Received: 12 October 2022 Revised: 23 November 2023 Accepted: 25 November 2023

DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12313

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Building an antifragile supply chain: A capability blueprint

for resilience and post-disruption growth

Ethan Nikookar 1 | Mark Stevenson 2 | Mohsen Varsei 3

1
Centre for Supply Chain Research,
School of Business, University of
Wollongong, Wollongong, New South
Wales, Australia
2
Department of Management Science,
Lancaster University Management School,
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
3
Procurement Excellence Management,
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New
South Wales, Australia
Correspondence
Ethan Nikookar, Centre for Supply Chain
Research, School of Business, University
of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South
Wales, Australia.
Email: Ethan_nikookar@uow.edu.au;
Ethan.nikookar@aib.edu.au
Abstract
Considerable research has focused on how supply chains can better handle
disruptions. Consequently, concepts such as supply chain robustness and engi-
neering resilience have emerged, with the dominant emphasis being that dis-
ruptions are a wholly bad thing to be avoided or resisted. However, recent
discourse in the supply chain disruption management literature, such as the
social–ecological interpretation of supply chain resilience, suggests that disrup-
tions can be positioned more positively as potential catalysts for growth. Yet
little is known about the capabilities required for a supply chain to grow fol-
lowing disruption. The emerging concept of supply chain antifragility focuses
specifically on growth, providing an arrowhead for investigating what enables
firms to grow following disruption. Utilizing a metaphorical transfer method,
this research translates the capabilities of individuals—those who grow psy-
chologically and emotionally after experiencing trauma—into supply chain
capabilities that enhance antifragility. Five key capabilities for building anti-
fragility in supply chains are identified: supply chain mindfulness, supply
chain transformative learning, supply chain plasticity, supply chain bricolage,
and supply chain collaboration. Furthermore, a hierarchy of capabilities is
revealed that points to a sequential approach to capitalizing on the potential
growth opportunities presented by supply chain disruptions. The findings are
sense-checked through focus groups with practitioners, informing the develop-
ment of five propositions. This research contributes to theory development on
handling supply chain disruptions by providing a capability blueprint for post-
disruption growth that complements the literature on social–ecological supply
chain resilience. Finally, this research highlights the value of metaphorical
transfer as an innovative approach for understanding contemporary supply
chain phenomena and advancing novel theoretical frameworks.

KEYWORDS
metaphorical transfer, social–ecological systems, supply chain antifragility, supply chain
disruption, supply chain resilience

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Supply Chain Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

J. Supply Chain Manag. 2024;60:13–31. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jscm 13


14
INTRODUCTION
Substantial research over the last two decades has investi-
gated how companies can handle disruptions by
building supply chain robustness and resilience
(e.g., Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Wieland, 2021). The domi-
nant discourse in this literature positions disruptions as
inherently negative events to be avoided or resisted
(Durach et al., 2015). If efforts to avoid or resist a disruption
fail, then the supply chain needs the capability to recover
(Rice & Caniato, 2003). Recent research, however, has chal-
lenged this wholly negative perception of supply chain dis-
ruptions (e.g., Nikookar et al., 2021; Wieland et al., 2023).
For example, building upon social–ecological systems
thinking, Wieland and Durach (2021, p. 316) redefined sup-
ply chain resilience as “the capacity of a supply chain to
persist, adapt, or transform in the face of change.” The
transformative element emphasized in this definition posi-
tions a disruption more positively as a potential catalyst for
growth. Growth, however, is only one of many elements of
this latest conceptualization of supply chain resilience.
Antifragility, an emerging concept originating from
Taleb (2012), is focused specifically on growth. It posits
that a system can strengthen and grow through exposure
to volatility and shocks, analogous to muscle growth
through exercise. In the context of the present research,
an antifragile supply chain is one that derives gains—both
financial and non-financial—from disruption (Nikookar
et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2022). Disruptive events triggered
by volatility and shocks could therefore present growth
opportunities. For example, firms that are able to
innovate could capitalize on shifts in the competitive
environment that take place during the course of a
disruption (Yan et al., 2022). The notion of supply chain
antifragility is gaining traction in practice as an important
element of post-pandemic operations (e.g., Landon, 2020).
However, scholarly research is at a nascent stage of devel-
opment (e.g., Größler, 2020; Nikookar et al., 2021). In par-
ticular, little is known about the capabilities required
to build supply chain antifragility and facilitate growth
after disruption (Nikookar et al., 2021; Priyadarshini
et al., 2022).
A supply chain must first survive a disruption before
events can be leveraged as an opportunity for growth.
Hence, the concept of supply chain antifragility builds
upon established theories of supply chain robustness and
resilience, complementing recent insights on social–
ecological supply chain resilience by offering a focal
point for examining how firms can grow following dis-
ruption. In this sense, antifragility emerges as a critical
characteristic of supply chains within the framework of
the social–ecological systems interpretation of resilience
(Wieland, 2021; Wieland et al., 2023).
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
The current research employs a metaphorical transfer
method (Stephens et al., 2022) to shed light on the capa-
bilities that foster supply chain antifragility. Leveraging
the growth experienced by some trauma survivors as a
metaphor for antifragility, this research transposes the
insights gained from the source domain, which is the psy-
chology literature (e.g., Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), onto
the target domain, which is the supply chain manage-
ment (SCM) literature, to identify capabilities that build
supply chain antifragility (see Stephens et al., 2022). Fol-
lowing the transposition process, conjectures are sense-
checked through focus groups with industry practitioners
from Australia, France, and Canada. This serves to main-
tain discipline over the metaphorical transfer process
(Weick, 1989), thereby ensuring that any emerging the-
ory is rooted in supply chain practice.
This research makes several theoretical and methodo-
logical contributions. First, it provides a blueprint for
growth following supply chain disruption. Five key capa-
bilities or antecedents of an antifragile supply chain are
delineated: supply chain mindfulness, supply chain trans-
formative learning, supply chain plasticity, supply chain
bricolage, and supply chain collaboration. Furthermore,
the interconnectedness of these antecedents is disen-
tangled to reveal a hierarchy of capabilities. This means
that fostering supply chain antifragility involves a
sequential, path-dependent approach to harnessing
the opportunities arising from supply chain disruptions.
The research adds to the evolving discourse on handling
supply chain disruptions and responds to calls for
research specifically on how antifragility can be built in
supply chains (Größler, 2020; Nikookar et al., 2021).
Finally, the research demonstrates the utility of working
with metaphors when investigating contemporary supply
chain phenomena at an immature stage of development
(e.g., Stephens et al., 2022). The insights provided can
guide fellow researchers throughout the process of choos-
ing a metaphor and applying the metaphorical transfer
method to develop novel supply chain theory.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows.
First, the background to this research is provided, dem-
onstrating how supply chain antifragility relates to the
concepts of supply chain robustness and supply chain
resilience, followed by a description of the metaphorical
transfer process. The metaphorical links between
post-traumatic growth (PTG) and antifragility are then
established as a basis for identifying the capabilities
that contribute to growth following supply chain dis-
ruption. As part of this process, the results of sense-
checking the conjectures with practitioners are reported
before the propositions are presented. The last
section concludes the study and provides avenues for
future research.

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
B A C K G R O U N D : FR O M A V O I D I N G
TO EMB RACI N G DI S RU PTI ON
Much research attention over the last two decades has been
dedicated to understanding how supply chains can handle
disruptions. Building supply chain robustness, which liter-
ally corresponds to being physically sturdy, solid, and
unlikely to break, was initially proposed as a means of
resisting or withstanding the potential consequences of dis-
ruptions (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Durach et al., 2015).
Despite extensive efforts to foster robust supply chains, it
has become increasingly apparent that certain disruptions
are inevitable. Later, the concept of supply chain resilience
emerged. The initial interpretations of supply chain resil-
ience, or what Holling (1996) referred to as engineering
resilience, focused on the recovery or swift restoration of
supply chain operations following a disruption if efforts to
withstand it failed (Rice & Caniato, 2003).
Understanding of what it means to be resilient has
continued to evolve in various other fields of research,
where notions of resilience have been expanded from
engineering resilience to social–ecological resilience,
thereby incorporating an ability to adapt or transform in
the face of disruption. Thus, drawing on social–ecological
systems thinking, Wieland and Durach (2021, p. 316)
redefined supply chain resilience as “the capacity of a
supply chain to persist, adapt, or transform in the face of
change.” This contemporary conceptualization of resil-
ience moves away from portraying disruptions as solely
negative occurrences (Durach et al., 2015). Specifically,
integrating a transformative component into the defini-
tion of supply chain resilience suggests a potential for
post-disruption growth (Wieland et al., 2023).
In the same vein, the central premise of antifragility is
that “enduring volatility is one thing; what about benefit-
ing from it?” (Taleb, 2012, p. 54). Hence, an antifragile
supply chain embraces disruptions and seeks to thrive, not
just survive, in disruptive settings. The core tenets of sup-
ply chain antifragility find resonance in adjacent fields of
research, such as disruptive innovation, where the positive
byproducts of disruptions are also highlighted
(Hendriksen, 2023). This includes the market opportuni-
ties created by newcomers who disrupt established market
dynamics and shake up the competitive landscape before
moving gradually upward (e.g., Dan & Chieh, 2010).
It is important to emphasize that supply chain antifragi-
lity is not being advocated here as a replacement for supply
chain resilience. Instead, antifragility has the potential to
complement the social–ecological view of supply chain
resilience. In fact, it provides an arrowhead for focusing
specifically on achieving growth following a supply chain
disruption. Just like a “resilient supply chain … is certainly
robust, but it offers much more” (Christopher &
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
Rutherford, 2004, p. 24), an antifragile supply chain is cer-
tainly resilient but places a greater emphasis on growth. In
other words, developing antifragile capabilities ensures that
the growth potential suggested in the social–ecological resil-
ience literature is realized in a supply chain context.
Prior research has demonstrated that although supply
chain robustness and the two interpretations of
supply chain resilience share some commonalities, their
varying emphases mean they require different capabili-
ties for implementation. For example, supply chain
robustness ensures the continuity of operations in a sup-
ply chain during the course of a disruption by incorporat-
ing redundant resources that buffer against the
disruption (Azadegan et al., 2013; Durach et al., 2015;
Talluri et al., 2013), while engineering resilience places a
greater emphasis on flexibility to enable a swift recovery
from unforeseen events (Nikookar & Yanadori, 2022b).
Similarly, supply chain antifragility—or the ability to
grow following a disruption—will require its own unique
set of capabilities (Nikookar et al., 2021).
This research aims to identify the capabilities that
allow a supply chain to grow following disruption,
thereby exhibiting the characteristic of antifragility. Spe-
cifically, the following research question is addressed:
• RQ: What capabilities enable a supply chain to grow
from a supply chain disruption?
The next section outlines the metaphorical transfer
method, which was used to answer this research
question.
METAPHORICAL TRANSFER
METHOD
This research employs the concept of trauma and uses
the PTG of individuals as a metaphor for generating
insight into the capabilities essential for building supply
chain antifragility. Table 1 summarizes the criteria for
metaphor selection based on the guidelines proposed by
Stephens et al. (2022). The following subsections elabo-
rate on the criteria and delineate the processes followed
to arrive at the contributions of the current research.
The use of metaphors for theory
development
The use of metaphors has proven to be an invaluable
means of opening up new avenues for theory building and
development, not only in broader academic spheres but
also in SCM (Garud & Kotha, 1994; Stephens et al., 2022;

16
TABLE 1 Application of metaphorical imagination.
Metaphorical imagination
(from Stephens et al., 2022)
Suitability of the Aptness—Is the metaphor believable?
metaphor
Richness—Is the source domain
theoretically rich?
Interestingness—Is the metaphor a
source of surprising conjectures?
Formal Transposition—Projecting the source
metaphorical concept onto the target phenomenon
transfer Interpretation—Assigning further
implications from the transposition
Correction—Developing theoretical
conjectures
Spelling out—Testing the assertions and
hypotheses
Abbreviation: PTG, post-traumatic growth.
Tsoukas, 1991). This method engages in what Weick
(1989) termed “disciplined imagination,” contributing to
theory building and a nuanced understanding of novel
concepts (Bacharach, 1989, as cited in Boxenbaum &
Rouleau, 2011).
While metaphors are relatively underutilized in SCM
research, they have been widely employed in other
branches of humanities and social science (Stephens
et al., 2022). A seminal example in our discipline by
Garud and Kotha (1994) used the brain as a metaphor to
understand the design of flexible manufacturing systems.
Other examples include the use of athletes as a metaphor
for understanding leanness and agility (Browning &
Heath, 2009) and divorce for understanding buyer–
supplier relationship dissolution (Chen et al., 2013). More
recently, Wieland (2021) used a dance performance as a
metaphor to shed light on supply chain resilience.
The choice of metaphor
PTG, grounded in individuals experiencing growth fol-
lowing a traumatic event, was selected as the metaphor
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Application in this study
A noteworthy similarity exists between individuals who adapt
positively to traumatic experiences and certain supply chains that
not only withstand disruptions but also capitalize on them to
emerge stronger and enhance their competitive positioning.
The rich academic literature on PTG, rooted in psychology, serves as a
robust theoretical foundation for knowledge transfer to the domain
of supply chain management.
A novel, live metaphor, drawn from a disparate domain and, to the
best of our knowledge, not utilized in prior research within the
realm of supply chain management, is chosen. This novel approach
affords a fresh lens through which to examine supply chain
phenomena.
The source and target domains undergo comparison across three tiers
of generalization: Ontological, analogical, and identity.
Within the framework of many-to-one homomorphic transformation,
only elements pertinent to the target domain are retained from the
source domain.
Five key supply chain capabilities essential for fostering antifragility in
supply chains are identified based on human capabilities
contributing to PTG; the conjectures are subsequently validated
through focus groups involving industry practitioners.
This research introduces five propositions that offer avenues for future
operationalization and empirical validation through alternative
research methodologies.
in this research because it meets Stephens et al.’s (2022)
triad of criteria: aptness, theoretical richness, and the
potential for generating surprising conjectures.
To assess the aptness of the metaphor, this study
adopted a framework with ontological, analogical, and
identity-related dimensions, as proposed by Chen et al.
(2013) and recommended by Stephens et al. (2022). At
the ontological level, a compelling parallel emerges
between the experience of individuals undergoing trauma
and of supply chains facing disruption. Both entities—
whether humans or supply chains—experience and
respond to seismic events, causing major disruptions with
adverse consequences. At the analogical level, the PTG
literature identifies certain capabilities that enable per-
sonal growth following trauma (e.g., Tedeschi
et al., 2018). This study will later suggest that such capa-
bilities find resonant counterparts in the supply chain lit-
erature, which are introduced as antecedents of supply
chain antifragility. Lastly, at the identity level, similarities
exist between the growth experienced by individuals after
trauma and the benefits derived by a supply chain from
disruption, although the concept of growth in each con-
text may not be conceptually perfectly congruent.

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
Richness refers to the theoretical body of knowledge
underpinning the metaphor (Hunt & Menon, 1995, as
cited in Stephens et al., 2022). The richness of the meta-
phor employed in this research stems from its deep theo-
retical underpinning, primarily rooted in psychology
(Tedeschi et al., 2018), which offers a comprehensive
platform for importing theories, terminologies, and con-
cepts into the SCM domain. This richness satisfies Ste-
phens et al.’s (2022) criterion and lends itself to
innovative applications in supply chain contexts.
Finally, a suitable metaphor needs to be interesting
(Stephens et al., 2022) and serve as a source of surprising
conjectures. PTG satisfies this criterion, as the notion that
individuals may gain from experiencing trauma is some-
what counterintuitive—as is the notion of antifragility.
Stephens et al. (2022) and Hunt and Menon (1995) sug-
gested that the interestingness of a metaphor is not solely
a function of its similarities with the target domain; its
divergences also contribute. Indeed, some capabilities of
individuals who experienced PTG, such as spirituality
and mental health (Koutrouli et al., 2012; Wu
et al., 2019), lack a direct parallel in SCM. These capabili-
ties are discarded as a natural part of a robust metaphori-
cal transfer process (Garud & Kotha, 1994), which
involves a systematic mapping of the source onto the tar-
get (Chen et al., 2013).
In summary, the metaphor guiding this research
passes the test stipulated by Stephens et al. (2022), effec-
tively serving as an innovative tool to “conceive of the
topic [of supply chain antifragility] through a different
vehicle” (Tsoukas, 1991, p. 569).
The metaphorical transfer process
The framework for metaphorical transfer proposed by
Stephens et al. (2022) offers a systematic approach to
unleashing the latent potential of metaphors for theory
building in the SCM domain. This framework comprises
four steps: (1) metaphor transposition to the target
domain, (2) metaphor interpretation to generate novel
conjectures, (3) correction through developing novel con-
jectures, and (4) spelling out the theoretical implications.
The present research adopts this methodological frame-
work while integrating insights from Tsoukas (1991),
Garud and Kotha (1994), and Chen et al. (2013).
Metaphor transposition
Transposition is the act of projecting the source attributes
onto the target domain. This research compares two
domains at the ontological, analogical, and identity levels
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
17
of generalization. At the ontological level, an abstract
link is formed between individuals experiencing trauma
and supply chains facing disruption. A finer granularity
emerges at the analogical level, in which capabilities
enabling growth after trauma are identified through an
academic literature review of PTG. These nuanced meta-
phorical insights offer useful mappings of supply chains
(Garud & Kotha, 1994). At the underpinning identity
level, shared principles or qualities, such as a growth
mindset or gaining from trauma, are distilled across both
domains.
Metaphor interpretation
Interpretation focuses on progressively refining initial
metaphorical insights through a many-to-one homomor-
phic transformation, retaining only key facets linking the
source and target domains (Chen et al., 2013; Garud &
Kotha, 1994; Tsoukas, 1991). Revisiting the analogical
level allows for a selective retention of individuals’ capa-
bilities that parallel the capabilities that make supply
chains antifragile.
Correction
Correction in this research involves developing theoreti-
cal propositions from the metaphorical transfer process
based on the core principles shared between the source
and target domains. The propositions aim to delineate
the essential capabilities for building an antifragile sup-
ply chain. While prior studies, such as those by Garud
and Kotha (1994) and Chen et al. (2013), relied primarily
on metaphorical transformation, this research takes a
more integrative approach. It adopts two-sided connec-
tions with supply chain practitioners to inform theory
development, as suggested by Ployhart and Bartunek
(2019). That is, consultations with supply chain execu-
tives and managers were conducted before the proposi-
tions were formulated. This step ensures that the insights
gained from the source domain have implications for the
target domain, thus allowing for potential corrections
based on practitioner feedback (Stephens et al., 2022).
This step is not an exhaustive empirical analysis
aimed at theory testing; that is beyond the scope of the
current research and arguably beyond the purpose of a
metaphorical transfer method. Rather, it serves to sense-
check conjectures and maintain discipline over the trans-
fer process. To this end, four virtual focus groups were
convened in July and August 2022, involving 12 supply
chain executives and managers from Australia, France,
and Canada, with 12–24 years of experience across
 1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
18 JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

diverse sectors, including aviation, retail, aerospace, auto- series of five propositions. These propositions are not
motive, construction, and housing, as well as not- only conceptually valuable but also crafted to provide a
for-profit organizations. The represented organizations starting point for future investigations using other empir-
have not only weathered significant supply chain disrup- ical approaches. To summarize, Figure 1 illustrates the
tions but also recorded growth—be it financial, opera- methodological steps taken in this research.
tional, or both—during periods when their competitors
floundered. The growth trajectories of these organiza-
tions, against the backdrop of industry-wide challenges, PTG AN D S U PP L Y C H A IN
provide a rich context for our analysis, offering a distinct ANTIF RAG ILITY
perspective on navigating supply chain disruptions.
The focus group discussions were structured to elicit In line with Stephens et al.’s (2022) metaphorical transfer
perspectives on the factors that were pivotal for post-dis- pathway framework, this research first establishes onto-
ruption growth, but without sharing the initial findings logical links between the source and target domains
from the metaphorical transfer process. Subsequently, before the metaphor is transposed onto the target domain
the open discussions were transcribed and subjected to at an analogical level to derive novel conjectures. These
qualitative open-coding analysis, resulting in the identifi- conjunctures undergo a correction process, culminating
cation of themes and patterns that resonated with the five in a set of propositions that delineate the five capabilities
supply chain capabilities derived from the metaphorical essential for growth from a supply chain disruption.
transfer process. This approach reaffirmed the conjec-
tures while benefiting from the unscripted insights of
industry participants. Ontological links

Drawing upon PTG as a metaphor, this research exam-

Spelling out the theoretical implications ines how a supply chain can grow to emerge stronger
from disruption. Trauma in this context refers to an event
Finally, spelling out the theoretical implications involves of “seismic proportions” (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998,
presenting the assertions—in this case, in the form of a p. 360), such as a robbery, assault, or the death of a loved

Ontological level

Supply chain that experiences

Individual that experiences trauma Entity faces and responds to a seismic
disruption
event

Analogical level

Source domain Target domain

Post-traumatic growth Supply chain antifragility

Reflective Rumination Capability Supply Chain Mindfulness Capability

Spelling out novel conjectures

Tranformative Learning Capability Supply Chain Transformative Learning Capability
Translation of equivalent Sense-checking the
capabilities from the source outcomes of the
Goal Disengagement Capability Supply Chain Plasticity Capability Propositions
to the target domain metaphorical transfer
(P1 to P5)
Adaptive Goal Modification Capability Supply Chain Bricolage Capability process

Social Support Utilization Capability Supply Chain Collaboration Capability

Spirituality Discarded non-

equivalent
Mental Health capabilities

Identity level

Individual grows following a

Entity has a focus on growth or gain Supply chain gains from disruption
traumatic event
following the seismic event

Transposition Interpretation Correction Spelling Out

F I G U R E 1 The metaphorical transfer process adopted in this article (based on Chen et al., 2013; Garud & Kotha, 1994; Stephens
et al., 2022; Tsoukas, 1991).

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
one. Although the experience of trauma for some survi-
vors can result in mental or emotional wounds or long-
term psychiatric issues (Heiman, 2004), many others
remain resilient and adapt to the post-trauma situation
(Bonnano, 2004). Meanwhile, for a subset of trauma sur-
vivors, enduring trauma can spur positive change in their
lives (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006), and these are the indi-
viduals that the current research examines as an analogi-
cal reference.
Events of seismic proportion also occur in business
settings. Consider the COVID-19 pandemic as a recent
example. While the pandemic has left wounds on individ-
uals’ health and well-being, it has also triggered massive
disruptions in supply chains and adversely affected their
financial and non-financial performance. However, simi-
lar to the effect of trauma on individuals, the impact of
the pandemic on supply chains was not evenly
distributed—some failed, others adapted, and a unique
set thrived (Dube et al., 2022). Nikookar et al. (2021)
referred to the latter group as antifragile supply chains.
This ontological comparison demonstrates that PTG
serves as a valid metaphorical lens through which anti-
fragility in supply chains may be conceptualized and the-
orized, as subsequently elaborated upon at the analogical
level.
PTG and antifragility at the analogical level
Insights from the psychology literature reveal that indi-
viduals demonstrating PTG leverage a sequence of capa-
bilities, including reflective rumination, learning derived
from trauma, rapid disengagement from invalidated
objectives, and the reshaping of goals accompanied by
the formulation of new life narratives (Rajandram
et al., 2011). These individuals also rely on robust social
support mechanisms that facilitate the nurturing of such
capabilities (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2004). Collectively,
these capabilities distinguish persons experiencing PTG,
and who emerge stronger in certain life domains, from
those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or
characterized simply as resilient.
Aligning PTG ontologically with the concept of anti-
fragility, the current research posits that cultivating com-
parable capabilities within supply chains can eventually
lead to building antifragility. By examining research from
both the PTG and SCM literatures, this research
identifies the specific supply chain capabilities—namely,
supply chain mindfulness, supply chain transformative
learning, supply chain plasticity, and supply chain
bricolage—that are analogous to the capabilities of reflec-
tive rumination, transformative learning, disengagement
from existing goals, and adaptation of life narratives in
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19
trauma survivors. Additionally, supply chain collabora-
tion parallels the role of social support utilization capabil-
ity, assisting supply chains in emerging stronger from
disruption.
Moreover, research on PTG highlights that survivors
experience growth by undertaking a series of sequential
steps, encompassing reflective rumination, learning from
trauma, swiftly disengaging from invalidated goals, and
adapting their life narratives (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
In alignment with this, it is suggested that building anti-
fragility in supply chains is a sequential, path-dependent
process. It involves a set of successive steps that must be
undertaken to capitalize on potential opportunities that
arise during supply chain disruptions. Upon encounter-
ing a disruption, organizations must systematically scru-
tinize every aspect of the event, assimilate this
understanding with their own or others’ past experiences,
and possibly invalidate certain current goals. New goals
are subsequently established and pursued. Collaboration
with supply chain partners supports progression through
these transformative steps by providing access to
resources controlled by other members of the supply
chain’s ecosystem. Figure 2 illustrates the successive
steps for developing supply chain antifragility, providing
a capability blueprint for enabling growth from supply
chain disruption.
From reflective rumination to supply chain
mindfulness
The PTG literature identifies rumination as a pivotal
capability that triggers the cognitive process underpin-
ning growth following trauma (Lindstrom et al., 2013).
Within the social and behavioral sciences, interpretations
of rumination vary. While scholars such as Lyubomirsky
and Nolen-Hoeksema (1995) regarded rumination exclu-
sively as intrusive thinking, associating it with negative
psychological impacts, other scholars, such as Martin and
Tesser (1996), have suggested that rumination can serve a
purposeful role by facilitating adaptive problem-solving.
Treynor et al. (2003) distinguished between two forms of
ruminative thinking: brooding, a passive focus on emo-
tional distress, and reflective pondering, an active engage-
ment in cognitive exploration and problem-solving. The
PTG literature suggests that rumination in the form of
reflective pondering, if executed effectively, may result in
personal growth, while brooding can lead to emotional
distress (Cann et al., 2011; Stockton et al., 2011; Taku
et al., 2009).
The current study extends these insights into the sup-
ply chain domain by introducing supply chain mindful-
ness as the first capability deemed instrumental for

20
fostering supply chain antifragility. The consequences or
changes induced by supply chain disruptions may not
always be known (Xu et al., 2014). Therefore, supply
chains may not be able to identify patterns of changes
that would eventually lead to an opportunity during or
after disruption. Defined in this context as the continuous
scrutiny of unprecedented events to make complete sense
of them (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006), supply chain mindful-
ness equips the supply chain with a reflective rumination
capability.
A mindful supply chain “maintain[s] [continuous]
awareness of and attentiveness to any actions and their
consequences in response to disruptions in [supply chain]
operations” (Lusiantoro & Pradiptyo, 2022, p. 1564) by
focusing on the broader picture (Dennehy et al., 2021).
This capability extends beyond comprehending the
immediate situation of an unexpected event to include its
pattern of unfolding in the future (Levinthal &
Rerup, 2006; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012). The insights
gained through supply chain mindfulness eventually help
identify opportunities arising from disruptions.
The significance of supply chain mindfulness in iden-
tifying opportunities presented by supply chain disrup-
tions was reinforced by the focus group participants.
However, they emphasized that the effective manage-
ment of supply chain risks entails scrutinizing not only
exogenous, externally originating factors but also endoge-
nous, internally based elements within the supply chain
network. For instance, a supply chain executive from the
aerospace industry pointed out that, in addition to asses-
sing information gathered from the external environment
to gauge potential disruptions, they also “scrutinized
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
F I G U R E 2 A capability
blueprint—the successive steps for
growth from supply chain
disruption.
their [own] processes and supply network” to facilitate
growth. Insights such as these helped refine our thoughts
on how reflective rumination contributes to antifragility.
Therefore, reflective rumination translates to supply
chain mindfulness, and the following proposition is
suggested:
Proposition 1. An enhanced supply chain
mindfulness capability increases supply
chain antifragility.
This enhanced supply chain mindfulness allows for
an ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of disruptions,
thereby facilitating an understanding of both anticipated
and unanticipated consequences in the internal and
external environments of the supply chain. A better com-
prehension of the consequences of a disruption allows for
emergent opportunities that arise from the disruption to
be identified and potentially capitalized upon.
To illustrate the utility of supply chain mindfulness,
consider Ericsson’s adaptation following a catastrophic
supply chain disruption caused by a fire at a Philips elec-
tronics facility in 2000 (Norrman & Jansson, 2004; Rice &
Caniato, 2003). Inadequate comprehension of the situa-
tion led to approximately US$400 million in lost revenue.
In subsequent years, Ericsson transformed its approach,
becoming increasingly mindful of potential supply chain
disruptions and their far-reaching implications. As a
result, Ericsson was able to effectively navigate the chal-
lenges posed by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in
Japan, thus validating the merits of a mindful approach
to SCM (Norrman & Wieland, 2020).

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
From transformative learning to supply chain
transformative learning
Transformative learning is the second capability that
facilitates PTG. In the early stages of responding to a
trauma, the survivor engages in a cognitive process of
learning (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). For example, they
might learn about the expected impacts, outcomes, and
coping strategies for a traumatic event (Tedeschi, 2011).
Illeris (2018) identified four types of learning—cumula-
tive, assimilative, accumulative, and transformative—but
only transformative learning occurs “as the result of a
crisis-like situation” (Illeris, 2018, p. 14).
Transformative learning is activated after reflective
rumination and facilitates PTG by allowing the survivor
to digest what they have understood through reflective
rumination and combine it with their past experiences or
those of others. This, in turn, leads to paying more atten-
tion to positive aspects of the world and hence to person-
ality changes or to changes in the organization of the self
and to rebuilding one’s system of beliefs (Illeris, 2018;
Lindstrom et al., 2013).
Transposing these psychological nuances into the
supply chain context, this research argues that supply
chain transformative learning is the next pivotal capabil-
ity for fostering supply chain antifragility. A supply chain
disruption can serve as a learning opportunity once it has
been fully comprehended through supply chain mindful-
ness. The measures adopted to address the consequences
of a disruption can be evolved and transformed because
of this learning, preventing more significant calamities,
strengthening the entire system, or taking advantage of
opportunities presented (Guang et al., 2014). Stated dif-
ferently, a supply chain equipped with transformative
learning capability learns from its mistakes or those of
others and actively employs these lessons to become
stronger and to capitalize on the opportunities offered by
the disruption (Ramezani & Camarinha-Matos, 2020).
Like supply chain mindfulness, transformative learning
is a constant process fueled by what firms comprehend
from continuously scrutinizing disruptive events and
combining this knowledge with previous experiences.
The focus group participants echoed the relevance of
a supply chain transformative learning capability. One
participant mentioned, “Definitely [supply chain trans-
formative] learning will be key … [supply chain transfor-
mative] learning is about understanding when you have
made a mistake and taking the time to go for lessons
learned and to make sure that you will not have it again.”
Another participant stated, “We actually experienced
incredible growth during COVID … [we were] incredibly
profitable, and that was all during the pandemic.” He
continued, “We’ve got to put our hand up and have the
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
21
courage to acknowledge when it’s not working … if it is a
failure, then modify it, and that is even better because
you failed and modified and learned.” The discussion
thus informs the following proposition:
Proposition 2. An enhanced supply chain
transformative learning capability increases
supply chain antifragility.
The capability for supply chain transformative learn-
ing enables supply chains to glean valuable insights from
past disruptions, thereby bolstering their ability to han-
dle future challenges. Importantly, the accrued knowl-
edge not only fortifies the supply chain but also enables
it to exploit emergent opportunities triggered by such
disruptions. Cisco’s performance is a good example of
the role of supply chain transformative learning in
growth. In 2005, Cisco could not effectively respond to a
tremendous demand surge in the telecommunications
equipment market during Hurricane Katrina because of
its inability to locate products in the supply chain. Six
years later, when a tsunami and earthquake hit Japan,
Cisco’s supply chain continued to grow (Saenz &
Revilla, 2014). It is argued that the lessons learned dur-
ing the hurricane partly helped the company not only to
remain undamaged but also to gain while competitors
lost ground.
From goal disengagement to supply chain
plasticity
It has long been established that traumatic events, partic-
ularly those of seismic proportions, can invalidate survi-
vors’ existing beliefs, goals, and behaviors (Carver &
Scheier, 1998; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; McIntosh, 1996;
Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Mirroring this human experi-
ence, supply chains confronted with disruptions may also
find their goals and strategies completely invalidated. For
individuals, PTG occurs only when they possess the capa-
bility to proactively disengage from the outdated goals
and assumptions that the trauma has rendered obsolete
(Shakespeare-Finch et al., 2013). This cognitive shift
paves the way for formulating “new goals and world-
views that allow a perception that one is moving forward
again toward goals in a world that permits this”
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004, p. 10). Likewise, antifragile
supply chains must have the capability to engage in a
proactive goal or strategy modification process when con-
fronted with disruptions that render existing goals and
strategies untenable. This adaptability is central to seizing
the opportunities that arise from disruption and cultivat-
ing antifragility.

22
Disengaging from invalidated goals is a cognitive shift
for individuals, whereas for supply chains, implementing
changes to goals and strategies often entails complex
modifications at the operational level. Supply chains
might need to repurpose existing operations, transition to
suppliers capable of meeting the demands of altered
objectives, or redefine target market segments (Falcone
et al., 2022). This complexity underscores the necessity of
a particular type of capability, referred to as supply chain
plasticity. Supply chain plasticity pertains to the innate
ability of a supply chain to swiftly disengage from pre-
existing goals in the face of disruptions that render such
goals unviable (Zinn & Goldsby, 2019). A supply chain
equipped with this capability can rapidly redesign and
repurpose its operations to adapt and respond to the
requirements of the post-disruption environment (Thomé
et al., 2021). It moves beyond its current template of
capabilities, routines, and activities (Gavetti &
Rivkin, 2007) to harness emergent opportunities during
and after disruption. Examples might include reshoring,
a major network redesign, or the creation of an online
channel (Zinn & Goldsby, 2019).
Most focus group participants affirmed that disenga-
ging from unvalidated goals and swiftly changing strate-
gies are essential if a supply chain is to capitalize on
potential opportunities that arise during a disruption.
One participant reported that they invested in multi-
capability distribution centers during the pandemic,
knowing that they could then serve the needs of different
stores across the country at the same level. This initiative
increased their supply chain plasticity and enabled the
supply chain to accommodate swift changes by “redesign-
ing and reshaping the network to move products when
[COVID-19] happened and accommodating customer
needs despite disruption.” From another participant’s
perspective who works in the aerospace industry, supply
chain plasticity not only depends on the design of and
the resources in the supply chain but also needs to be
embraced by the company’s executives to facilitate taking
“very quick decisions.” She shared that, during a disrup-
tion, “Production in one factory really dropped, and we
used the factory to build washing machines … it was a
complete surprise to our competitors.” Consequently, the
following proposition is put forward:
Proposition 3. An enhanced supply chain
plasticity capability increases supply chain
antifragility.
Supply chain plasticity enables proactive goal adapta-
tion in response to disruptions, allowing supply chains to
capitalize on emergent opportunities. For instance, once
the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
pandemic, lockdowns and travel restrictions began slash-
ing world petrol demand by 20 million barrels per day
(Gaffen, 2022). This decline in fuel demand caused mil-
lions of gallons of ethanol, produced as a fuel additive, to
pile up unsold in biorefineries. Only some fuel additive
supply chains that were able to repurpose their opera-
tions and produce higher grade ethanol (Kaplan, 2020)
managed to disengage from goals and strategies rendered
obsolete by the pandemic and produce other essential
goods, such as disinfectant agents and hand sanitizers. In
fact, their supply chain plasticity capability turned a
potential threat into a business opportunity, which ulti-
mately led to gains during COVID-19.
From adaptive goal modification to supply
chain bricolage
The PTG literature posits that an individual’s capability
to modify schemas that are invalidated by trauma is a
key determinant of their potential for profound growth
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). While schemas remain fluid
during childhood, they become unquestionable mental
structures by adulthood, guiding perceptions and interac-
tions in the world (Janoff-Bulman, 2014). However, when
survivors successfully adjust their schemas and life narra-
tives, a pathway to growth emerges. Take, for example, a
person diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. Initially,
their schema about health and mortality may become
invalidated, triggering feelings of fear and helplessness.
However, the adaptation of these schemas can result in a
recognition of one’s strength, deeper interpersonal rela-
tionships, and a newfound focus on self-care. Conse-
quently, individuals might experience various degrees of
PTG, depending on the nature and impact of the trauma
(Shakespeare-Finch et al., 2013).
In the context of SCM, the ability to continually
update goals, strategies, or tactics and take new courses
of action—especially in response to a disruption—
contributes significantly to supply chain antifragility. Dis-
ruptions can be transformed into business opportunities
through strategic realignment (Ramezani & Camarinha-
Matos, 2020); however, the availability of organizational
resources plays a crucial role in determining the range of
feasible actions that an organization can take (Bechky &
Okhuysen, 2011; Musona et al., 2020). Although supply
chains may sense opportunities and be willing to seize
them, the absence of essential resources can impede the
realization of new strategies (Talluri et al., 2013), thereby
affecting antifragility.
This research posits that a supply chain bricolage
capability is instrumental to supply chain antifragility, as
it enables resource and capability constraints to be

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
overcome (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011). Supply chain bri-
colage is understood as “creative resourcing behavior”
(Sahi et al., 2021, p. 108201). Bricoleur supply chains use
resource constraint-shattering mechanisms, such as
“improvisation,” “making do” (Wu et al., 2017), and uti-
lizing a “combination of resources for new purposes”
(Senyard et al., 2014), to create heterogeneous value
(Salunke et al., 2013) from the “resources at hand”
(Garud & Karnøe, 2003) when regular resources are una-
vailable (Orlikowski, 2000; Salunke et al., 2013). This
includes seizing new, emerging opportunities (Busch &
Barkema, 2021; Steffens et al., 2022) during a disaster or
emergency (Ciborra, 1996; Nelson & Lima, 2020;
Weick, 1979). Therefore, supply chain bricolage acts as a
capability that fosters supply chain antifragility by allow-
ing the supply chain to leverage existing resources in
order to operationalize new goals and strategies that seize
opportunities arising from disruption.
Data from the focus group participants align with this
argument. For example, the year 2021 coincided with a
spike in demand for building materials caused by
a booming housing market. Border closures because of
the pandemic meant that building material manufac-
turers had to produce many components in-house that
were previously imported, while lockdowns caused a
massive shortage of skilled labor. Tying back to the con-
cept of supply chain bricolage, one participant from the
building materials sector explained how they creatively
reallocated at-hand human capital to respond to the
surge in demand in the sector: “We handled lockdown by
throwing [for example] general managers of operations
into positions where they had to lead the paint line and
make sure that the paint line was working.” This discus-
sion leads to the following proposition:
Proposition 4. An enhanced supply chain
bricolage capability increases supply chain
antifragility.
Supply chains often identify emergent opportunities
resulting from disruptions. However, limited access to
the necessary resources caused by supply chain disrup-
tions can constrain their ability to pivot strategically. Sup-
ply chain bricolage capability facilitates the pursuit of
new objectives or strategies by creatively utilizing avail-
able resources. During the pandemic, for example, the
surge in demand for personal protective equipment (PPE)
presented a considerable opportunity for many firms to
gain social and reputational gain if they could help
respond to the global crisis. Only some firms
could creatively use the resources in their supply chains
to gain from the opportunity. This included a chocolate
factory in northeast Texas that used the plastic packaging
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
23
resources in its supply chain and a tech company in Cali-
fornia that leveraged its additive manufacturing resources
through its supply chain to make face shields
(Watkins, 2020). Similarly, a Dallas-based leather furni-
ture company repurposed its supply chain operations to
produce face masks (Root, 2020).
From social support utilization to supply chain
collaboration
Cryder et al. (2006) posited that survivors’ capability to uti-
lize positive support from their social networks, such as
from family, friends, or colleagues, influences their likeli-
hood of experiencing PTG. Specifically, leveraging social
support—emotional, instrumental, and informational—
serves as an essential catalyst for PTG (Calhoun &
Tedeschi, 2004; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009). Emotional sup-
port, manifested through empathetic listening and under-
standing, enhances an individual’s coping abilities after
experiencing trauma (Taku et al., 2009). Instrumental sup-
port refers to tangible assistance, such as financial aid or
childcare (Ullman, 2000). Informational support involves
the dissemination of valuable information about the trau-
matic event and coping strategies (Trotter & Allen, 2009).
These multiple dimensions of social support act in synergy
to encourage processes such as reflective rumination,
transformative learning, goal disengagement, and goal
modification, as well as to develop new schemas within
individuals (Neimeyer, 2004).
Transitioning to the supply chain realm, this research
posits that supply chain collaboration parallels the sup-
port function seen in trauma survivors’ social networks.
Collaboration within a supply chain offers similar types
of support, specifically in the form of informational and
tangible assistance. Engaging in such collaborative rela-
tionships allows supply chains to leverage support from
other supply chain partners in order to capitalize on
emerging opportunities from disruptions, thereby becom-
ing antifragile.
The changes induced by disruption may be very
uncertain (Xu et al., 2014), but having access to knowl-
edge via collaborators is key to a swift and effective
response (Nikookar & Yanadori, 2022a). In the absence
of such shared knowledge, decisions are likely to be
lagged or ineffective (Nikookar & Yanadori, 2022b),
which diminishes the potential to gain. Members within
collaborative supply chains pool the experience and wis-
dom gained from prior disruptions, thereby enhancing
the quality of their responses to future disruptions
(Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).
In the event of a supply chain disruption, a company
demonstrates antifragile characteristics when it can

24
reconfigure or repurpose its supply chain operations.
Accomplishing this may necessitate resource augmenta-
tion, including the acquisition of new equipment or tech-
nology, to realign resources and capabilities with the
post-disruption situation. Dyer and Singh (1998) pointed
out that valuable resources and operational routines
often exist across diverse supply chain members. Active
collaboration with other supply chain members is essen-
tial for a firm to access and integrate these external
resources with its own resources (Chang et al., 2015;
Fiksel et al., 2015). This is because collaborative partner-
ships offer the privilege of utilizing resources from part-
ner organizations, thereby enabling a competitive edge to
be achieved during and after a disruption (Cao &
Zhang, 2011).
The focus group participants posited that growth is
achieved during and after disruption “only with real col-
laboration … with suppliers [that] help you at a time of
crisis.” According to the participants, “collaboration is
key” to capitalizing on opportunities in times of crisis;
but it is important that this collaboration takes an appro-
priate form and is with the right actors. One participant
stated, “What I saw is that companies with closer cooper-
ation with their supply chain partners emerged stronger
out of the pandemic—those with long-term relationships
with the supplier.” Another participant mentioned,
“Without collaboration, I don’t think [we] would have
achieved massive growth after COVID.” Based on this
discussion, the following is proposed:
Proposition 5. An enhanced supply chain
collaboration capability increases supply
chain antifragility.
Collaboration fosters knowledge sharing and opens
up avenues for accessing tangible resources from various
supply chain actors. These resources are instrumental in
identifying and capitalizing on new opportunities that
arise from supply chain disruptions. As the COVID-19
pandemic unfolded, it became evident that the
United States, like the rest of the world, faced a dire
shortage of ventilators, which are crucial to treating
patients with acute respiratory problems (Kliff
et al., 2020). Ford partnered with General Electric’s
healthcare division and leveraged its close-knit supplier
network to rapidly increase ventilator production at
Florida-based Airon (O’Kane, 2020). Ford’s strong sup-
plier relationships facilitated the efficient sourcing of the
necessary materials and components, enabling the com-
pany to respond swiftly to the growing demand for venti-
lators during the unprecedented crisis (O’Kane, 2020).
This underscores the significance of cultivating collabora-
tive supply chain relationships with the right partners
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
and highlights the crucial role that strong supplier net-
works play in empowering companies to navigate and
succeed in times of disruption.
DISCUSSION
Supply chain disruptions are increasingly commonplace
in today’s interconnected global economy
(Resilinc, 2021). Prior research has focused on strategies
for circumventing or recovering from disruptions through
the lenses of supply chain robustness and engineering
resilience (Durach et al., 2015; Rice & Caniato, 2003).
However, an emerging perspective—captured in both the
social–ecological supply chain resilience and antifragility
literatures—frames supply chain disruptions as a poten-
tial catalyst for growth (Nikookar et al., 2021; Wieland
et al., 2023). Despite increasing interest in this novel per-
spective, little is known about the specific capabilities
needed to enable growth from disruption. This article has
focused on the concept of supply chain antifragility as an
arrowhead for investigating what enables firms to grow
following disruption.
Insights from psychology suggest that the growth of
an individual following trauma, often termed PTG, arises
from the survivors’ capability to reflectively ponder and
learn from their traumatic experiences, disengage from
invalidated goals, and adapt life narratives in line with
new realities (Rajandram et al., 2011). Utilizing social
support also plays a crucial role in experiencing PTG
(Cryder et al., 2006). Building on these insights and using
the metaphorical transfer method (Stephens et al., 2022),
this study identified five capabilities as antecedents of
supply chain antifragility: supply chain mindfulness, sup-
ply chain transformative learning, supply chain plasticity,
supply chain bricolage, and supply chain collaboration. A
hierarchical structure among the capabilities for capital-
izing on the opportunities presented by a disruption for
growth is also revealed. Finally, Table 2 summarizes the
supply chain capabilities identified and the process of
translation from the individual capabilities associated
with PTG.
Contributions to research
From a theoretical standpoint, this study contributes to
the literature by introducing a capability blueprint that
enables a supply chain to grow from disruption. Histori-
cally, the academic focus has centered on two mecha-
nisms for addressing disruptions in supply chains: supply
chain robustness and engineering supply chain resilience
(see Durach et al., 2015). While robust supply chains

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
TABLE 2 A summary of conjectures.
Capabilities leading to post-traumatic
growth
Reflective rumination in the form of
reflective pondering capability:
The capability that enables the individual
to purposely turn inwards and engage
in adaptive problem-solving.
Transformative learning capability:
The capability through which the survivors
digest what they have understood
through reflective rumination and
combine it with their own past
experiences or those of others.
Goal disengagement capability:
The capability that enables the individual
to abandon certain ways of living
following a trauma where those ways
prove to be no longer appropriate.
Adaptive goal modification capability:
The capability that enables the individual
to modify their goals to create new,
more comprehensive schemas and
beliefs after their previously held ones
have been shown to be flawed.
Social support utilization capability:
The capability to utilize social support in
the form of emotional, instrumental,
and informational assistance supports
the individual to utilize reflective
rumination, transformative learning,
goal disengagement, and adaptive goal
modification, which ultimately leads to
experiencing growth after trauma.
Capabilities leading to supply chain
antifragility (and growth)
Supply chain mindfulness capability:
The capability that enables the supply chain
to continuously scrutinize supply chain
disruptions to make complete sense of
them.
Supply chain transformative learning
capability:
The capability that enables the supply chain
to focus on self-improvement using its
own existing knowledge or that of others.
Supply chain plasticity capability:
The capability that enables the supply chain
to swiftly disengage from predefined goals
when they are invalidated by significant
changes triggered by a supply chain
disruption.
Supply chain bricolage capability:
The capability that enables the supply chain
to “make do” by creatively applying
combinations of resources at hand to new
problems and opportunities.
Supply chain collaboration capability:
The capability that enables the supply chain
to work closely with autonomous partners
to plan and execute supply chain
operations toward common goals and
mutual benefits.
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
25
Rationale for the metaphorical
transformation
A supply chain disruption is a phenomenon
that brings about unpredictable changes.
Emerging stronger out of such a
situation and gaining requires every
aspect of the disruption and the supply
chain to be mindfully scrutinized in
order to identify emergent opportunities
arising from the disruption. Hence, an
enhanced supply chain mindfulness
capability will increase supply chain
antifragility.
Supply chains that are able to learn from
past disruptions and use these
experiences to transform their
operations are more likely to emerge
stronger from disruptions. Thus, an
enhanced supply chain transformative
learning capability will increase supply
chain antifragility.
Supply chain disruption triggers changes
that might invalidate a supply chain’s
current goals or strategy, or new
opportunities might emerge. To ensure
gains in such a situation, the supply
chain must be able to swiftly
accommodate changes. Hence, an
enhanced supply chain plasticity
capability will enhance supply chain
antifragility as it allows significant
changes to be accommodated quickly.
To capitalize on opportunities emerging
from a disruptive event, supply chains
need to utilize certain resources;
however, access to these resources can
be restricted by the supply chain
disruption. In such a situation, supply
chains can only gain if they can make
do with the resources at hand. Hence,
an enhanced supply chain bricolage
capability will increase supply chain
antifragility by enabling new goals and
strategy for capitalizing on emergent
opportunities arising from the
disruption to be operationalized.
Gaining knowledge about every aspect of a
disruption and implementing new
strategies or plans to capitalize on
opportunities that arise due to a supply
chain disruption can rely on sharing
knowledge and being able to access
resources controlled by other supply
chain members. Hence, an enhanced
supply chain collaboration capability
will increase supply chain antifragility.

26
emphasize sturdiness, engineering resilience is concerned
with recovery (Hohenstein et al., 2015). Nikookar et al.
(2021) and Wieland (2021) expanded on this by introduc-
ing the concepts of antifragility and social–ecological
resilience to the supply chain domain. According to these
concepts, a supply chain can leverage disruptive events
for growth. The current research contributes by identify-
ing a range of capabilities that enable growth following
disruption, responding to calls from Größler (2020) and
Nikookar et al. (2021).
Most of the capabilities identified differ from those in
the literature on supply chain resilience, further underlin-
ing the novelty of the contribution made by this research.
Although supply chain transformative learning and supply
chain collaboration are identified in the supply chain resil-
ience literature and thus appear to be important aspects of
both recovery and growth, capabilities such as mindful-
ness, bricolage, and plasticity are not prominently featured
in the literature either on supply chain robustness or on
engineering-oriented resilience (e.g., Shishodia et al., 2021;
Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). These latter capabilities may
therefore be particularly important in fostering growth in
supply chains following disruptions.
Moreover, this research proposes a hierarchical
sequential process for growth following disruption that is
grounded in the concept of path dependency. Under-
pinned by supply chain collaboration, it commences by
rigorously examining the disruptive event through supply
chain mindfulness and integrates insights learned from
both past and current disruptions with the learnings of
others through supply chain transformative learning.
Subsequently, the process involves the abandonment of
invalidated goals and strategies, which is facilitated by
supply chain plasticity, and the formulation of new objec-
tives and tactics to exploit emergent opportunities,
enabled by leveraging supply chain bricolage.
From a methodological standpoint, this study under-
scores the effectiveness of the metaphorical transfer
method (Stephens et al., 2022) in advancing the compre-
hension of emergent supply chain phenomena. Although
Stephens et al. (2022) laid the foundations for utilizing
the metaphorical transfer method in SCM, this research
provides an exhaustive account of applying this tech-
nique to a specific research area. In doing so, it combines
Stephens et al.’s (2022) steps with insights from other
seminal work (Chen et al., 2013; Garud & Kotha, 1994;
Tsoukas, 1991). Therefore, this research contributes to
the literature on metaphorical transfer by providing a
more granular level of detail on choosing a metaphor and
applying the method to develop novel supply chain
theory.
Although Stephens et al. (2022) provided three cri-
teria for choosing a metaphor, this study proposes two
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
characteristics that are needed from the researcher or
research team working with metaphors. These might be
considered akin to the qualities required when choosing
a theory frame or working with qualitative data, such as
in a case study research context. First, there is a critical
need for the researcher or research team to be able to
search for and identify suitable candidate metaphors; this
entails looking for the unknown, searching in unfamiliar
places, and thinking outside the box. In the current
study, this involved trying out other metaphors, such as
kintsugi—the Japanese art of putting pieces of broken
pottery back together using gold to create a stronger and
more beautiful structure—before settling on PTG.
Second, there is a need for the researcher or research
team to undertake the translation process in such a way
that they maintain discipline but can still make a creative
leap from the source to the target domain. This delicate
process was aided in this research by sense-checking the
findings with supply chain professionals. Doing so
grounded the metaphorical transfer process and ensured
that the findings resonated with practitioners.
Implications for practice
This research contributes to managerial practice by delin-
eating the capabilities essential for harnessing disruptions
as platforms for growth. The growth achieved by leverag-
ing these capabilities may manifest in outcomes such as
greater market share, increased revenue, enhanced repu-
tation, or some other measures of success.
Emerging research within the supply chain domain
offers promising directions for the development of these
capabilities. For example, workshops that involve cross-
functional teams could be conducted to enhance supply
chain mindfulness, leveraging big data analytics to scruti-
nize unexpected disruptive events (Lusiantoro &
Yates, 2021). Meanwhile, supply chain plasticity could be
improved by investing in a firm’s supply network posi-
tioning and its entrepreneurial skills and orientation
(Falcone et al., 2022). Finally, supply chain bricolage
could be enhanced by developing a thorough understand-
ing of a firm’s existing resources, including its strengths,
weaknesses, and availability, as well as those of its supply
chain partners, and by fostering a culture of openness to
creative problem-solving.
In addition to the three aforementioned capabilities
considered instrumental to growth, supply chain collabo-
ration (Duong & Chong, 2020; Scholten & Schilder, 2015)
and supply chain transformative learning (Sauer
et al., 2022; Scholten et al., 2019) appear key to both
recovery and growth. Therefore, managers engaged in
resource sharing and knowledge transfer activities

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
intended to enhance (engineering-oriented) supply
chain resilience may already be moving toward enhanc-
ing antifragility and social–ecological supply chain
resilience.
Finally, managers should consider the interrelation-
ships between the identified capabilities and their devel-
opment sequences. For instance, supply chain
collaboration could serve as a foundational capability
that facilitates transformative learning and bricolage in
supply chains. Managers should also consider how tradi-
tional capabilities aimed at recovery could serve as
springboards for growth. For example, supply chain flexi-
bility could potentially act as a precursor to supply chain
plasticity (Zinn & Goldsby, 2019).
Societal implications
Supply chain disruptions have become increasingly com-
mon in recent years, and supply chains have also played
an important role in responding to major global events.
While COVID-19 lockdowns affected the production of
many goods around the world, supply chains were also
key to vaccine rollouts and PPE production. More
recently, the war in Ukraine has affected the supply of
important goods, such as grain and oil, while supply
chains have been critical in responding to the humanitar-
ian crisis. Enhancing supply chain antifragility therefore
becomes important not only to organizations and their
internal stakeholders but also to society at large. For
example, building the capabilities identified in this
research can contribute to global food security by
enabling agri-food companies to thrive after experiencing
a disruption, ensuring that products continue to reach
populations around the world.
Meanwhile, in times of crisis, certain sectors become
even more critical to society, with increased demand
being placed on their services. The COVID-19 pandemic,
for example, unprecedentedly burdened healthcare sys-
tems worldwide, including hospitals and testing centers.
Antifragile capabilities are therefore important not only
to maintaining the supply chains of essential goods but
also to enabling critical services to grow at a time when
they are needed more than usual. Disruptions can also
cause supply chains to collapse, leading to the closure of
businesses and a surge in unemployment and poverty.
This risk is particularly acute for small businesses, which
are often considered the economic backbone of local and
developing communities. Therefore, nurturing an antifra-
gile characteristic within supply chains can act not only
as a preventive measure against broader economic down-
turns but also as a capability that can reduce such socie-
tal risks.
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
27
Limitations and future research
The capabilities identified in this research were sense-
checked using focus groups with a limited pool of expert
practitioners. This went beyond the approach adopted in
many studies working with metaphors; however, further
research is needed to undertake a more complete evalua-
tion of the capabilities identified using other formal
methods. Thus, future research could operationalize and
test the propositions in this manuscript via qualitative or
quantitative studies. Such research could involve the use
of necessity condition analysis (Bokrantz & Dul, 2023) to
identify the conditions that, while not ensuring an out-
come when present, inevitably lead to failure when
absent (Hauff et al., 2021). This could determine the
capabilities essential for growth, thereby further guiding
the use of limited organizational resources.
Being antifragile is a dynamic characteristic devel-
oped in response to multiple disruptions, not a static
characteristic at a single point in time. Meanwhile, the
inherent complexity of supply chains (Choi et al., 2001)
means that the manifestation of specific characteristics,
such as antifragility, could result from nonlinear interac-
tions between multiple variables, “with abrupt switches
occurring” between variables over time (Urry, 2005, p. 4).
Therefore, researchers are encouraged to conduct longi-
tudinal research to observe antifragility in action. This
may help create a more exhaustive set of capabilities and
further the understanding of the interrelationships
between capabilities. This line of work could also be
enhanced by configurational investigations (Ketchen
et al., 2022), such as by using fuzzy set qualitative com-
parative analysis (Rihoux & Ragin, 2008) to predict or
reveal combinations of variables that collectively culti-
vate growth following disruption.
Our research is built on the assumption that
individual-level phenomena (PTG) can be translated into
supply chain-level phenomena (antifragility). Future
research could benefit from further examining the link
between individuals and supply chains. While prior
research has underscored the crucial role of supply chain
managers in recovering from disruptions (Nikookar &
Yanadori, 2022a, 2022b), future studies could unpack
how supply chain managers affect the potential for
growth. In-depth case studies and behavioral experiments
could be particularly illuminating in this regard.
Finally, the best response to supply chain disruptions
is affected by context (Grötsch et al., 2013). Therefore,
future research should explore the role of contextual fac-
tors in enabling growth. This could also include investi-
gating different interpretations of growth across various
contexts and business models to yield more nuanced
insights.

28
ORCID
Ethan Nikookar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4626-367X
Mark Stevenson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1681-8942
Mohsen Varsei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0630-8298
R EF E RE N C E S
Azadegan, A., Patel, P. C., Zangoueinezhad, A., & Linderman, K.
(2013). The effect of environmental complexity and environ-
mental dynamism on lean practices. Journal of Operations
Management, 31(4), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.
2013.03.002
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for
evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unex-
pected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239–261. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263060
Bokrantz, J., & Dul, J. (2023). Building and testing necessity theo-
ries in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 59(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12287
Bonnano, G. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we
underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely
aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20
Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products as
bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 272–296.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J.
(2014). A contingent resource-based perspective of supply
chain resilience and robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Man-
agement, 50(3), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12050
Browning, T. R., & Heath, R. D. (2009). Reconceptualizing the
effects of lean on production costs with evidence from the F-22
program. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009
Busch, C., & Barkema, H. (2021). From necessity to opportunity:
Scaling bricolage across resource-constrained environments.
Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 741–773. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.3237
Calhoun, L., & Tedeschi, R. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of posttrau-
matic growth: Research and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1998). Beyond recovery from
trauma: Implications for clinical practice and research. Journal
of Social Issues, 54(2), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1998.tb01223.x
Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2004). The foundations of post-
traumatic growth: New considerations. Psychological Inquiry,
15(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_03
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., Triplett, K. N.,
Vishnevsky, T., & Lindstrom, C. M. (2011). Assessing posttrau-
matic cognitive processes: The Event Related Rumination
Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(2), 137–156. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.529901
Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on
collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 29(3), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jom.2010.12.008
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of
behavior. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139174794
Chang, W., Ellinger, A. E., & Blackhurst, J. (2015). A contextual
approach to supply chain risk mitigation. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, 26(3), 642–656. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2014-0026
Chen, Y. S., Rungtusanatham, M. J., Goldstein, S. M., &
Koerner, A. F. (2013). Theorizing through metaphorical trans-
fer in OM/SCM research: Divorce as a metaphor for strategic
buyer–supplier relationship dissolution. Journal of Operations
Management, 31(7–8), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.
2013.06.004
Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply
networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emer-
gence. Journal of Operations Management, 19, 351–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00068-1
Christopher, M., & Rutherford, C. (2004). Creating supply chain
resilience through Agile Six Sigma. Critical Eye, 7(1), 24–28.
Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining
strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization Science, 7(2),
103–118. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.103
Cryder, C. H., Kilmer, R. P., Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G.
(2006). An exploratory study of posttraumatic growth in chil-
dren following a natural disaster. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 76(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.65
Dan, Y., & Chieh, H. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive
innovation theory. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12(4), 435–452.
Dennehy, D., Oredo, J., Spanaki, K., Despoudi, S., & Fitzgibbon, M.
(2021). Supply chain resilience in mindful humanitarian aid
organizations: The role of big data analytics. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(9), 1417–
1441. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2020-0871
Dube, N., Li, Q., Selviaridis, K., & Jahre, M. (2022). One crisis, dif-
ferent paths to supply resilience: The case of ventilator pro-
curement for the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, 28(5), 100773. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.pursup.2022.100773
Duong, L. N. K., & Chong, J. (2020). Supply chain collaboration in
the presence of disruptions: A literature review. International
Journal of Production Research, 58(11), 3488–3507. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1712491
Durach, C. F., Wieland, A., & Machuca, J. A. D. (2015). Anteced-
ents and dimensions of supply chain robustness: A systematic
literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion & Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 118–137. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0133
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative
strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advan-
tage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. https://
doi.org/10.2307/259056
Falcone, E. C., Fugate, B. S., & Dobrzykowski, D. D. (2022). Supply
chain plasticity during a global disruption: Effects of CEO and
supply chain networks on operational repurposing. Journal of
Business Logistics, 43, 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12291
Fiksel, J., Polyviou, M., Croxton, K. L., & Pettit, T. J. (2015). From
risk to resilience: Learning to deal with disruption. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 56(2), 79–86.

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
Gaffen, D. (2022). Oil’s journey from worthless in the pandemic to
$100 a barrel. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/
energy/oils-journey-worthless-pandemic-100-barrel-2022-
02-24/
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Dis-
tributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneur-
ship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0048-7333(02)00100-2
Garud, R., & Kotha, S. (1994). Using the brain as a metaphor to
model flexible production systems. Academy of Management
Review, 19(4), 671–698. https://doi.org/10.2307/258741
Gavetti, G., & Rivkin, J. W. (2007). On the origin of strategy: Action
and cognition over time. Organization Science, 18(3), 420–439.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0282
Größler, A. (2020). A managerial operationalization of antifragility
and its consequences in supply chains. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 37(6), 896–905. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sres.2759
Grötsch, V. M., Blome, C., & Schleper, M. C. (2013). Antecedents of
proactive supply chain risk management—A contingency the-
ory perspective. International Journal of Production Research,
51(10), 2842–2867. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.
746796
Guang, L., Nigussie, E., Plosila, J., & Tenhunen, H. (2014). Position-
ing antifragility for clouds on public infrastructures. Procedia
Computer Science, 32, 856–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.
2014.05.502
Hauff, S., Guerci, M., Dul, J., & van Rhee, H. (2021). Exploring nec-
essary conditions in HRM research: Fundamental issues and
methodological implications. Human Resource Management
Journal, 31(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12231
Heiman, T. (2004). Examination of the salutogenic model, support
resources, coping style, and stressors among Israeli university
students. Journal of Psychology, 138, 505–520. https://doi.org/
10.3200/JRLP.138.6.505-520
Hendriksen, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence for supply chain man-
agement: Disruptive innovation or innovative disruption?
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 59(3), 65–76. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12304
Hohenstein, N. O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015).
Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience:
A systematic review and paths for further investigation.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 45(1/2), 90–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPDLM-05-2013-0128
Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological
resilience. In P. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological
constraints (pp. 31–43). National Academy Press.
Hunt, S. D., & Menon, A. (1995). Metaphors and competitive
advantage: Evaluating the use of metaphors in theories of
competitive strategy. Journal of Business Research, 3, 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00057-L
Illeris, K. (2018). A comprehensive understanding of human learn-
ing. In Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147277-1
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions. The Free Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (2014). Schema-change perspectives on posttrau-
matic growth. In Handbook of posttraumatic growth (pp. 81–
99). Routledge.
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
29
Jüttner, U., & Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience in the
global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain Man-
agement: An International Journal, 16(4), 246–259. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13598541111139062
Kaplan, D. A. (2020). A tale of hand sanitizer: How the ethanol sup-
ply chain pivoted for COVID-19. Supply Chain Dive. https://
www.supplychaindive.com/news/hand-sanitizer-ethanol-
covid-fda-supply-chain-red-river-biorefinery/591411/
Ketchen, D. J., Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2022). Configura-
tional approaches to theory development in supply chain man-
agement: Leveraging underexplored opportunities. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 58(3), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jscm.12275
Kliff, S., Satariano, A., Silver-Greenberg, J., & Kulish, N. (2020).
There aren’t enough ventilators to cope with the coronavirus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/business/coronavirus-
ventilator-shortage.html
Koutrouli, N., Anagnostopoulos, F., & Potamianos, G. (2012). Post-
traumatic stress disorder and posttraumatic growth in breast
cancer patients: A systematic review. Women & Health, 52(5),
503–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2012.679337
Landon, M. (2020). Schneider Electric Innovation Summit North
America 2020: Embracing digital, electric and anti-fragility.
Automation.com. https://www.automation.com/en-us/
articles/december-2020/schneider-electric-innovation-summit-
2020-digital
Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm:
Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organiza-
tional learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513. https://
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0197
Lindstrom, C. M., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G.
(2013). The relationship of core belief challenge, rumination,
disclosure, and sociocultural elements to posttraumatic
growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 5(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022030
Lusiantoro, L., & Pradiptyo, R. (2022). Rebuilding disrupted supply
chains: How can a self-organised social group facilitate
supply chain resilience? International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 42(10), 1544–1575. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJOPM-08-2021-0555
Lusiantoro, L., & Yates, N. (2021). Improving blood safety and
availability: A collective mindfulness perspective in the supply
chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Man-
agement, 41(11), 1711–1736. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-
03-2021-0153
Lyubomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1995). Effects of self-
focused rumination on negative thinking and interpersonal
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.176
Martin, L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S.
Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (pp. 217–236). Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
McIntosh, W. D. (1996). When does goal nonattainment lead to
negative emotional reaction, and when doesn’t it?: The role of
linking and rumination. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.),
Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-
regulation (pp. 53–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Musona, J., Sjögrén, H., Puumalainen, K., & Syrjä, P. (2020). Brico-
lage in environmental entrepreneurship: How environmental

30
innovators “make do” at the bottom of the pyramid. Business
Strategy & Development, 3(4), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.
1002/bsd2.112
Neimeyer, R. A. (2004). Fostering posttraumatic growth: A narra-
tive elaboration. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 53–59.
Nelson, R., & Lima, E. (2020). Effectuations, social bricolage and
causation in the response to a natural disaster. Small Business
Economics, 54(3), 721–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-
00150-z
Nikookar, E., Varsei, M., & Wieland, A. (2021). Gaining from disor-
der: Making the case for antifragility in purchasing and supply
chain management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Man-
agement, 27(3), 100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.
100699
Nikookar, E., & Yanadori, Y. (2022a). Preparing supply chain for
the next disruption beyond COVID-19: Managerial anteced-
ents of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Opera-
tions & Production Management, 42(1), 59–90. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJOPM-04-2021-0272
Nikookar, E., & Yanadori, Y. (2022b). Forming post-COVID supply
chains: Does supply chain managers’ social network affect
resilience? International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 52(7), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPDLM-05-2021-0167
Norrman, A., & Jansson, U. (2004). Ericsson’s proactive supply
chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier
accident. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logis-
tics Management, 34(5), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09600030410545463
Norrman, A., & Wieland, A. (2020). The development of supply
chain risk management over time: Revisiting Ericsson. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-
ment, 50(6), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-07-
2019-0219
O’Kane, S. (2020). Ford will make ventilators for GE, joining Gen-
eral Motors. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/30/21200216/
ford-ge-ventilators-coronavirus-covid-19-manufacturing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting struc-
tures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations.
Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.11.4.404.14600
Ployhart, E. E., & Bartunek, J. M. (2019). Editors’ comments: There
is nothing so theoretical as good practice—A call for phenome-
nal theory. Academy of Management Review, 44, 493–497.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0087
Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Optimism, social support, and
coping strategies as factors contributing to posttraumatic
growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14(5),
364–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020902724271
Priyadarshini, J., Singh, R. K., Mishra, R., & Bag, S. (2022). Investi-
gating the interaction of factors for implementing additive
manufacturing to build an antifragile supply chain: TISM-
MICMAC approach. Operations Management Research, 15(1–
2), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00259-7
Rajandram, R. K., Jenewein, J., McGrath, C., & Zwahlen, R. A.
(2011). Coping processes relevant to posttraumatic growth: An
evidence-based review. Support Care Cancer, 19, 583–589.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1105-0
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Ramezani, J., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2020). Approaches for
resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosys-
tems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151,
119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846
Resilinc. (2021). EventWatch® 2021 annual report. https://info.
resilinc.com/eventwatch-2021-annual-report
Rice, J. B., & Caniato, F. (2003). Building a secure and resilient sup-
ply network. Supply Chain Management Review, 7(5), 22–30.
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2008). Configurational comparative
methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related
techniques. Sage Publications.
Root, J. (2020). A quilter, a chocolate maker and a man on a mis-
sion: Meet the Texans improvising masks for doctors. The
Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/03/26/
texas-businesses-rush-make-ppe-response-coronavirus/
Saenz, M. J., & Revilla, E. (2014). Creating more resilient supply
chains. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(4), 22–24.
Sahi, G. K., Gupta, M. C., Cheng, T. C. E., & Mantok, S. (2021). Mit-
igating the tension in pursuit of operational ambidexterity:
The roles of knowledge development and bricolage. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108201. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108201
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2013).
Competing through service innovation: The role of bricolage
and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms. Journal of
Business Research, 66(8), 1085–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2012.03.005
Sauer, P. C., Silva, M. E., & Schleper, M. C. (2022). Supply chains’
sustainability trajectories and resilience: A learning perspec-
tive in turbulent environments. International Journal of Opera-
tions & Production Management, 42(8), 1109–1145. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2021-0759
Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. (2015). The role of collaboration in
supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An Inter-
national Journal, 20(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-
11-2014-0386
Scholten, K., Scott, P. S., & Fynes, B. (2019). Building routines for
non-routine events: Supply chain resilience learning mecha-
nisms and their antecedents. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 24(3), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SCM-05-2018-0186
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage
as a path to innovativeness for resource-constrained new
firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211–
230. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12091
Shakespeare-Finch, J., Martinek, E., Tedeschi, R. G., &
Calhoun, L. G. (2013). A qualitative approach to assessing the
validity of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Journal of Loss
and Trauma, 18(6), 572–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15325024.2012.734207
Shishodia, A., Sharma, R., Rajesh, R., & Munim, Z. H. (2021). Supply
chain resilience: A review, conceptual framework and future
research. The International Journal of Logistics Management,
34(4), 879–908. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2021-0169
Steffens, P. R., Baker, T., Davidsson, P., & Senyard, J. M. (2022).
When is less more? Boundary conditions of effective entrepre-
neurial bricolage. Journal of Management, 49(4), 1277–1311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221077210

BUILDING AN ANTIFRAGILE SUPPLY CHAIN
Stephens, V., Matthews, L., Cornelissen, J. P., & Rowlands, H.
(2022). Building novel supply chain theory using “metaphori-
cal imagination”. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 58(1),
124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12257
Stockton, H., Hunt, N., & Joseph, S. (2011). Cognitive processing,
rumination, and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 24(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20606
Taku, K., Cann, A., Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2009).
Intrusive versus deliberate rumination in posttraumatic
growth across US and Japanese samples. Anxiety, Stress, &
Coping, 22(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800
802317841
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Ran-
dom House.
Talluri, S., Kull, T., Yildiz, H., & Yoon, J. (2013). Assessing the effi-
ciency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains. Journal of
Business Logistics, 34(4), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.
12025
Tedeschi, R. G. (2011). Posttraumatic growth in combat veterans.
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 18, 137–144.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth
Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.
2490090305
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Con-
ceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological
Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G.
(2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applica-
tions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315527451
Thomé, K. M., Cappellesso, G., Ramos, E. L. A., & de Lima
Duarte, S. C. (2021). Food supply chains and short food supply
chains: Coexistence conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 278, 123207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
123207
Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumina-
tion reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 27, 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1023910315561
Trotter, J. L., & Allen, N. E. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly:
Domestic violence survivors’ experiences with their informal
social networks. American Journal of Community Psychology,
43(3–4), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9232-1
Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of
metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management
Review, 16(3), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.2307/258918
Tukamuhabwa, B., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015).
Supply chain resilience: Definition, review and theoretical
foundations for further study. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 53(18), 5592–5623. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2015.1037934
Ullman, S. E. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of the Social
Reactions Questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual
assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 257–271.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00208.x
Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society,
22(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405057188
Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2012). Organizational mindfulness
and mindful organizing: A reconciliation and path forward.
1745493x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12313 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
31
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 722–
735. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0002c
Watkins, K. (2020). Texas companies are repurposing to help fight
COVID-19. Here’s how. Public Media. https://www.
houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2020/04/02/365693/
heres-how-texas-companies-are-repurposing-their-operations-to-
help-fight-coronavirus/
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.).
McGraw-Hill.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagina-
tion. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. https://
doi.org/10.2307/258556
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality
of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4), 514–
524. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0196
Wieland, A. (2021). Dancing the supply chain: Toward transforma-
tive supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Man-
agement, 57(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12248
Wieland, A., & Durach, C. F. (2021). Two perspectives on supply
chain resilience. Journal of Business Logistics, 42, 315–322.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12271
Wieland, A., Stevenson, M., Melnyk, S. A., Davoudi, S., & Schultz, L.
(2023). Thinking differently about supply chain resilience: What
we can learn from social-ecological systems thinking. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(1), 1–
21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2022-0645
Wu, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, J. (2017). Bricolage effects on new-
product development speed and creativity: The moderating
role of technological turbulence. Journal of Business Research,
70, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.027
Wu, X., Kaminga, A. C., Dai, W., Deng, J., Wang, Z., Pan, X., &
Liu, A. (2019). The prevalence of moderate-to-high posttrau-
matic growth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 243, 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jad.2018.09.023
Xu, M., Wang, X., & Zhao, L. (2014). Predicted supply chain resil-
ience based on structural evolution against random supply dis-
ruptions. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations
and Logistics, 1(2), 105–117.
Yan, T., Tate, W., & Pagell, M. (2022). Call for papers for the sixth
emerging discourse incubator: Radical innovations and
extreme disruptions: How could a firm thrive from the coevo-
lution of the two? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 58(4),
3–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12292
Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2019). Supply chain plasticity: Redesign-
ing supply chains to meet major environmental change. Jour-
nal of Business Logistics, 40(3), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jbl.12226
How to cite this article: Nikookar, E., Stevenson,
M., & Varsei, M. (2024). Building an antifragile
supply chain: A capability blueprint for resilience
and post-disruption growth. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 60(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jscm.12313