisational
competitiveness).
Marwa and Milner 2013 An organization’s ability to (1) anticipate to critical strategic
(2) adapt shifts.

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
19
 20

Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

McCarthy et al. 2017 An organization’s ability to (1) withstand (1) disruption;

(2) that
(2) maintain its original better fits the new
configuration environmental
(3) develop a new conditions;
configuration.
Ortiz-de-Mandojana 2016 An organization’s capacity to (1) anticipate to the environment.
and Bansal (2) adjust
Starr et al. 2003 An enterprise’s ability to (1) withstand (1) systemic
capacity (2) adapt discontinuities;
(2) to new risk
environments.
de Oliveira Teixeira 2013 An organization’s (ability) to maintain above-average (after absorbing the)
and Werther returns shocks of the
competitive
environment.
(7) Definitions related to unexpected events
Antunes 2011 An organization’s capability to maintain operations under a wide
spectrum of
potential
breakdowns.
Carvalho et al. 2012 An organization’s ability to (1) anticipate (2) potential
(2) adapt to surprises/failures;
(3) cope with (3) variabilities
occurring outside
their standard
operating model.
Dalgaard-Nielson 2017 An organization’s ability to (1) handle (1) threats and (1) using pre-existing
(2) respond hazards(2) to and pre-planned
unexpected trouble capabilities;
(2) by learning,
changing and
developing new
capabilities;

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
 Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Duchek 2014 An organization’s ability to (1) anticipate (1) trends and to produce a dynamic

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

(2) cope effectively potential threats capability directed
(3) learn from these events (2+3) with towards
unexpected events organizational
change.
Organizational Resilience

Erol et al. 2011 An organization’s capability to (1) decrease the level of its (1) to expected and in the least possible
vulnerability unexpected risks time.
(2) flexibility to change itself (2) against its
(3) adapt to and recover changing
environment
Gao et al. 2017 An organization’s ability to withstand challenging and through the firm’s
unexpected shocks response to prior
challenges.
Horne and Orr 1998 An individual’s, fundamental to respond productively to significant change without engaging in
group’s or quality that disrupts the an extended period
organization’s expected pattern of of regressive
events behaviour.
Kantur and Iseri-Say 2012 An organization’s capability for (1) turning adverse brought by an without being stuck
conditions into an unexpected and too long in the
organizational opportunity disruptive event or stagnation (inertia)
(2) positive attitude of a series of them stage.
‘bouncing back’
(3) relatively agile
deportment
Lampel et al. 2014 An organization’s ability to ‘bounce back’ (from) unanticipated
events with adverse
effects
Linnenluecke and 2012 An organization’s characteristic to deal with unexpected,
Griffiths abrupt and/or
‘extreme’ change.
Marcus and Nichols 1999 (An organization’s) after-the-fact intervention to unexpected problems
overcome and limitations.
Øien 2013 (An organization’s) capability of (1) recognizing with the unexpected.
(2) adapting
(3) coping

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
21
 22

Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Salanova et al. 2012 An organization’s capacity to (1) maintain positive (1) under challenging
adjustment conditions;
(2) bounce back (2) from untoward
(3) maintain desirable events;
functions and outcomes (3) in the midst of
strain.
Wildavsky 1988 An organization’s emergent to (1) investigate [and improve in without knowing in
capability (2) learn (those) overall advance what one
(3) act capabilit(ies)] will be called to act
upon.
(8) Definitions with no clear attached change phenomenon
Elwood 2009 An organization’s ability to resist being affected by an incident.
Acquaah et al. 2011 A firm’s capabilities to align their manufacturing resulting in (1)
strategies to competitive competitive
strategy advantage and (2)
superior
performance.
Ates and Bitici 2011 Any company’s (ability) to (1) make sense of its for decisive
environment advantage.
(2) generate strategic options
(3) realign its resources
faster than its rivals
Carmeli and 2011 A function of an of capture and governance
Markham ongoing, strategies.
methodical
pursuit
Eltantawy 2016 An organization’s dynamic of (1) exploitative adaptations (1) to maintain
capability (engineering resilience) performance;
(2) explorative (2) to maintain
transformations (ecological longevity.
resilience)
Gilly et al. 2014 An organization’s double of (1) resistance opening the way for
capacity (2) adaptation new pathways.

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
 Table 2. Continued

Author Year Entity Property Key attributes Change phenomenon Further attributes

Huber et al. 2012 An organization’s ability to (1) adapt (latent capability) when this is necessary
(2) change its behaviour to

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

focus on adaptation
(manifest behaviour).
Kiuchi and Shireman 1999 An (organization’s) ability to (1) excel amidst chaos by change.
(2) tap the power liberated
Organizational Resilience

Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011 A firm’s set of specific to (1) conceptually orient itself
organiza- (2) act to move forward
tional (3) create a setting of
capabilities, diversity and adjustable
routines, integration.
practices
and
processes
Lengnick-Hall and 2005 A firm’s blend of to (1) understand its current
Beck cognitive, situation;
behavioural (2) develop customized
and responses.
contextual
properties
that
increase
Marwa and Milner 2013 An organization’s ability to (1) anticipate to critical strategic
(2) adapt shifts.
McManus et al. 2007 An organization’s (1) situation awareness;
(2) management of keystone
vulnerabilities;
(3) adaptive capacity.
Ray et al. 2011 An organization’s capacity to (1) improvise from organizational
(2) bounce back setbacks.
Reinmoeller and van 2005 An organization’s ability to self-renew (through over time.
Bardwijk innovation)
Sawalha 2015 An organization’s positive adaptation despite diversity.
Sun et al. 2011 An organization’s process of linking adaptive capacities to
outcome (adaptation).
Wedawattaa et al. 2010 An organization’s (function of) (1) accumulation of
vulnerability
(2) coping capacity
(3) coping strategies.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
23
24
2012; Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003). Another ability that
aims at stability is the ability to bounce back or re-
cover from a situation (Freeman et al. 2004; Lampel
et al. 2014). This includes that the organization not
only survives but also retains more or less the same
structure and functions (Lampel et al. 2014; Salwan
and Gada 2018). The ability to resist (or withstand)
also creates stability, as this means that an organiza-
tion can endure or bear the impacts of change or a
disruptive event (Fleming 2012; Gilly et al. 2014).
Thus, an organization is able to keep the organiza-
tion functioning (Starr et al. 2003; Stephenson 2010)
or minimize the impact of the event or change (Mc-
Cann et al. 2009; Weick and Sutcliffe 2007). Another
ability to achieve stability is the organization’s ability
to recover from impacts, which describes how (fast)
the organization is able to return to the pre-event
state (Acquaah et al. 2011; DesJardine et al. 2017;
Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal 2016). The ability to
cope has also been suggested as an attribute of or-
ganizational resilience (Duchek 2014; Gittell et al.
2006; Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003). This includes de-
veloping feasible solutions in the shortest period of
time (Acquaah et al. 2011; Mallak 1998a). It has
also been related to bricolage (Weick 1993), which
is the ability to make do with whatever is at hand
(Coutu 2002; Mallak 1998b), including improvising
(Ray et al. 2011) to find solutions.
Change domain. Although being resilient is about
creating stability, a resilient organization is able to
handle internal change – resulting from external
pressure – at the same time. The first attribute in
this domain deals with some form of adapting to
a situation. The analysis showed that some refer to
ability to adapt (Borges and Menegon 2012; Erol
et al. 2010; Limnios et al. 2014; Marwa and Mil-
ner 2013; Teo et al. 2017), while others refer to re-
silience being about the capacity to adapt (Burnard
and Bhamra 2011; McManus et al. 2007; Ortiz-
de-Mandojana and Bansal 2016). This is about the
adapting of resources, interpersonal processes and
organizational routines to address the impacts of a
disruptive event (Danes et al. 2009; Glover 2012).
Others refer to adaptation as an attribute of organi-
zational resilience that is linked to successful, posi-
tive or effective adaptation (Coullahan and Shepherd
2008; Gilly et al. 2014; Salanova et al. 2012). The
second attribute in this domain refers to some abil-
ity to renew (or reinvent or reconfigure) (Lengnick-
Hall and Beck 2005; Limnios et al. 2014; McCann
et al. 2009; McCarthy et al. 2017; Reinmoeller and
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
van Baardwijk 2005; Williams et al. 2017). Renewal
is about proactive change of an organization before
the change is desperately necessary (Hamel and Vä-
likangas 2003), and constant renewal through in-
novation (Reinmoeller and van Baardwijk 2005). It
is about producing dynamic capabilities to improve
and adapt internal skills and capabilities (Lengnick-
Hall et al. 2011; Limnios et al. 2014; Wildavsky
1988).
Behavioural domain. Resilience has been linked to
a specific behaviour in an organization that shows
the organization is resilient. This includes the ac-
ceptance of uncertainty and reality (Coutu 2002;
Mallak 1998b; McCann et al. 2009) and the abil-
ity to conquer denial (Hamel and Välikangas 2003).
It has further been linked to the ability to make
meaning in terrible times – that is to see the posi-
tive side of the situation and move on (Coutu 2002;
Horne and Orr 1998), having a sense of identity and
purpose (Ishak and Williams 2018; McCann et al.
2009) or the ability to see opportunities arising from
the situation (Kantur and İşeri-Say 2012; Vargo and
Seville 2011). It is also related to some insensitivity
to negative feedback, and restoring confidence even
in the face of frequent discouragement (Välikangas
2007).
Growth domain. Resilience has been linked to
growth as a result of overcoming a crisis. This do-
main includes the ability to emerge from that cri-
sis strengthened (Freeman et al. 2004) and more re-
sourceful (Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003; Teo et al. 2017).
It is further related to learning from that experience
to develop new capabilities (Dalgaard-Nielsen 2017;
Stewart and O’Donnell 2007; Teo et al. 2017; Wil-
davsky 1988; Williams et al. 2017). It has further
been referred to as the ability to thrive, which in-
cludes to grow and flourish despite adversity (Chan
2011; Cho et al. 2006; Demmer et al. 2011).
Performance domain. This domain captures as-
pects that relate to accomplishments that will set a
resilient company apart from a non-resilient one in
times of adversity, such as the ability to realign its re-
sources faster than its rivals (Ates and Bititci 2011),
the ability to excel amidst chaos (Kiuchi and Shire-
man 1999), to meet current market demands despite
adversity (Ismail et al. 2011) or turn adverse condi-
tions into an organizational opportunity (Kantur and
İşeri-Say 2012). A resilient organization is further
defined by the fact that in times of adversity it does
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience
not show regressive behaviour (Horne and Orr 1998)
and overcomes inertia (Kantur and İşeri-Say 2012).
Taking those findings into account, the concept
consists of six conceptual domains with several at-
tributes related to each domain. This shows the
broadness of the concept and increases the risk of
conceptual proliferation. Conceptual proliferation is,
especially in the early lifecycle of a concept, a
byproduct and can be positive (Hirsch and Levin
1999). Nevertheless, it renders empirical studies and
their comparison difficult. Although there are com-
mon features of the concept, there is a high likelihood
of confusion which calls for a stronger congruence to
ensure the applicability and validity of the concept in
business and management research.
Analysis of existing measurements
In this section we examine the existing measurement
scales of organizational resilience. To assess existing
measurement scales (Table 3), we rely on method-
ological articles on construct taxonomy in terms of
the dimensions of the construct (i.e. one- or multi-
dimensional) and the type of construct (i.e. latent, ag-
gregate, profile) (Law et al. 1998; Wong et al. 2008).
In terms of understanding measurement model
specification (i.e. higher-order construct, reflective
or formative), we rely on the literature of Diaman-
topoulos and Siguaw (2006) and Edwards (2001).
For the synthesis of analysis, we investigated differ-
ences among provided measures. The measures are
analysed based on contextual aspects – such as first,
change phenomenon and second, type of organiza-
tion – to identify differences in measures. Third, the
measures provided are put into research groups that
include the base research discipline most strongly
represented in their conceptualization, and thus the
measure. The measures of the first group are clos-
est to the original understanding from ecology. Re-
silience measures are ex-post measures and proxies.
The second group relies mostly on positive psychol-
ogy and positive organizational development. The
third group belongs to resilience engineering. The
fourth group we assigned to researchers with a strate-
gic management focus.
Researchers agree on the multi-dimensionality of
the concept (see Table 3, supplementary material
E). A construct is multi-dimensional if it ‘consists
of a number of interrelated attributes or dimensions
and exists in multidimensional domains’ (Law et al.
1998, p. 741). Although attempts have been made to
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
25
measure resilience, there is still confusion as a mul-
titude of factors are mentioned or measured.
In terms of type of construct, organizational re-
silience has mainly been conceptualized as a latent
construct. One might argue that this is an obvious
inference, since resilience is understood as a deeply
embedded and inherent quality that can never fully be
covered and only be assessed with different degrees
of accuracy. Therefore, resilience should be under-
stood and conceptualized as a latent and higher-order
construct.
Akgün and Keskin (2014) suggested that organi-
zational resilience is a second-order construct with
manifestations at the first-order level. However, the
relation of the first-order level to the second-order
level remains unclear in their article. It is suggested
that those factors together build organizational re-
silience, which might be an indication for the neces-
sity to measure resilience as a formative construct in-
stead of a reflective one.
Therefore, in terms of model specification, we can
only make an assumption, since researchers some-
times have an implicit assumption but do not clearly
specify this in their article. These cases are marked
with an asterisk. However, common to all measure-
ment models is that resilience is understood as a
multi-dimensional higher-order construct. It further,
from a theoretical perspective, seems to be under-
stood as a second-order construct with outward mani-
festations at the first-order construct level, thus being
a latent construct. Wong et al. (2008) demonstrate
that studying the link to another construct empiri-
cally depends on the measurement model specifica-
tion, thus having important implications for empiri-
cally studying organizational resilience.
Further evaluation of existing measures addresses
content validity, since this is the most relevant from
the point of view of the present discussion. Con-
tent validity assesses whether applied items relate to
specific domains of the construct as defined. Here
we focus on whether researchers show clear linkages
between a conceptual definition and a measurement
procedure. Analysis (Table 3) shows that most re-
searchers do not discuss that aspect clearly upfront,
specifically not the link between the factors and the
overall construct.
Context-specific aspects of organizational resilience
measures. Within the psychological literature, re-
searchers discuss how far resilience has general and
context-specific aspects (e.g. Fletcher and Sarkar
2013; Ungar 2005). Context-specific aspects in this

Table 3. Analysis of existing measurement scales by disciplinary groups
Paper
Group 1: Ecological ideas
Gittell et al. (2006)
Ortiz-de-Mandojana
and Bansal (2016)
DesJardine et al.
(2017)
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
26
Measurement issues
Measurement Dimension(s)
advancements Type of construct Model specification (#items)
Measurement advancements: One-dimensional – – – Time of recovery (speed
- Ex-post approach (retrospective of stock price recovery)
analysis) to assess resilience
Measurement advancements: One-dimensional – – – Survival (1)
- Apply the ecological resilience
understanding to measure
resilience
- Ex-post analysis through proxy
Measurement advancements: Two- dimensional – – – Stability (severity of loss)
- Apply the ecological resilience Flexibility (time for
understanding to measure recovery)
resilience
- Ex-post analysis through proxies to
measure stability and flexibility
(Continued)
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
 Table 3. Continued

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Measurement issues
Measurement Dimension(s)
Paper advancements Type of construct Model specification (#items)
Organizational Resilience

Group 2: Positive psychology and organizational development

Mallak (1998a) Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent Six first-order Formative* Goal-directed solution-seeking (7)
- Measured through resilient constructs* Avoidance (5)
behaviour of its employees Critical understanding (4)
- Empirically validate scale using Role dependence (3)
CFA Source reliance (2)
Resource access (3)
Not clearly specified:
- Relation of the six dimensions to
the overall construct
- Dimensions are
concrete components, index?
Danes et al. (2009) Measurement advancements: Multi-dimensional Aggregate* First-order Reflective* Role clarity (1)
- In terms of an overall resilience construct Decision authority (1)
score Ownership equality (1)
Fairness of compensation (1)
Failure to resolve firm conflicts (1)
Unfair workloads and competition for
resources between family and
firm (1)
Somers (2009) Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent* Six first-order Formative* Goal-directed solution-seeking (3)
- Based on Mallak (1998a) constructs* Risk avoidance (3)
- Extend this by measuring resilience Critical situation understanding (3)
through polar opposites with a Ability to fill multiple roles (3)
mid-point (items represent points) Reliance on information sources (3)
- Index formulated (ORPS score) Access to resources (3)

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
27
 28

Table 3. Continued

Measurement issues
Measurement Dimension(s)
Paper advancements Type of construct Model specification (#items)

Group 2: Positive psychology and organizational development

Ray et al. (2011) Measurement advancements: – Latent* First-order Reflective* Commitment to resilience scale
- Measure commitment to resilience construct (8)
as factor of mindfulness
- Mindfulness conceptualized as
second-order construct that is
manifest through five first-order
constructs
- Overall mindfulness score
(additive) based on individual
items
Richtnér and Löfsten Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent* Three first-order Reflective* Emotional resources (6)
(2014) - Apply conceptualization of construct Cognitive resources (4)
Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) Structural resources (4)
- Based on factor analysis they find
support for three latent first-order
constructs (structural, emotional
and cognitive resources)
Not clearly specified: - Authors
propose that those resources
together create an overall construct
of organizational resilience but
then study the link to
organizational creativity at the
factor level which implies that
resilience is a second-order
construct, reflective and manifest
at first-order level
Moran (2016) Measurement advancements: Multi-dimensional Latent* Three first-order Reflective* Goal-directed solution-seeking
- Based on Mallak (1998a) measures constructs* (1)
Avoidance (1)
Role dependency (1)

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Table 3. Continued

Measurement issues
Organizational Resilience

Measurement Dimension(s)
Paper advancements Type of construct Model specification (#items)

Group 3: Resilience engineering, New Zealand Group

Stephenson (2010) Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent* Two first-order Reflective Adaptive capacity
(New Zealand - Based on McManus et al.’s (2007, constructs* Planning strategies
Resilience Group) 2008) early case studies
- Analyse different factor structures
and identify a second-order
construct with two first-order
reflective constructs
Not clearly specified:
- Relation of the identified factors to
the abstract (second-order)
- Based on conceptualization before
analysis, it seems to be understood
as an aggregate construct (through
multiplicative function);
discussion is later dropped
Whitman et al. (2013) Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Adaptive capacity (5)
- Based on McManus and the New Planning strategies (8)
Zealand Research Group
- Short scale for measuring
organizational resilience

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
29

Table 3. Continued
Paper
Group 4: Strategic management
McCann et al. (2009)
Mafabi et al. (2012)
Akgün and Keskin
(2014)
Parker and Ameen
(2018)
* Represents assumptions made about model specification if authors do not clearly specify or discuss the aspect of factor structure.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
30
Measurement issues
Measurement Dimension(s)
advancements Type of construct Model specification (#items)
Measurement advancements: Multi-dimensional Latent* Two first-order* Reflective* Resiliency (5)
- Define companies that are able to constructs Agility (5)
deal with turbulence as having
high AR; second-order construct*
Not clearly specified:
- Relation of dimensions to the
overall construct, however, AR is
measured at the first-order
construct level in further analysis
Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent* Second-order Reflective* Organizational adaptation (7)
- Measurement scale for construct, three Organizational
organizational resilience first-order competitiveness (6)
- One score for OR construct constructs Organizational value (7)
Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent* Second-order Reflective* Competence orientation (12)
- Apply the conceptualization of construct* with Deep social capital (7)
Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005) six first-order Original/unscripted agility (4)
- Based on factor analysis they constructs Practical habits (4)
validate six first-order constructs Behavioural preparedness (2)
that represent resilience capacity Broad resource network (2)
(thus move away from the three
dimensions suggested by
Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2005)
- Empirical analysis is done at the
first-order construct level
Measurement advancements: Multi- dimensional Latent* One first-order Reflective* Firm resilience (4)
- Very short scale to assess resilience construct
Not clearly specified:
- Does scale cover the complexity of
the concept?
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Organizational Resilience
field relate, for example, to socio-economic status
(e.g. Luthar 2003), kind of stress (e.g. Richardson
2002) or level of adversity experienced and cultural
background (e.g. Ungar 2013).
In the organizational context, we have already es-
tablished the type of change as a context-specific
aspect. Another contextual factor can be seen in
national culture that influences shared purpose and
value (Acar and Winfrey 1994; Wright et al. 2009),
which is an important part of organizational re-
silience (see the ‘Behavioural domain’ subsection
above). It influences leadership styles and strategic
choice (Collis 1991) and also the value that is put on
growth and learning, being – following Cheng (2007)
– a reason why Singaporean companies are more re-
silient. Size and type of organization can be seen as
another contextual factor.
However, in terms of the so-far existing measures,
context-specificity is not particularly addressed. Only
Danes et al. (2009) provide a measure that is specifi-
cally oriented towards family firms. An item-by-item
analysis showed that those items are not context-
specific as well. An interesting context aspect to con-
sider has been brought up by Lengnick-Hall et al.
(2011), who argue that how many prior experiences a
company has in dealing with crisis situations should
be included.
Towards a conceptual integrative
model of organizational resilience
The analysis shows that six domains are included
in organizational resilience understandings. Powley
(2013) emphasized that resilience should be decou-
pled from growth, as growth is a part of organiza-
tional healing that occurs after a crisis, while re-
silience is only about the resolving of a crisis. For
reasons of parsimony, the question is what the low-
est common denominator is. Reflecting on the orig-
inal definition of resilience from the Latin word re-
silio (resilire), which means ‘to rebound, spring back’
(Klein et al. 2003; van der Vegt et al. 2015), we ar-
gue that the most essential domain of the concept is
the stability domain. All other domains have added
to our understanding of resilience but moved the con-
cept farther away from its original idea. Kantur and
İşeri-Say (2012) provide insightful ideas. They dis-
tinguish recovery, adaptation and renewal from orga-
nizational resilience, which they call organizational
evolvability in order to account for a clear delineation
of those concepts. That includes a separation of the
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
31
change domain and understanding adaptation and re-
newal as independent constructs.
Conceptual model
How to operationalize resilience? What is the most
suitable model specification? Clarifying the relation-
ship of the dimensions to the overall construct is
important, as this defines the measurement model
(Law et al. 1998; Wong et al. 2008). Law et al.
(1998) argue that this is essential for three reasons:
(1) developing good research questions; (2) theoret-
ical parsimony; and (3) placing the construct in re-
lation to other constructs. If organizational resilience
is understood as a second-order construct manifest
at the first-order level, hypotheses in empirical stud-
ies should only be made at this level, thus not at the
resilience level. For example, Richtnér and Löfsten
(2014) do so and identify three first-order constructs
– cognitive, structural and emotional resources – and
then study the link of each construct to organiza-
tional creativity. Wong et al. (2008) further point
out that researchers sometimes make conceptual ar-
guments at the dimensional level, but then develop
hypotheses at the construct level. In addition, some-
times a reflective measurement model is assumed
while a formative one would be more appropriate
(Wong et al. 2008). A reflective measurement model
means that changes in the latent variable (construct
of interest) lead to changes in observable indica-
tors (effect indicators), while in a formative measure-
ment model changes in indicators determine changes
(cause indicators) in the latent variable (Diaman-
topoulos and Siguaw 2006; Edwards and Bagozzi
2000). Therefore, we propose that a formative model
might provide different insights and more fully cap-
ture the complexity of the concept (Figure 1). This
way, it also allows us to reconcile conceptualizations
and measures from prior literature within a model.
Cause indicators could then be resilient behaviours,
resilience resources or resilience capabilities that de-
termine a resilient response. Each of them depicted
by a latent construct.
Organizational resilience is the ability of an orga-
nization to maintain functions and recover fast from
adversity by mobilizing and accessing the resources
needed. An organization’s resilient behaviour, re-
silience resources and resilience capabilities enable
and determine organizational resilience. The result of
an organization’s response to adversity is growth and
learning.
32
Figure 1. Conceptual integrative model
Conclusion and future research
This review focuses on reviewing the resilience lit-
erature with a focus on measurement and thereby in-
tends to provide a basis for further empirical devel-
opment. The results of this review show that at the
moment, we still face some problems in conceptu-
alization and measurement. The relation of the di-
mensions to the overall construct should be discussed
and analysed further by gathering more empirical ev-
idence that sheds more light on this discussion. Orga-
nizations will only be able to enhance their resilience
if there is clarity on the concept and the variables that
determine resilience in order to assess, develop and
continuously improve them over time. This review
contributes in three main respects: (1) highlighting
problems and issues in conceptualizations; (2) pre-
senting how far we have come with measuring or-
ganizational resilience; and (3) suggesting a forma-
tive measure of organizational resilience. Although
we have improved within the measurement arena, fu-
ture research in the field is not limited and still almost
all avenues might be possible that include more em-
pirical evidence in terms of measuring organizational
resilience.
Future research should discuss more how the or-
ganizational resilience concept contributes to ex-
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
isting research in organization theory, for example
through investigating similarities to or differences
from existing concepts. Concepts that seem to share
conceptual domain overlap are ‘organizational flexi-
bility’ (Hatum and Pettigrew 2004), ‘organizational
change capacity’ (Judge and Douglas 2009), ‘organi-
zational adaptive capacity’ (Staber and Sydow 2002)
and ‘organizational buffering capacity’ (Lynn 2005).
Organizational flexibility is ‘a combination of a
repertoire of organizational and managerial capabili-
ties that allow organizations to adapt quickly under
environmental shifts’ (Hatum and Pettigrew 2004,
p. 239). This can be strategic or operational flexibil-
ity. Operational flexibility is essential for the ability
to respond quickly and effectively (Sheffi and Rice
2005). In that way, operational flexibility could be
part of the organizational resilience construct. Orga-
nizational change capacity is ‘a combination of man-
agerial and organizational capabilities that allows
an enterprise to adapt more quickly and effectively
than its competitors to changing situations’ (Judge
and Douglas 2009, p. 635). Organizational adaptabil-
ity is defined as ‘the capacity of an organization to
respond to changing external environment’ (Staber
and Sydow 2002). Adaptive capacity is sometimes
investigated as a separate concept. McCann et al.
(2009, p. 45) define resilience as a subset of adaptive
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience
capacity and as the ‘amount and variety of resources
and skills possessed and available for maintaining vi-
ability and growth relative to the requirements posed
by the environment’. Organizational buffering capac-
ity is defined as ‘the regulation and/or insulation of
organizational processes, functions, entities, or indi-
viduals from the effects of environmental uncertainty
or scarcity. […] buffering includes efforts to miti-
gate uncertainty’s effects, it does not encompass ac-
tions taken to alter the environment directly’ (Lynn
2005, p. 38). From the definitions one can see that
all these concepts deal with change and uncertainty,
and thus attempt to explain how organizations man-
age changes in the environment or turbulence.
Future research should also investigate the nomo-
logical network to distinguish the concept of inter-
est from other concepts to reduce proliferation (Pod-
sakoff et al. 2016) and increase nomological validity.
There are several concepts mentioned in the litera-
ture as antecedents to organizational resilience, such
as slack resources being fundamental to resilience as
they amplify an organization’s problem-solving com-
petence (e.g. Acquaah et al. 2011; Gittell et al. 2006;
Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2005; Linnenluecke and
Griffiths 2012). Also innovations play a crucial role
for organizational resilience, as a source of resilience
(e.g. Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Gunasekaran et al.
2011; Stephenson 2010). For example, Reinmoeller
and van Baardwijk (2005) argue that innovative com-
panies show higher resilience than less innovative
companies. Those innovative companies can build
and sustain their competitive advantage and if they
can sustain their competitive advantage, they will
also be resilient (Carvalho et al. 2016; Hamel and
Välikangas 2003). Networks are also especially im-
portant for shared information and for developing
collective responses to unexpected events (Lengnick-
Hall and Beck 2005; Stephenson 2010), while some
discuss networks external to the organization in
the industry or even broader (Lengnick-Hall and
Beck 2005; McCann and Selsky 2012). Networks,
as protective factors, have further been mentioned
in terms of relational resources that facilitate orga-
nizational resilience in times of crisis (see Gittell
et al. 2006; Kahn et al. 2013; Vogus and Sutcliffe
2007).
When we discuss the nature of change that is im-
portant for the resilience discussion, it is also impor-
tant to discuss how the environment is perceived by
the people in an organization, especially managers.
This is necessary because the measures taken to en-
hance organizational resilience depend on the per-
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
33
ception of the environment by managers (McCann
et al. 2009). Managers in more uncertain environ-
ments assume greater risks and tend to anticipate
events and prepare for them by developing preven-
tive actions (Smart and Vertinsky 1984). Dewald and
Bowen (2010) support this relationship and find that,
if managers perceive a threat from disruptions such
as new business models, they take action.
Absorptive capacity is another concept that could
be distinguished from resilience (Richtnér and Löf-
sten 2014), but is evidently linked. Absorptive ca-
pacity explains the ability of organizations to ap-
preciate, transform and exploit new knowledge for
strategic purposes (Zahra and George 2002). This
reminds us of the link to resilience as provided by
Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011, p. 244), who define re-
silience as ‘a firm’s ability to effectively absorb, de-
velop situation-specific responses to and ultimately
engage in transformative activities to capitalize on
disruptive surprises that potentially threaten organi-
zational survival’. In this, it seems to be a protective
factor for organizational resilience.
These concepts are antecedent to organizational
resilience. Consequences to organizational resilience
are survival (e.g. Freeman et al. 2004; Gao et al.
2017; Limnios et al. 2014; Ortiz-de-Mandojana and
Bansal 2016), reduced organizational failure and de-
cline (Carmeli and Markman 2011; Farjoun 2010;
Marwa and Zairi 2008). Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003)
have mentioned efficacy as an outcome of resilience,
since resilience enhances the ability to quickly pro-
cess feedback and flexibly rearrange or transfer
knowledge and resources to deal with the situation
at hand. Other researchers have linked it to organiza-
tional performance (Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2005)
and competitive advantage (Acquaah et al. 2011; Ki-
uchi and Shireman 1999; Marwa and Milner 2013;
Reeves and Deimler 2009; Stephenson 2010), which
is then reflected in financial performance (Carvalho
et al. 2016; de Oliveira Teixeira and Werther 2013;
McCann et al. 2009; Stephenson 2010).
Conceptualizations of resilience focused on the
detection of resilience, thus on variables that indi-
cate resilience is present. The absence of resilience
is thus far only assessable ex-post in case the or-
ganization goes bankrupt (i.e. the organization was
not resilient). Is the absence of resilience a lack of
attributes attached to the concept, or are there any
other attributes that hint at the absence of resilience?
For example, discussing polar opposites could be in-
teresting for future research. Here, Vogus and Sut-
cliffe (2007) mentioned ‘brittleness’ as a counterpole
34
to resilience. Also, rigidity has been mentioned as a
counterpole to resilience (Parker and Ameen 2018;
Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003). Future research could
look into that.
With regard to the multi-level context, Linnen-
luecke (2017) already summarized many interesting
lines of inquiry. From a measurement point of view,
it is interesting to develop a multi-level resilience
concept; however, approaching multi-level con-
structs has its own methodological challenges (see
Chen et al. 2005) and needs further consideration.
For example, in their book Managing Turbulence,
McCann and Selsky (2012) suggest measures for
resilience at the employee, team, organizational and
industry level.
As a systematic review is the chosen methodol-
ogy that fits the purpose of our paper, there might
be further literature contributing to the understand-
ing of resilience that could not be covered here. For
example, the work of Powley on resilience activation
during a crisis or Barin Cruz et al. on institutional
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
resilience comes to mind. Their focus is not on mea-
surement of the concept, but rather the process be-
hind resilience. However, future research should re-
flect our findings and contrast it with these research
findings in the sense of taking an umbrella advocate
position again. Still, as Scherbaum and Meade (2013)
point out: ‘better measurement is the key to better re-
search and theory’, and therefore looking at organi-
zational resilience from a strict validity police point
of view is meaningful for this paper and also as a fu-
ture research avenue.
Acknowledgements
Julia Hillmann thanks the Dresden Leibniz Gradu-
ate School (Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and
Regional Development, Dresden, Germany) for the
receipt of funding as a scholarship holder to carry
out this research.
Open access funding enabled and organized by
Projekt DEAL.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Appendix: Journals and their number of contributions listed by year

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Number of published articles per year

1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Organizational Resilience

Academy of Management 1 1 1 3
Journal
Academy of Management 1 1
Learning & Education
Academy of Management 1 1 2
Proceedings
Academy of Management 1 1 2
Review
Administrative Science 1 1
Quarterly
Annals of Tourism 1 1
Research
Asia Pacific Business 1 1
Review
Australian Accounting 1 1
Review
Business Forum 1 1
Business Horizons 1 1
Business Strategy & the 1 1
Environment
Climatic Change 1 1
Corporate 1 1
Communications: An
International Journal
Cross Cultural 1 1
Management: An
International Journal

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
35
 36

Continued

Number of published articles per year

1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Current Opinion in 1 1
Environmental
Sustainability
Employment Relations 1 1
Today
Enterprise Information 1 1
Systems
Entrepreneurship: Theory 1 1
& Practice
Environmental Quality 1 1
Management
European Journal of 1 1
Operational Research
European Management 1 2 3
Journal
Group & Organization 1 1
Management
Harvard Business Review 1 1 2
Health Manpower 1 1
Management
Human Resource 1 1
Management Review
IEEE Transactions on 1 1
Systems, Man and
Cybernetics
International Journal of 1 1
Business and
Management
International Journal of 1 1
Innovation
International Journal of 1 1
Logistics Management
International Journal of 1 1
Management &
Enterprise
Development

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
 Continued

Number of published articles per year

1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

International Journal of 1 1
Management Reviews
International Journal of 2 2
Production Economics
Organizational Resilience

International Journal of 1 1
Production
Management and
Engineering
International Journal of 10 1 11
Production Research
International Journal of 1 1
Public Sector
Management
International Journal of 1 1
Strategic Property
Management
Journal of Business & 1 1
Industrial Marketing
Journal of Business 1 1 2 4
Continuity &
Emergency Planning
Journal of Business 2 2 4
Logistics
Journal of Business 1 1
Research
Journal of Cleaner 1 1 2
Production
Journal of Contingencies 2 3 5
& Crisis Management
Journal of Corporate 1 1
Real Estate
Journal of Developmental 1 1
Entrepreneurship
Journal of Global 1 1
Business Issues

(Continued)

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
37
 38

Continued

Number of published articles per year

1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Journal of Information 1 1 2
Technology
Journal of Loss 1 1
Prevention in the
Process Industries
Journal of Management 1 1 2
Journal of Management 1 1
& Organization
Journal of Organizational 1 1
Behavior
Journal of Real Estate 1 1
Portfolio Management
Journal of Risk Research 1 1 2
Journal of Strategic 1 1
Change
Journal of Strategy and 1 1
Management
Local Economy 1 1
Management 1 1
Communication
Quarterly
Management Research 1 1
Review
Measuring Business 1 1
Excellence
MIT Sloan Management 2 2
Review
Omega 1 1 2

(Continued)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
 Continued

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Number of published articles per year

1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Organizational Resilience

Organization & 1 1
Environment
Organization Science 1 1
People & Strategy 1 1
Public Management 1 1
Review
R&D Management 1 1
Scandinavian Journal of 1 1
Management
Strategic Management 1 3 1 5
Journal
Strategy and Business 1 1
Supply Chain 1 2 3
Management: An
International Journal
The Indian Journal of 1 1
Industrial Relations
The International Journal 1 1
of Organizational
Innovation
The Journal of Applied 1 1 2
Behavioral Science
The Learning 1 1
Organization
Total Quality 1 1
Management &
Business Excellence
Work 3 2 1 6

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
39
40
References
Acar, W. and Winfrey, F.L. (1994). The resilient organiza-
tion: Sustaining organizational renewal and performance.
Journal of Strategic Change, 3, pp. 165–173.
Acquaah, M., Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Jayaram, J. (2011).
Resilience in family and nonfamily firms: An exami-
nation of the relationships between manufacturing strat-
egy, competitive strategy and firm performance. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 49, pp. 5527–
5544.
Akgün, A.E. and Keskin, H. (2014). Organisational re-
silience capacity and firm product innovativeness and per-
formance. International Journal of Production Research,
52, pp. 6918–6937.
Aleksić, A., Stefanović, M., Arsovski, S. and Tadić, D.
(2013). An assessment of organizational resilience poten-
tial in SMEs of the process industry, a fuzzy approach.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26,
pp. 1238–1245.
Amann, B. and Jaussaud, J. (2012). Family and non-family
business resilience in an economic downturn. Asia Pacific
Business Review, 18, pp. 203–223.
Antunes, P. (2011). BPM and exception handling: Focus on
organizational resilience. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, 41, pp. 383–392.
Ates, A. and Bititci, U. (2011). Change process: A key en-
abler for building resilient SMEs. International Journal of
Production Research, 49, pp. 5601–5618.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some cri-
teria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14,
pp. 496–515.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. and Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience:
The concept, a literature review and future direc-
tions. International Journal of Production Research, 49,
pp. 5375–5393.
Boin, A. and van Eeten, M.J.G. (2013). The resilient organi-
zation: A critical appraisal. Public Management Review,
15, pp. 429–445.
Borges, F.M. and Menegon, N.L. (2012). Different roles in
the quest for system resilience. Work, 41, pp. 3238–3245.
Brahma, S.S. (2009). Assessment of construct validity in
management research. Journal of Management Research,
9, pp. 59–71.
Brand, F.S. and Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning(s)
of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a
boundary object. Ecology & Society, 12, pp. 23–39.
Burnard, K. and Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational re-
silience: Development of a conceptual framework for or-
ganisational responses. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 49, pp. 5581–5599.
Carmeli, A. and Markman, G.D. (2011). Capture, gover-
nance, and resilience: Strategy implications from the his-
tory of Rome. Strategic Management Journal, 32, pp.
322–341.
Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2008). Adaptive capacity
and traps. Ecology and Society, 13, p. 40.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Carvalho, A.O.d., Ribeiro, I., Cirani, C.B.S. and Cintra, R.F.
(2016). Organizational resilience: A comparative study
between innovative and non-innovative companies based
on the financial performance analysis. International Jour-
nal of Innovation, 4, pp. 58–69.
Carvalho, P.d., Souza, A.d. and Gomes, J. (2012). A comput-
erized system to monitor resilience indicators in organiza-
tions. Work, 41, pp. 2803–2809.
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, pp. 5545–5563.
Chen, G., Bliese, P.D. and Mathieu, J.E. (2005). Conceptual
framework and statistical procedures for delineating and
testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational
Research Methods, 8, pp. 375–409.
Cheng, P.L.K. (2007). The cultural value of resilience: The
Singapore case study. Cross Cultural Management: An In-
ternational Journal, 14, pp. 136–149.
Chewning, L.V., Lai, C.-H. and Doerfel, M.L. (2013). Orga-
nizational resilience and using information and communi-
cation technologies to rebuild communication structures.
Management Communication Quarterly, 27, pp. 237–263.
Cho, S., Mathiassen, L. and Robey, D. (2006). Dialectics of
resilience: A multi-level analysis of a telehealth innova-
tion. Journal of Information Technology, 22, pp. 24–35.
Clement, V. and Rivera, J. (2017). From adaptation to trans-
formation: An extended research agenda for organiza-
tional resilience to adversity in the natural environment.
Organization & Environment, 30, pp. 346–365.
Collis, D.J. (1991). A resource-based analysis of global com-
petition: The case of the bearings industry. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 12, pp. 49–68.
Cooper, H.M. (2010). Research Synthesis and Meta-
Analysis: A Step-By-Step Approach, 4th edn, Vol. 2. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Coullahan, R.J. and Shepherd, C.D. (2008). Enhancing enter-
prise resilience in the commercial facilities sector. Journal
of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 3, pp. 5–
18.
Coutu, D.L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 80, pp. 46–51.
Crane, D. (1969). Social structure in a group of scientists: A
test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. American Soci-
ological Review, 34, pp. 335–352.
Dalgaard-Nielsen, A. (2017). Organizational resilience in
national security bureaucracies: Realistic and practicable?
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25,
pp. 341–349.
Danes, S.M., Lee, J., Amarapurkar, S., Stafford, K., Haynes,
G. and Brewton, K.E. (2009). Determinants of family
business resilience after a natural disaster by gender of
business owner. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneur-
ship, 14, pp. 333–354.
David, R.J. and Han, S.-K. (2004). A systematic assessment
of the empirical support for transaction cost economics.
Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp. 39–58.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience
de Oliveira Teixeira, E. and Werther, W.B. (2013). Re-
silience: Continuous renewal of competitive advantages.
Business Horizons, 56, pp. 333–342.
Demmer, W.A., Vickery, S.K. and Calantone, R. (2011).
Engendering resilience in small- and medium-sized en-
terprises (SMEs): A case study of Demmer Corpora-
tion. International Journal of Production Research, 49,
pp. 5395–5413.
DesJardine, M., Bansal, P. and Yang, Y. (2017). Bouncing
back: Building resilience through social and environmen-
tal practices in the context of the 2008 global financial
crisis. Journal of Management, 45, pp. 1434–1460.
Dewald, J. and Bowen, F. (2010). Storm clouds and silver lin-
ings: Responding to disruptive innovations through cogni-
tive resilience. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34,
pp. 197–218.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006). Formative ver-
sus reflective indicators in organizational measure devel-
opment: A comparison and empirical illustration. British
Journal of Management, 17, pp. 263–282.
Duchek, S. (2014). Growth in the face of crisis: The role
of organizational resilience capabilities. Academy of Man-
agement Proceedings, 2014, p. 13487.
Edwards, J.R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in or-
ganizational behavior research: An integrative analyt-
ical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4,
pp. 144–192.
Edwards, J.R. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). On the nature and
direction of relationship between constructs and mea-
sures. Psychological Methods, 5, pp. 155–174.
Eltantawy, R.A. (2016). The role of supply management re-
silience in attaining ambidexterity: A dynamic capabili-
ties approach. Journal of Business & Industrial Market-
ing, 31, pp. 123–134.
Erol, O., Sauser, B.J. and Mansouri, M. (2010). A frame-
work for investigation into extended enterprise resilience.
Enterprise Information Systems, 4, pp. 111–136.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as
a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, pp. 202–
225.
Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews:
From the Internet to Paper, 3rd edn. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Fink, A., Marr, B., Siebe, A. and Kuhie, J.-P. (2005). The fu-
ture scorecard: Combining external and internal scenarios
to create strategic foresight. Management Decision, 43,
pp. 360–381.
Fleming, R.S. (2012). Ensuring organizational resilience in
times of crisis. Journal of Global Business Issues, 6,
pp. 31–34.
Fletcher, D. and Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience.
European Psychologist, 18, pp. 12–23.
Freeman, S.F., Hirschhorn, S.J. and Maltz, M. (2004). The
power of moral purpose: Sandler O’Neill & Partners in the
aftermath of September 11th , 2001. Organizational Devel-
opment Journal, 22, pp. 69–81.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
41
Gao, C., Zuzul, T., Jones, G. and Khanna, T. (2017). Over-
coming institutional voids: A reputation-based view of
long-run survival. Strategic Management Journal, 38,
pp. 2147–2167.
Gilly, J.-P., Kechidi, M. and Talbot, D. (2014). Resilience
of organisations and territories: The role of pivot firms.
European Management Journal, 32, pp. 596–602.
Gimenez, R., Hernantes, J., Labaka, L., Hiltz, S.R. and Tur-
off, M. (2017). Improving the resilience of disaster man-
agement organizations through virtual communities of
practice: A Delphi study. Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management, 25, pp. 160–170.
Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K.S., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006).
Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: Air-
line industry responses to September 11. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 42, pp. 300–329.
Glover, J. (2012). Rural resilience through continued learn-
ing and innovation. Local Economy, 27, pp. 355–372.
Gunasekaran, A., Rai, B.K. and Griffin, M. (2011). Re-
silience and competitiveness of small and medium size
enterprises: An empirical research. International Journal
of Production Research, 49, pp. 5489–5509.
Hamel, G. and Välikangas, L. (2003). The quest for re-
silience. Harvard Business Review, 81, pp. 52–63.
Hatum, A. and Pettigrew, A. (2004). Adaptation under en-
vironmental turmoil: Organizational flexibility in family
owned firms. Family Business Review, XVII, pp. 237–
258.
Hirsch, P.M. and Levin, D.Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates
versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization
Science, 10, pp. 199–212.
Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K. (2014). Narrative, meta-
analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the differences
and why do they matter? Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 35, pp. S1–S5.
Horne, J.F. (1997). The coming age of organizational re-
silience. Business Forum, 22, pp. 24–28.
Horne, J.F. and Orr, J.E. (1998). Assessing behaviors that
create resilient organizations. Employment Relations To-
day, 24, pp. 29–39.
Huff, A.S. (2009). Designing Research for Publication.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ishak, A.W. and Williams, E.A. (2018). A dynamic model
of organizational resilience: Adaptive and anchored ap-
proaches. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 23, pp. 180–196.
Ismail, H.S., Poolton, J. and Sharifi, H. (2011). The role
of agile strategic capabilities in achieving resilience
in manufacturing-based small companies. International
Journal of Production Research, 49, pp. 5469–5487.
Jaccard, J. and Jacoby, J. (2009). Theory Construction and
Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Sci-
entists. New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, W. and Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational change ca-
pacity: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 22, pp. 635–649.
42
Jüttner, U. and Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience
in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Sup-
ply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16,
pp. 246–259.
Kahn, W.A., Barton, M.A. and Fellows, S. (2013). Organi-
zational crises and the disturbance of relational systems.
Academy of Management Review, 38, pp. 377–396.
Kantur, D. and İşeri-Say, A. (2012). Literature review orga-
nizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework.
Journal of Management & Organization, 18, pp. 762–773.
Kendra, J.M. and Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of re-
silience after the World Trade Center disaster: Reconsti-
tuting New York City’s emergency operations centre. Dis-
asters, 27, pp. 37–53.
Kiuchi, T. and Shireman, B. (1999). Metrics for business in
the new economy: An economic change of seasons creates
demands for new business metrics. Environmental Quality
Management, 9, pp. 79–90.
Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J. and Thomalla, F. (2003). Re-
silience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?
Environmental Hazards, 5, pp. 35–45.
Koslowski, T.G., Geoghegan, W. and Longstaff, P.H. (2013).
Organizational resilience: A review and reconceptualiza-
tion. In Barr, P. and Rothaermel, F. (eds), 33rd Annual In-
ternational Conference of the Strategic Management So-
ciety, Atlanta, GA.
Lampel, J., Bhalla, A. and Jha, P.P. (2014). Does governance
confer organisational resilience? Evidence from UK em-
ployee owned businesses. European Management Jour-
nal, 32, pp. 66–72.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Mobley, W.M. (1998). Toward
a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 23, pp. 741–755.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Beck, T.E. (2005). Adaptive fit
versus robust transformation: How organizations respond
to environmental change. Journal of Management, 31,
pp. 738–757.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L.
(2011). Developing a capacity for organizational re-
silience through strategic human resource management.
Human Resource Management Review, 21, pp. 243–
255.
Limnios, E.A.M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A. and Schilizzi,
S.G.M. (2014). The resilience architecture framework:
Four organizational archetypes. European Management
Journal, 32, pp. 104–116.
Linnenluecke, M.K. (2017). Resilience in business and man-
agement research: A review of influential publications and
a research agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 19, pp. 4–30.
Linnenluecke, M.K. and Griffiths, A. (2012). Assessing or-
ganizational resilience to climate and weather extremes:
Complexities and methodological pathways. Climatic
Change, 113, pp. 933–947.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A. and Winn, M. (2012). Ex-
treme weather events and the critical importance of an-
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
ticipatory adaptation and organizational resilience in re-
sponding to impacts. Business Strategy & the Environ-
ment, 21, pp. 17–32.
Luthar, S.S. (ed.) (2003). Resilience and Vulnerability. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynn, M.L. (2005). Organizational buffering: Managing
boundaries and cores. Organization Studies, 26, pp. 37–
61.
Mafabi, S., Munene, J. and Ntayi, J. (2012). Knowledge
management and organisational resilience: Organisational
innovation as a mediator in Uganda parastatals. Journal of
Strategy and Management, 5, pp. 57–80.
Mallak, L. (1998a). Measuring resilience in health care
provider organizations. Health Manpower Management,
24, pp. 148–152.
Mallak, L. (1998b). Putting organizational resilience to
work. Industrial Management, 40, pp. 8–13.
Mantere, S., Schildt, H. and Sillince, J.A. (2012). Reversal
of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
pp. 173–196.
Marcus, A.A. and Nichols, M.L. (1999). On the edge: Heed-
ing the warnings of unusual events. Organization Science,
10, pp. 482–499.
Martin-Breen, P. and Anderies, J.M. (2011). Resilience:
A literature review. Available at: https://opendocs.ids.
ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/3692 (accessed 9 July
2018).
Marwa, S.M. and Milner, C.D. (2013). Underwriting corpo-
rate resilience via creativity: The pliability model. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24, pp. 835–
846.
Marwa, S. and Zairi, M. (2008). An exploratory study of the
reasons for the collapse of contemporary companies and
their link with the concept of quality. Management Deci-
sion, 46, pp. 1342–1370.
McCann, J.E. and Selsky, J.W. (2012). Mastering Turbu-
lence: The Essential Capabilities of Agile and Resilient
Individuals, Teams, and Organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCann, J., Selsky, J. and Lee, J. (2009). Building agility, re-
silience and performance in turbulent environments. Peo-
ple & Strategy, 32, pp. 44–51.
McCarthy, I.P., Collard, M. and Johnson, M. (2017). Adap-
tive organizational resilience: An evolutionary perspec-
tive. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28,
pp. 33–40.
McCoy, J. and Elwood, A. (2009). Human factors in organ-
isational resilience: Implications of breaking the psycho-
logical contract. Journal of Business Continuity & Emer-
gency Planning, 3, pp. 368–375.
McManus, S., Seville, E., Brunsdon, D. and Vargo,
J. (2007). Resilience management: A framework for
assessing and improving the resilience of organisa-
tions. Available at: https://www.resorgs.org.nz/resources/
organisational-resilience-publications (accessed 12 Au-
gust 2018).
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience
Moran, K.A. (2016) Organizational resilience: Sustained in-
stitutional effectiveness among smaller, private, non-profit
US higher education institutions experiencing organiza-
tional decline. Work, 54, pp. 267–281. https://doi.org/10.
3233/wor-162299.
Øien, K. (2013). Remote operation in environmentally sensi-
tive areas: Development of early warning indicators. Jour-
nal of Risk Research, 16, pp. 323–336.
Omidvar, M., Mazloumi, A., Mohammad, I. and Nirumand,
F. (2017). Development of a framework for resilience
measurement: Suggestion of fuzzy Resilience Grade (RG)
and fuzzy Resilience Early Warning Grade (REWG).
Work, 56, pp. 463–474.
Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. and Bansal, P. (2016). The long-
term benefits of organizational resilience through sustain-
able business practices. Strategic Management Journal,
37, pp. 1615–1631.
Pal, R., Torstensson, H. and Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents
of organizational resilience in economic crises—an em-
pirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, 147, pp. 410–
428.
Parker, H. and Ameen, K. (2018). The role of resilience ca-
pabilities in shaping how firms respond to disruptions.
Journal of Business Research, 88, pp. 535–541.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K.L. (2010). Ensuring sup-
ply chain resilience: Development of a conceptual frame-
work. Journal of Business Logistics, 31, pp. 1–21.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P.
(2016). Recommendations for creating better concept def-
initions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sci-
ences. Organizational Research Methods, 19, pp. 159–
203.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009). Understand-
ing the concept of supply chain resilience. International
Journal of Logistics Management, 20, pp. 124–143.
Popay, J. et al. (2006). Guidance on the Conduct of Narra-
tive Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the
ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster: Lancaster Univer-
sity.
Powley, E.H. (2013). The process and mechanisms of or-
ganizational healing. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 49, pp. 42–68.
Ramirez, R., Selsky, J.W. and van der Heijden, K. (eds)
(2010). Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New
Methods for Applying Scenarios. London: Earthscan Ltd.
Ray, J.L., Baker, L.T. and Plowman, D.A. (2011). Or-
ganizational mindfulness in business schools. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 10, pp. 188–
203.
Reeves, M. and Deimler, M.S. (2009). Strategies for winning
in the current and post-recession environment. Strategy &
Leadership, 37, pp. 10–17.
Reinmoeller, P. and van Baardwijk, N. (2005). The link be-
tween diversity and resilience. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 46, pp. 61–65.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
43
Richardson, G.E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and
resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, pp. 307–
321.
Richtnér, A. and Löfsten, H. (2014). Managing in turbu-
lence: How the capacity for resilience influences creativ-
ity. R&D Management, 44, pp. 137–151.
Riolli, L. and Savicki, V. (2003). Information system organi-
zational resilience. Omega, 31, pp. 227–233.
Sahebjamnia, N., Torabi, S.A. and Mansouri, S.A. (2015).
Integrated business continuity and disaster recovery plan-
ning: towards organizational resilience. European Journal
of Operational Research, 242, pp. 261–273.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E. and Martínez, I.M.
(2012). We need a hero! Toward a validation of the healthy
and resilient organization (HERO) model. Group & Orga-
nization Management, 37, pp. 785–822.
Salwan, P. and Gada, V.P. (2018). Antecedents of resilience:
An investigation into Bharat Forge. Indian Journal of In-
dustrial Relations, 53, pp. 449–461.
Sawalha, I.H.S. (2015). Managing adversity: Understanding
some dimensions of organizational resilience. Manage-
ment Research Review, 38, pp. 346–366.
Scherbaum, C.A. and Meade, A.W. (2013). New directions
for measurement in management research. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 15, pp. 132–148.
Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J.,
Wilkinson, S. and Vargo, J. (2007). Organisational re-
silience: Researching the reality of New Zealand organisa-
tions. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Plan-
ning, 2, pp. 258–266.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B. (2005). A supply chain view of the
resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47,
pp. 41–48.
Shin, J., Taylor, M.S. and Seo, M.-G. (2012). Resources for
change: The relationships of organizational inducements
and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and
behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, pp. 727–748.
Smart, C. and Vertinsky, I. (1984). Strategy and the environ-
ment: A study of corporate responses to crises. Strategic
Management Journal, 5, pp. 199–213.
Somers, S. (2009). Measuring resilience potential: An adap-
tive strategy for organizational crisis planning. Journal of
Contingencies & Crisis Management, 17, pp. 12–23.
Staber, U. and Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive ca-
pacity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11, pp. 408–424.
Starr, R., Newfrock, J. and Delurey, M. (2003). Enter-
prise resilience: Managing risk in the networked economy.
Strategy and Business, 30, pp. 1–10.
Stephenson, A. (2010). Benchmarking the resilience of or-
ganisations. Dissertation, University of Canterbury, NZ.
Stewart, J. and O’Donnell, M. (2007). Implementing change
in a public agency: Leadership, learning and organisa-
tional resilience. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 20, pp. 239–251.
44
Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity
in theories of management and organization. Academy of
Management Journal, 35, pp. 346–357.
Sullivan-Taylor, B. and Branicki, L. (2011). Creating re-
silient SMEs: Why one size might not fit all. International
Journal of Production Research, 49, pp. 5565–5579.
Sun, J., Buys, N., Wang, X. and McAuley, A. (2011). Using
the concept of resilience to explain entrepreneurial suc-
cess in China. International Journal of Management &
Enterprise Development, 11, pp. 182–202.
Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T.J. (2003). Organizing for re-
silience. In Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E.
(eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations
of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler,
pp. 94–110.
Teo, W.L., Lee, M. and Lim, W.-S. (2017). The relational
activation of resilience model: How leadership activates
resilience in an organizational crisis. Journal of Contin-
gencies and Crisis Management, 25, pp. 136–147.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a
methodology for developing evidence-informed manage-
ment knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222.
Ungar, M. (2005). Handbook for Working with Children and
Youth: Pathways to Resilience Across Cultures and Con-
texts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ungar, M. (2013). Resilience, trauma, context, and culture.
Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 14, pp. 255–266.
Välikangas, L. (2007). Rigidity, exploratory patience, and
the ecological resilience of organizations. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 23, pp. 206–213.
Välikangas, L. and Romme, A.G.L. (2012). Building re-
silience capabilities at “Big Brown Box, Inc.”. Strategy
& Leadership, 40, pp. 43–45.
van der Vegt, G.S., Essens, P., Wahlstrom, M. and George, G.
(2015). Managing risk and resilience. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 58, pp. 971–980.
Vargo, J. and Seville, E. (2011). Crisis strategic planning for
SMEs: Finding the silver lining. International Journal of
Production Research, 49, pp. 5619–5635.
Vogus, T.J. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). Organizational re-
silience: Towards a theory and research agenda. Proceed-
ings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, Montréal, Canada, 7–10 October.
Wedawattaa, G., Ingirige, B. and Amaratunga, D. (2010).
Building up resilience of construction sector SMEs and
their supply chains to extreme weather events. Interna-
tional Journal of Strategic Property Management, 14, pp.
362–375.
Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organi-
zations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38, pp. 628–652.
Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). Managing the Un-
expected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Com-
plexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Whiteman, G. and Cooper, W.H. (2011). Ecological sense-
making. Academy of Management Journal, 54, pp. 889–
911.
Wildavsky, A.B. (1988). Searching for Safety. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Wilkinson, A., Elahi, S. and Eidinow, E. (2003). Section 2.
Background and dynamics of the scenarios. Journal of
Risk Research, 6, pp. 365–401.
Williams, T. and Shepherd, D. (2016). Building resilience
or providing sustenance: Different paths of emergent ven-
tures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Academy of
Management Journal, 59, pp. 2069–2102
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd,
D.A. and Zhao, E.Y. (2017). Organizational response to
adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience re-
search streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11, pp.
733–769.
Wong, C.-S., Law, K.S. and Huang, G.-H. (2008). On
the importance of conducting construct-level analysis
for multidimensional constructs in theory development
and testing. Journal of Management, 34, pp. 744–
764.
Wright, C., Chung-Sok, S. and Leggett, C. (2009). If at first
you don’t succeed: Globalized production and organiza-
tional learning at the Hyundai Motor Company. Asia Pa-
cific Business Review, 15, pp. 163–180.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A
review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of
Management Review, 27, pp. 185–203.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Wagner, S.M. (2010). Do perceptions be-
come reality? The moderating role of supply chain re-
siliency on disruption occurrence. Journal of Business Lo-
gistics, 31, pp. 1–20.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found on-
line in the Supporting Information section at the end
of the article.
Supplementary material A: Study selection pro-
cess.
Supplementary material B: References included
due to invisible college and ancestry approach.
Supplementary material C: Review protocol and
coding scheme including analytical categories.
Supplementary material D: Sample descriptives
and relevance of articles with regard to study aim.
Supplementary material E: Analysis of conceptu-
alizations.
Supplementary material F: Vote counting of at-
tributes in definitions.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.