See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376075247

Organizational resilience: leadership, operational and individual responses to

the COVID-19 pandemic

Article in Journal of Organizational Change Management · November 2023

DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2023-0160

CITATIONS READS

0 179

3 authors, including:

Hun Whee Lee Goo Hyeok Chung

The Ohio State University Dongguk University
33 PUBLICATIONS 939 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 312 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Goo Hyeok Chung on 16 February 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


JOCM
37,1
92
Received 9 May 2023
Revised 27 September 2023
Accepted 3 November 2023
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Vol. 37 No. 1, 2024
pp. 92-115
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/JOCM-05-2023-0160
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0953-4814.htm
Organizational resilience:
leadership, operational and
individual responses to the
COVID-19 pandemic
Jungsik Kim
College of Business, Kwangwoon University, Seoul, South Korea
Hun Whee Lee
Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA, and
Goo Hyeok Chung
Dongguk Business School, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
Purpose – Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, most organizations have experienced a sudden and
unprecedented drop in revenue and productivity. However, the pandemic did not exclusively negatively impact
organizations; rather, it resulted in both negative and positive effects. To delve into the multi-level process
through which organizational outcomes change from negative to positive indicators, this study focuses on
organizational resilience as a theoretical concept to overcome pandemic-related turmoil.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a multi-level analysis based on grounded theory
with a sample of 30 healthcare employees who worked in hospitals and were simultaneously enrolled in a part-
time master of business administration (MBA) program at a university in the Midwest. Of the 30 participants, 21
were from a single university hospital (UH), and the remaining 9 participants were from other hospitals (non-UH).
Findings – The authors analyzed the data and incorporated three existing perspectives of organizational
resilience (attribute, process and multi-level views) into an integrated model. The authors identified 25 first-
order concepts and 8 second-order themes and categorized them into 4 aggregate dimensions at different unit
levels: organizational field, leadership, operation and individual units.
Practical implications – A resilient hospital operates as a cohesive system, with entities at various levels –
from individuals and teams to the broader organization – collaborating seamlessly to foster resilience. Top
management team (TMT) should persistently communicate with employees to provide information about the
current crisis and clear strategic directions to reduce employees’ fear and prevent anomie stemming from future
uncertainty. Managers should not only be concerned about employees’ physical safety from infection and
psychological safety from isolation but also encourage employees to elicit meaningfulness from their work.
Furthermore, TMT and human resource (HR) teams should adapt human resource management (HRM)
practices to allow for flexibility and optimism in employee roles.
Originality/value – In this study, the authors utilized a qualitative methodology with grounded theory in
order to develop a comprehensive model that holds theoretical, methodological and practical significance.
Theoretically, the authors’ novelty lies in the synthesis of three distinct perspectives: attribute, process and
multi-level. The authors merged these approaches into a unified model, identifying precursors of resilience at
different levels. Methodologically, the authors focused on hospitals as target samples, which were the foremost
and representative organizations severely confronting the crisis and turmoil brought by the pandemic. The
authors documented organizations’ experiences amidst the crisis as they unfolded in real time rather than in
hindsight. This approach highlights the immediacy and significance of the authors’ research in the realm of
crisis management. Practically, the authors’ findings illuminate that organizational resilience can be developed
through a collaborative effort. It emerges from coordinated interactions across various organizational actors,
from employees and middle managers to the TMT.
Keywords COVID-19, Pandemic, Organizational resilience, Resilience manifestation, Leadership resilience,
Operational resilience, Individual resilience
Paper type Research paper
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5A2A03061515).
Introduction A unified
After the outbreak of COVID-19 in late 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic (hereafter pandemic) model of
changed almost every facet of people’s lives, making serious impacts on organizations, the
economy and employees. Most organizations had to temporarily shut their offices down or
organizational
halt operations (Jones et al., 2020). Lockdowns paused economic growth throughout the world resilience
and the downfall of the world economy resulted in mass unemployment (Blustein et al., 2020).
Social distancing measures drastically changed conventional managerial practices; for
instance, face-to-face communication was restricted, on-site training disappeared, hiring 93
froze, telework made knowledge sharing and employee engagement harder and housework
and childcare shattered work–life balance as employees and their children stayed at home
more than before. Nevertheless, we could witness some organizations successfully
overcoming the pandemic-related turmoil. Organizational resilience is the best concept
elucidating reasons why some organizations could quickly respond to it, effectively cope with
it and further develop unusual ways of doing business in a sustainable manner (Sutcliffe and
Vogus, 2003; Williams et al., 2017).
Since the seminal works of Meyer (1983) and Weick (1993), management researchers have
paid attention to organizational resilience. In early crisis management literature, the concept
of organizational resilience was narrowly defined, focusing solely on an organization’s ability
to recover to its pre-crisis stable state. Later, the concept broadened to encompass a
comprehensive process that includes anticipation, coping, recovery and even thriving and
prosperity beyond the original state (Duchek, 2020; Hillmann and Guenther, 2021). Several
concepts share similarities with organizational resilience. For instance, the High-Reliability
Organization (HRO) emphasizes swift decision-making based on imperfect data, shedding
routines to enhance adaptability and ensure survival (Waller and Roberts, 2003). Similarly,
“dynamic capabilities” pertain to an organization’s adaptability in response to volatile and
unstable environment (Buzzao and Rizzi, 2023). In light of the pandemic, it’s imperative to
select a framework that holistically addresses the multifaceted challenges organizations face.
We advocate for organizational resilience as a more encompassing umbrella concept.
We define organizational resilience as an organization’s capabilities to react to and recover
from duress or disturbances with minimal effect on stability and functioning (Linnenluecke,
2017; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). Our conceptualization not only addresses immediate
response mechanisms but also emphasizes long-term recovery and stability. In the context of
a global pandemic, this broader perspective is crucial, ensuring organizations are equipped
not just to adapt, but to thrive amidst challenges.
A large number of studies on organizational resilience have been conducted so far, but
most of them have two drawbacks. On the one hand, most prior empirical works were
conducted in a retrospect manner, far after the process and outcome of a crisis became known
to the public. Thus, there is a possibility that attributes (or precursors to resilience) most
saliently exposed to the public could have been later picked and assorted into components of
resilience. In other words, much knowledge on resilience is acquired after a crisis ends, either
uncovering precursors, such as individual and organizational qualities (attributes) leading to
organizational resilience (e.g. Burnard and Bhamra, 2011; Coutu, 2002; Crichton et al., 2009;
Gittell et al., 2006; Hamel and Valikangas, 2003; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003; Teo et al., 2017;
Wildavsky, 1988), or proposing theoretical (process) models (e.g. Duchek, 2020). In particular,
even well-known resilience studies (e.g. Gittell et al.’s (2006) study on the September 11
attacks) were conducted with post-hoc analysis when a significant amount of time had passed
since the major disasters had occurred.
On the other hand, theoretical and practical utilization of insights learned from previous
studies are limited in that organizational resilience was highly subject to crisis types
(Hillmann and Guenther, 2021) or in that two organizations were simply compared in terms of
a certain aspect. For example, resilience studies on a single disaster (e.g. Boin and van Eeten’s
JOCM study (2013) on the Challenger explosion) or a simple comparison (e.g Weick and Sutcliffe’s
37,1 (2007) study on two – either more or less reliable – organizations) are ill-equipped (Brumback,
2009) to provide contemporary organizations with effective avenues for overcoming the
pandemic.
To overcome these shortcomings, the present study is aimed at making contributions to
the resilience literature for two following reasons. First, while most existing empirical studies
conducted post-hoc analysis just after crises ended, the present research employed an ongoing
94 field analysis by focusing on an in-progress event, the pandemic, which had not yet ended at
the time of writing. The pandemic provides a unique opportunity to resolve the first
methodological problem (i.e. shortcomings of retrospective surveys) from previous studies on
resilience. Sudden changes associated with the pandemic such as social distancing,
mandatory work from home and sanitary requirements that have penetrated most parts of an
organization are extremely new practices that have never been dealt with in previous
research. Second, the present study was conducted in the midst of this worldwide crisis with a
prompt action-oriented research purpose. It is considered that knowledge obtained from
existing research targeting at a single devastating event or comparing two organizations
with either high or low reliability has low applicability and even to be somewhat
questionable. In terms of scope and extent, this work views the pandemic as one of the most
significant crises in human history, not merely in one or two organizations and helps
researchers and practitioners cope with many problems stemming from the current and the
future emerging pandemic.
To this end, we conducted a qualitative action-oriented study on hospitals in Ohio as
target organizations. Particularly, considering hospitals as our target samples, which were
the foremost organizations severely confronting the crisis and turmoil brought by the
pandemic, our inductive study can serve as a vivid natural experiment that proposes a solid
theoretical and practical model. Our endeavor will provide scholars and practitioners with a
more in-depth understanding of how to develop organizational resilience to respond to
unexpected organizational disturbances. The present study is structured as follows. First, a
literature review is conducted. Then, the data collection and analyses processes are discussed
by drawing on grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) as the methodological
underpinning. Particularly, organizational and employees’ responses to the pandemic at
multi-level units, including organizational field, leadership (TMT and middle managers),
operational (in terms of HRM practices) and individual units, are investigated. Finally, we
discuss our results, theoretical contributions, practical implications and the study’s
limitations.

Literature review
Similar to a research stream of other management fields (e.g. leadership), the research focus
on resilience began by identifying its antecedents such as traits or attributes, gradually
moved to developmental stages or emerging process and ultimately encompassed multi-level
interactions among different agents (e.g. individual, group, or organization; Sutcliffe and
Vogus, 2003). Only considering resilience to be predetermined attributes, managers have
nothing to develop organizational resilience but selecting dispositional resilient applicants.
Meanwhile, simply viewing resilience as something to emerge along a single-level process,
researchers should necessarily overlook the fact that an organization is a constellation of
members with different KSAOs, values and needs. Thus, the existing frameworks of
organizational resilience should be integrated into one to clearly stipulate attributes and
process across different levels. Drawing on its general definition we articulated earlier, we
include three different approaches into our integrated framework and suggest following
rationales.
 The first approach, which was called the organizational resilience attribute approach, A unified
views that a resilient organization necessarily possesses, identifies and builds specific model of
organizational qualities (or attributes) so that it can survive (e.g. Gittell et al., 2006;
Linnenluecke et al., 2012; Markman and Venzin, 2014). The most frequently discussed
organizational
organizational qualities encompass various attributes, including the ability and training to resilience
detect and sense-make (Burnard and Bhamra, 2011; Ciasullo et al., 2023; Sutcliffe and Vogus,
2003; Weick, 1993), realistic awareness and acceptance of the cold reality (Hamel and
Valikangas, 2003; Teo et al., 2017), learning from prior disasters (Crichton et al., 2009), 95
strategy (Wildavsky, 1988), the role of managing flexible resources—also called slack in
terms of financial and relational resources (Gittell et al., 2006)—trained operational skills such
as improvisation (or bricolage; La Sala, Fuller and Calabrese, 2022) to find alternative
solutions (Coutu, 2002; Rerrup, 2001), a culture of HRO encompassing leadership and
communication (Cantu et al., 2020) and individual-level resiliency (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).
In particular, although the HRO literature have long highlighted the importance of
organizational adaptability and survival under the dramatically and rapidly changing
business environments (Waller and Roberts, 2003), most studies have merely identified
hallmarks or characteristics of HRO (e.g. Cantu et al., 2020).
The second approach, which was labeled the organizational resilience process approach,
describes organizational resilience as neither a momentary state in which an organization
reaches (as a one-time response to a crisis) nor an attribute that it possesses of itself, but a
process through which it develops and acquires incremental capacity by continuously
anticipating, adjusting and learning (Hamel and Valikangas, 2003; Sutcliffe and Vous, 2003).
While the first approach emphasizes effective precursors generating organizational
resilience, the process models mainly discuss a series of stages through which
organizational resilience successfully emerges and each stage in which a certain
organizational quality (or attribute) is developed and acquired (Duchek, 2014). Particularly,
compared to the first approach, the process approach suggests the importance of the
anticipation stage of organizational resilience; that is, the detection of a crisis signal at the
early stage is important, as it enables an organization to increase its ability to collect sufficient
resources in advance and decrease reliance on resources that would be most negatively
affected by a crisis. With its emphasis on anticipation, which constitutes efforts to detect and
prepare before a crisis, the process models could differentiate the concept of resilience from
that utilized in the risk management literature that primarily focused on the post-hoc coping
activities only after a crisis has broken out (Williams et al., 2017).
The last approach, referred to as the organizational resilience multi-level approach, is a
constellation of different-level attributes and processes; in other words, organizational
resilience is constructed both separately and simultaneously at different levels (Hartmann
et al., 2020). This approach was developed because resilience emerges not only at the
individual level but at the collective level through group and organizational activities
(Linnenluecke, 2017; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). Not surprisingly, because early studies on
resilience came from the psychology field, their initial focus was on an individual rather than
an organization. As such, later studies have argued that organization-level capabilities are
not simply added composites of individuals’ capabilities (Ashmos and Huber, 1987); rather,
they may be constituted through collective actions (Horne and Orr, 1998), reciprocal links
among individuals (Riolli and Savicki, 2003), or dyadic, organizational and social/policy levels
(La Sala et al., 2023). This view infers that although an individual’s resilience can be a starting
point for an organization’s resilient, dynamic interactions among resilient individuals
underpin the emergence of collective capacities for organizational resilience (Horne and Orr,
1998; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Morgeson and Hofmann, 1999). Particularly, organizations
have different-level units, such as TMT, middle managers and employees, where each unit
with specific knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) necessarily
JOCM performs different activities in communicating, coordinating, formulating, implementing, or
37,1 operating various strategies (Coutu, 2002; Horne and Orr, 1998; Mallak, 1998; Shin et al., 2012).
Thus, researchers have suggested using multi-level analysis to integrate resilience activities
performed by individual, group and organizational units (e.g. Gittell et al., 2006; Powley, 2013;
Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003).
Building on these viewpoints, we propose three research objectives on organizational
resilience in the pandemic. First, three major approaches outlined above should be integrated.
96 According to a system perspective (DesJardine et al., 2019), an organization comprises
numerous interconnected elements, and thus, the accurate functions of each element can be
better understood by assessing their interactions with other elements. For example,
organizational qualities proposed by the first approach should be strategically repositioned
and built at different stages of the resilience process via multi-level analysis. In particular,
Raetze et al. (2021, p. 607) called for papers regarding “how resilience functions at different
levels of analysis in organizations and how these various levels interact.” Recently
recognizing this necessity, several scholars have attempted to develop an integrated model
by combining the three approaches into a single model (Ducheck, 2020; Hillmann and
Guenther, 2021). However, these efforts were mainly limited to conceptualization, leaving
empirical validation a task for future research.
For example, we introduce two conceptual models from the latest studies (Ducheck, 2020;
Hillmann and Guenther, 2021). Both models share similarities in that organizational resilience
is treated not as constructed by one-time activities to cope with a singular crisis but by
constant work spanning several stages. However, they are also different; Ducheck’s (2020)
model emphasized the role of different qualities at each stage, while Hillmann and Guenther
(2021) highlighted the process itself. Furthermore, both models stopped short of articulating
each unit’s respective roles with multi-level analysis, although this integrative perspective
can be informative (e.g. Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003; Tasic et al., 2020). Thus, the development of
an integrated model encompassing all three approaches is imperative to ensure that scholars
and practitioners can deeply understand the qualities and processes of organizational
resilience across business units at multiple levels.
Applying an integrated framework, the present study will analyze organizational
resilience with a special emphasis on human resources (HR)-driven initiatives. First, what
three approach have in common is that they all focus on people. For example, even when
claiming the importance of preparing extra organizational resources, the primary emphasis
was given to the importance of human capitals among the resources including financial
reserves (Gittell, 2006). Second, HR-centered efforts are crucial to the development of
organizational capacity not only because individual-level resilience is necessarily embedded
in organizational resilience but also because human resources management (HRM) would be
the most quickly and flexibly applicable managerial interventions TMT may adopt during a
crisis (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). We witnessed some organizations which adopted several
improvised changes in HR practices during the pandemic. Improving HR practices can
improve organizational resilience quickly and effectively (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). Indeed,
studies suggest that firms adopt certain HR practices in bundles in order to respond to a crisis
(e.g. Teague and Roche, 2014) and the ability of leaders to develop agile and flexible HRM
responses can be critical for crisis management (Malik and Sanders, 2021). Therefore, we will
further deepen our knowledge of organizational resilience by examining such HRM efforts.
Finally, it is necessary to conduct resilience research specific to the pandemic. Resilience
during the pandemic has both common and context-specific aspects. Specifically, there are
common organizational qualities (e.g. resource availability and social resources) of resilience
applicable to the pandemic; however, it is also important to identify other effective qualities
specific to the pandemic because some qualities may be more effective than others at
promoting resilience, depending on a crisis type (DesJardine et al., 2019). For example, Gittell’s
(2006) study on the airline industry’s resilience after the September 11 terrorist attacks A unified
showed that relational reserves and viable business models are precursors to organizational model of
resilience. Rerup’s (2001) study on the Apollo 13 accident showed the importance of bricolage
led by strict training programs and coordination among decentralized experts who are
organizational
empowered. The pandemic represents one of the first global crises of this scale in the context resilience
of modern globalization, and it has resulted in many unfamiliar situations, such as social
distancing. Thus, we have a limited understanding of what organizational qualities are
effective in aiding an organization’s strategic decision-making to ensure survival during the 97
pandemic. In this given context, the pandemic necessitates the creation of an integrative
theoretical model with rich empirical evidence.
In sum, organizational resilience is a people-centered concept that operates across various
levels: individual, group and organizational. Therefore, the theoretical framework of
organizational resilience should not only encompass three core clusters—attributes,
processes and multi-level perspectives—but should also place a significant emphasis on
HR practices. To this end, we raised a research question: what are the attributes and process of
organizational resilience whereby members at different levels have coped with and overcome the
on-going pandemic?

Method
The present study conducted a multi-level field analysis based on grounded theory by
considering precursors to organizational resilience at all levels. Although the number of
studies on resilience has grown over the last 2 decades, some were limited to theory building
and others were empirical studies that focused on a single accident or disaster, leaving a gap
in terms of rich empirical evidence (van der Vegt et al., 2015). Specifically, a qualitative
methodology was adopted for three reasons. First, considering that the pandemic was an
ongoing crisis at the time of writing, conventional quantitative research was difficult to
conduct due to difficulties constituting or defining measures. Furthermore, a retrospective
survey method has typically been utilized after a crisis ends. Second, organizational resilience
is specific to the crisis type, but the pandemic posed an unprecedented impact. An inductive,
qualitative methodology is widely recognized as the best approach for analyzing a new
phenomenon. Finally, a qualitative approach provides a useful avenue for understanding
how organizations are affected by crises and how they cope. As mentioned earlier, existing
studies were categorized into three approaches: the attribute approach focusing on
“a behavior or a characteristic of an object” (Mohr, 1982, p. 45), the process approach
highlighting the “process by which organizing and organization unfold” (Gioia et al., 2013,
p. 16) and the multi-level approach emphasizing the nature of organizational resilience
constituted separately and simultaneously at different levels. A model incorporating all three
approaches will better elucidate the mechanisms of organizational resilience during the
pandemic through the “rearrangement of mutually autonomous objects” (Mohr, 1982, p. 46).
In particular, grounded theory is the best qualitative methodology for “fresh understanding
about [unrevealed] patterned relationships among social actors” (O’Reilly et al., 2012, p. 2)
during the pandemic. To the end, we developed a new perspective of organizational resilience
during the pandemic by adopting the grounded theory.

Sampling and participants

The authors considered healthcare institutions to be the best sample organizations because
they had to utilize their resilience to manage emerging challenges and prepare for potential
future crises. In particular, Ohio hospitals faced distinct challenges during this period (Filby,
2020a, 2020b; Holmes, 2021; Ohio Department of Health, 2020). Many were overwhelmed by
JOCM the influx of COVID-19 patients, causing intensive care units (ICUs) and general wards to
37,1 exceed capacity. To manage this surge and secure crucial personal protective equipment
(PPE), many hospitals in Ohio had to postpone or cancel elective surgeries and non-urgent
procedures. Staff shortages also became a significant issue. Many healthcare professionals
were either sick, quarantining, or burnt out from the continuous pressures of the pandemic.
The extended duration of the pandemic also took a toll on the mental health of healthcare
workers. Hospitals had to create support systems for their staff, who were constantly under
98 immense stress. Financially, Ohio hospitals faced challenges associated with increased costs
of acquiring necessary equipment as well as reduced revenues due to the suspension of
elective procedures and non-COVID-related care. In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic
highlighted the critical need for organizational resilience when facing unprecedented
challenges, especially in Ohio hospitals.
We collected essays from 30 participants who were working in hospitals and were
simultaneously enrolled in a part-time master of business administration (MBA) program at a
university in the Midwest, USA (in the spring – February through March – of 2021). Of the 30
participants, 21 (70% of participants) were from a single university hospital (UH) and the
remaining 9 participants were from other hospitals (non-UH). We confirmed that participant
diversity in terms of job (physician, nurse and staff), hierarchical level and organizational
tenure would show sufficient variation in individual perceptions of the pandemic and
precursors to organizational resilience (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Specifically, the cohort of
30 participants comprised 11 males and 19 females; 10 held managerial position; 7 had PhDs,
8 had master’s degrees and the others had bachelor’s degree; 13 were healthcare
professionals, such as physicians and nurses; and the remaining 17 were general staff in
such departments as accounting, finance, marketing, legal affairs and information
technology (IT). Finally, on average, these participants were approximately 32 years old
(standard deviation [SD] 5 6.5) with nearly 4.4 years of organizational tenure (SD 5 3.6).
The UH was the primary target organization and is a multidisciplinary academic medical
center located in Columbus, Ohio. It includes seven hospitals and seven health sciences
colleges and employs over 10,000 individuals. It is a major referral center for patients
throughout Ohio and the Midwest, and its mission is to improve people’s lives through
innovation in research, education and patient care. Each year, it provides care for more than
1.5 million people and covers over 62,000 hospitalizations and over 1.87 million outpatient
visits with a wide ambulatory care network throughout Ohio. Since the pandemic, it has
devoted time and resources to fighting against the spread of the coronavirus and improving
public health.

Data collection
The present study adopted a qualitative research approach that involved the systematic
collection, organization and interpretation of written text (Malterud, 2001). Writings (essays)
from healthcare employees working at the UH and non-UHs, including physicians, nurses
and staff, were included in the dataset. These essays provide valuable information about how
participants experienced and evaluated their social environments (Malterud, 2001). Once the
purpose of the study had been explained, healthcare employees volunteered to share their
experiences with the research team. To ensure confidentiality, anonymity was promised to all
participants. In an open-ended format, the main questions asked were as follows: (1) how has
COVID-19 impacted their organization, (2) what changes have they observed with regard to
HR practices, (3) how have they and others (e.g. top and middle managers as well as their
colleagues) responded to the pandemic and (4) how do individual characteristics relate to their
and others’ responses to the pandemic? As such, the voiced experiences of those with first-
hand knowledge of how healthcare employees and their organizations have responded to the
pandemic were utilized for analysis. The authors disclose that the present study obtained an A unified
approval of The Ohio State University that human subjects participating in this study was model of
treated in accordance with ethical guidelines (“Managers’ responses to crisis”; IRB #
2021E0075).
organizational
resilience
Data analysis
An analytic strategy was formed to ensure methodological rigor (Berg et al., 2010; Yin, 2011). 99
The systematic analysis followed a four-stage procedure by including samples stage by
stage, from the narrower-level units within similar organizational contexts (from participants
with a similar job family to those with a different job family in a single organization) to the
wider-level units between similar organizational contexts (from participants with a similar
job family to those with a different job family in different organizations in the same industry).
Specifically, in the first stage, we analyzed (1) the cases of 11 healthcare professionals
working in the UH. Then, we included (2) 10 cases of staff in the UH in the second stage, (3) 2
cases of non-UH health professionals in the third stage and finally (4) 7 cases of non-UH staff
in the last stage.
Our systematic analysis procedure enabled us to identify mutually exclusive major
themes from the narrower-level units and then compare all cases collectively exhaustively
from wider-level units. This analytic strategy for maximal within-unit similarities combined
with minimal between-unit differences enriched “the variety and comprehensiveness of
concepts,” increased “the possibility of categorizing similar concepts and facilitates
theoretical predictions,” and ensured higher robustness and the credibility of evidence
(Chung and Choi, 2018, p. 1005; Gioia et al., 2013; Pratt, 2008).
Subsequently, drawing on the principles of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998),
we analyzed data with NVivo, a software program for qualitative research, following three
steps. First, we performed open coding for early conceptualization and later categorization.
Specifically, we coded features of organizational resilience or its precursors by closely paying
attention to dispositional traits, perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, situations, contexts and
managerial practices frequently mentioned in participants’ essays. Second, while reading all
cases repeatedly, we conducted axial coding to isolate “all relevant data-to-theory” recurring
relationships among the concepts (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 22) so that we could relate each concept
to a relevant upper-level category (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Third, we utilized selective
coding by maintaining maximal variability and refining relationships. Iteratively, we
re-examined first-order concepts, second-order themes and aggregate dimensions observed
across the 30 cases until we reached theoretical saturation, which refers to a state in which
new concepts or relationships can no longer be identified (Berg et al., 2010).
In each step, we followed the aforementioned four-stage procedure by including four
different data sources. We first analyzed the first data sources (i.e. healthcare professionals
working at the UH) so that within-group comparisons could facilitate the categorization of
similar first-order concepts. Then, we iteratively confirmed the concepts identified from the
first data sources, picked out second-order themes and categorized them into aggregate
dimensions by including the second, third and fourth sources in sequence. Drawn on the
comparative method and grounded theory, our analytic strategy secured the methodological
features (i.e. theoretical coding, saturation and sensitivity) of a high-quality qualitative study
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; O’Reilly et al., 2012).
As such, we identified several concepts and themes, classified them into categories that
refer to “more abstract explanatory terms,” and repeated this process until “the point in
category development at which no new properties, dimensions, or relationships emerge
during analysis” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, pp. 114-143). For example, while coding
participants’ descriptions, we identified recruitment and promotion freeze, reorganization of
JOCM the physical environment and job rearrangement and impromptu training as first-order
37,1 concepts (see Table 3). Then, we categorized them into the same second-order theme labeled
improvised change in HRM because the three first-order concepts connoted prompt HRM
interventions. When we discovered other first-order concepts in a similar way, we classified
them into another second-order theme named deliberate change in HRM and finally grouped
these two second-order themes into the same aggregate dimension called operational
resilience. In these ways, we constructed a data structure, as shown in Figure 1 (Gioia et al.,
100 2013; O’Reilly et al., 2012).

First-Order Concepts Second-Order Themes Aggregate Dimensions

Initial drop in revenue

Crisis emergence
Initial drop in productivity
Resilience
manifestation
Rebound in revenue Performance
recovery
Rebound in productivity
Organizational field level
TMT level
Maintenance in communication channel

Increase in communication TMT’s visibility

Sharing of organizational directions

Leadership
resilience
Individual consideration
Manager’s
Development of group cohesiveness
visibility
New leader emergence Manager level

Recruitment and promotion freeze

Improvised
Reorganization of physical environment change in HRM
Job rearrangement & impromptu training
Operational
Adaptation of compensation and benefit resilience
programs
Deliberate
Assurance of job security
change in HRM
Creation or tailoring of requirements
Operational level
Individual level
Big Five personality traits
(Openness to experience;
Conscientiousness; In-/Extroversion;
Dispositional
Agreeableness; Emotional stability)
readiness
Emotional intelligence
Individual
resilience
Occupational calling
Work
Occupational persistence
meaningfulness
Figure 1. Occupational pride and efficacy
Data structure
Source(s): Authors work
Findings: first-order concepts, second-order themes and aggregate dimensions A unified
We identified 25 first-order concepts, 8 second-order themes and 4 aggregate dimensions. We model of
present a detailed description with a rich illustration of these concepts, themes and aggregate
dimensions in the following subsections and as shown in Tables 1 and 4.
organizational
resilience
Resilience manifestation
We first identified crisis emergence, which reflects an initial drop in revenue and productivity, 101
as the first second-order theme of resilience manifestation (see Table 1). Considering that
hospitals were frontline organizations and the pandemic generated a large number of
patients, we did not expect an initial drop in their productivity before analyzing the data.
However, we found that the pandemic led to an initial drop in productivity, presumably
because organizations were not prepared to deal with the highly infectious virus and sudden
changes in work procedures. The following illustrates hospital employees’ perceptions of
crisis emergence in terms of revenue and productivity.
After a month or so, radiology as a whole was losing a lot of money and the backlog for MRI and CT
patients was around 2 months out (Participant #C02N18).
When the pandemic hit, we had a significant decrease in productivity in our unit. Per state order, we
were only allowed to complete emergent cases, and all elective cases were cancelled for about two
months . . . Our employee productivity also went down as there was not enough work for our
regularly scheduled staffing model, so we were sending people home early or having some APP’S
(advanced practice providers, i.e. PA/NP) not come in at all and take vacation (Participant #C01N28).
The second second-order theme of resilience manifestation is performance recovery, which
denotes substantial rebound in revenue and productivity, as listed in Table 1. Several months
after the outbreak of the pandemic, reduced productivity recovered following updates in
work procedures and a growing number of patients; as a result, initially decreased revenue
also rebounded because of increases in productivity or external (federal) funding.

First-Order Second-Order Aggregate

Representative Quotes
Concepts Themes Dimension

With the onset of the pandemic, many hospitals cancelled elective procedures (i.e. surgeries) and
noted a decrease in visits to emergency departments or other medical centers due to fear of
contracting COVID-19. These types of visits/consultations typically bring in significant funding
to medical organizations, and without them, there was a decline in revenue. (Participant Initial drop in
#C02N15) revenue
There was a notable decrease in revenue secondary to the COVID-19 outbreak... there was a
complete halt in elective procedures and surgeries in the outpatient areas of the hospital.
Crisis
(Participant #C02N20)
emergence

We had a decrease in productivity during COVID-19 due to the postponement of elective surgeries.
(Participant #C02N02)
Initial drop in
The changes in job expectations secondary to adjustments in personnel roles, the fluctuations in
productivity
hospital admission numbers, and the overall concern related to COVID-19 have all negatively
impacted the productivity of staff in my department. (Participant #C02N15) Resilience
manifestation

For the months of March and April there was an extreme decrease in our revenue as all elective
procedures were postponed. It rebounded a lot in the months of May and June as many of those
Rebound in
elective procedures developed into “required” procedures. (Participant #C01N12)
revenue
Federal funding (via the CARES act) produced a sizable Medicare Advance
payment to help with immediate cash flow concerns. (Participant #C02N31)
Performance
recovery
Productivity overwhelmingly increased as people were forced to assimilate into new roles to help
care for a growing subset of patients that were exceedingly more sick than the patients typically
seen in the hospital. (Participant #C01N36) Rebound in
The head of radiology decided to stop deferring patients and ramped up our schedules to full productivity Table 1.
capacity. Within a day, we were back to full schedules and busy waiting rooms. (Participant Representative quotes:
#C02N18)
resilience
Source(s): Authors work manifestation
JOCM I think we were able to increase our productivity. Barriers were removed to get work done quickly to
solve COVID-19 related projects. Innovative ideas went from conception to actualization in the blink
37,1 of an eye. Our leaders helped facilitated this progress by supporting our work and stepping back to
let the people do what they do best. It has been an unprecedented time of progress (Participant
#C02N07).
After the fall and rise of revenue and productivity in 2020, the UH ultimately recorded a
higher revenue compared to the previous fiscal year of 2019, showing (financial) prosperity
102 beyond recovery (Duchek, 2020; Hillmann and Guenther, 2021). The following quote indicates
resilience manifestation, which we identified as the first aggregate dimension.
My organization’s revenue and productivity were impacted by COVID-19. Interestingly, though,
when I looked at the figures comparing fiscal year (FY) 2020 to FY19, FY20 was not as financially
impacted as I believed or as I heard in some of the messaging from [UH] leadership. In FY19, [UH]’s
revenue was over $4 billion with an operating income of $402 million. Comparatively, [UH]’s FY20
revenue was $4.3 billion with a net income of $331 million (Participant #C01N25).

Leadership resilience
In situations of organizational crisis, effective leaders usually play critical roles in helping
employees overcome threats and decrease anxiety and fear. Leadership during the pandemic
was frequently observed to come from the TMT or managerial levels, but their operational
patterns were different. For example, TMTs act like military officers who dole out commands
via verbal communication. In contrast, managers behave as non-commissioned officers; they
closely engage with an operation and maintain direct contact with subordinates. In this light,
we identified TMTs’ visibility (Pak et al., 2016) as the first second-order theme, which reflects
TMTs’ efforts to maintain communication channels, more frequently communicate with
employees and share organizational directions (Waldman et al., 2001), as described in Table 2.
Two quotes below represent TMTs’ visibility.

First-Order Second-Order Aggregate

Representative Quotes
Concepts Themes Dimension

The amount and form of communication drastically changed during this period. Our meetings Maintenance in
converted to an all-virtual format to allow for social distancing. (Participant #C01N23) communication
channel

Since March 2020, I have actually noted an increase in communication from top managers. We
Increase in
have received emails from upper management frequently (daily to weekly) regarding the TMT's
communication
status/plans of the medical center... (Participant #C02N15) visibility

I feel like there has always been transparency regarding the status of the hospital, the severity of
Sharing of
COVID, and changes to procedures/protocols. I felt like a plan was typically in place and this
organizational
was generally well communicated. There was always someone [in TMT] to ask for clarification
directions
if any questions. (Participant #C01N36)

My middle managers… have emphasized employee safety and well-being from the start... They
have taken every precaution available to them and provided resources to ensure that we felt Individual Leadership
taken care of, whether that be physical absence due to illness or resources to promote well-being consideration resilience
and ensure our mental health needs were taken care of. (Participant #C01N36)

There was an overall feeling of "In the trenches" together with middle management. A higher
degree of advocacy for their staff and an understanding that we are all in this together battling a
Development of
common enemy and their support was necessary for success. This trickled down to my
group Manager's
colleagues… It instilled in each of us a feeling that will likely never leave any of us for the rest
cohesiveness visibility
of our lives... I was terrified every time I had to enter a room that this time would be the time I
got infected but it didn't deter me from my mission. (Participant #C02N20)

Throughout the pandemic, new leaders at the mid-level have emerged to take on significant
challenges... I have seen these leaders issue spot, delegate tasks, build camaraderie, develop
New leader
timelines, implement, and troubleshoot. What I have enjoyed watching is some very smart mid-
emergence
Table 2. level managers shine during these times and emerge as the future leaders of the [UH].
(Participant #C01N25)
Representative quotes:
leadership resilience Source(s): Authors work
 One big change from the top management team is they are now communicating much more with the A unified
entire hospital system as a result of the COVID pandemic (Participant #C02N09).
model of
Top managers (or their “behind the scenes” delegates) dramatically increased the amount of organizational
information shared with the entire Medical Center. [Dr. A – anonymized name] sends a daily COVID
update to all Medical Center employees. The University also sends out a daily emailed newsletter.
resilience
There was also increased transparency in inpatient numbers, the amount of cases, testing numbers,
etc. (Participant #C02N31).
103
In addition to TMTs’ visibility, we identified managers’ visibility as the next second-order
theme, which involves the managers’ endeavors to consider individualized needs (Huy, 2002;
Jansen et al., 2014), develop group cohesiveness and work in a hard but smart manner, as
illustrated in Table 2. The following quote reflects managers’ visibility.
Middle management had a change in their overall approach during the pandemic. It was more
common to see a middle manager on the units 7 days a week where this was not common before
(Participant #C02N20).
Incorporated in leadership resilience, which we identified as the second aggregate dimension,
TMTs’ and managers’ visibility helped employees reduce their fear, feelings of being
threatened and anxiety regarding uncertainty as a result of the pandemic. In doing so, TMTs
tried to frequently and transparently communicate with employees while frontline managers
attempted to empathize with subordinates, contribute to the building of “one team” and take
the lead as below:
The chief of surgery began having biweekly “All Hands Meetings” and invited infectious disease
experts and supply chain managers to give the surgical providers, residents, attendings and staff
updates on the current findings by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] and adopted policies by the
medical center in response to the pandemic . . . The team members I manage also tuned into the
virtual department of surgery “All Hands Meetings” and overall found the meetings to be very
informative and alleviated a lot of fears regarding the PPE [personal protective equipment] supply
chain (Participant #C01N23).
My primary observations during COVID are that top leaders are more visible, new leaders have
emerged from the middle management level, my colleagues are resilient, and I have grown
exponentially in experience and confidence (Participant #C01N25).

Operational resilience
The third dimension we identified was operational resilience. In confronting the pandemic,
one of the managerial interventions an organization could take is prompt change in HRM
practices (Bardoel et al., 2014; Coutu, 2002; Kendra and Wachtendorf, 2003; Weick, 1993).
Specifically, hospitals immediately froze recruitment and promotions planned even before the
pandemic, reorganized the physical environment to prevent employees and patients from
being infected and adopted job rearrangement and impromptu training programs.
We classified these activities into improvised changes in HRM, the first second-order
theme (see Table 3), as illustrated below.
There was an immediate rush to push out new policies/procedures for how to deal with the pandemic
(Participant #C02N09).
As the pandemic lasted longer than previously expected, long-run targeted changes in HRM
practices were adopted. Specifically, hospitals implemented new compensation and benefit
programs, such as “pandemic pay or leave,” ensured job security so that employees could
fully devote themselves to their jobs and created or tailored HR policies by adopting a new
timekeeping system or by lowering graduation requirements for medical students.
JOCM
37,1 Representative Quotes
First-Order
Concepts
Second-Order
Themes
Aggregate
Dimension

[The UH] froze all new administrative hiring (not directly related to patient care) and any planned Recruitment and
promotions in our department throughout the year of 2020. Positions that were open prior to the promotion
pandemic and in the interview process were put on hold. (Participant #C01N34) freeze

104 One of the biggest changes that was implemented was reorganizing the structure of the entire
medical center and designated floors – for example, considering the hospital was overflowing Reorganization
with COVID positive patients, they had to restructure where these patients went… There were so of physical
many moving parts with people, patients, and staff during this time to respond to the booming environment Improvised
COVID-19 patient population being admitted. (Participant #C01N28) change in
HRM

Our HR implemented a redeployment program. With all non-COVID-19 work paused, those whose Operational
work had suddenly come to a halt were redeployed to assist our associates in the care sites with resilience
clinical and non-clinical work such as elective surgery nurses being sent to COVID-19 units or
Job
administrative associates assisting in calling families of COVID-19 patients. (Participant
rearrangement
#C02N07)
and impromptu
Staff from certain nursing units were also up-trained to take on higher acuity patients. (Participant
training
#C02N20)
As a result of COVID we have had to make staffing changes including training people to work in
areas that they traditionally did not work. (Participant #C01N03)
The time to utilize benefit time was changed to allow staff to carry over more hours both ill time Adaptation of
and vacation time to the following calendar year. (Participant #C01N03) compensation
We did get the option of pandemic leave and pay for employees who tested positive for COVID and and benefit
had to take off work. (Participant #C01N28) programs

[The UH] also did not have to make a lot of staffing cuts so people’s job security was not at risk.
(Participant #C01N28) Assurance of
We were able to stay fully employed throughout the pandemic while other institutions had to job security
furlough their workforces for up to several months. (Participant #C02N09) Deliberate
change in
The Graduate Medical Education department at Ohio State passed what was titled as a “Stage 3 HRM
Pandemic Emergency Status.” What this means is that graduation requirements were relaxed in
an attempt to “have all hands on deck” to help out in the hospital. Therefore, people graduating
from residency this year did not have to meet the typical benchmarks previously established.
Creation or
This declaration was adopted by our department, and I believe by many programs throughout
tailoring of
the medical center, as the pandemic created unusual and unprecedented stressors on healthcare
requirements
providers, particularly resident physicians. (Participant #C01N36)
Table 3. HR ended up utilizing students from the Health Sciences colleges as a training mechanism and
Representative quotes: offering bonuses to join The Medical Center when they graduated, which could be a newer
practice. (Participant #C03N18)
operational resilience
(to be cont’d) Source(s): Authors work

We categorized these changes into deliberate change in HRM as the second second-order
theme. The quote below describes this:
The HR department initiated different methods to document the changes as a result the pandemic . . .
One primary focus of communication from HR revolved around accountability and documentation
for required quarantine related leave, virtual caretaking of patients while employees worked from
home and the need for employees to work from home with the closure of schools for dependent
children. Different codes were created for documentation through our timekeeping system and
surveys were sent to service line leaders to document the current status of the workforce whether in-
person or virtually from home via HR and in conjunction with hospital administration (Participant
#C01N23).
Two second-order themes, improvised and deliberate change in HRM, were grouped into the
third aggregate dimension of operational resilience. Operational resilience as a managerial
intervention often creates slack resources and promotes employee trust so that employees
can be fully committed to their jobs. The following quote illustrates the creation of
organizational slack.
The schedule change was a suggestion by one of the surgical line chief attendings as a means to
create a “bullpen.” If teammates were to fall ill we would have backup healthy individuals who
 could trade rotations and continue to provide staff for the surgical service line (Participant A unified
#C01N23).
model of
organizational
Individual resilience resilience
The last aggregate dimension we identified was individual resilience. Its first second-order
theme is individual-level dispositional readiness, which includes the Big Five personality
traits and emotional intelligence. As illustrated in Table 4, five personality attributes may 105
help an individual form individual resilience against the pandemic: conscientiousness and
openness to experience allows an individual to maintain their routine and to find creative
solutions; agreeableness and emotional stability help maintain strong social relationships
with colleagues; and finally, introversion increases productivity for those working from home
(Kahnweiler, 2009), but extroversion would be more helpful for productivity in the workplace
(Watson et al., 1992). Not surprisingly, a high level of emotional intelligence helps an
individual maintain good interpersonal relationships. Three representative illustrations
indicating dispositional readiness are presented below:

First-Order Second-Order Aggregate

Representative Quotes
Concepts Themes Dimension

One of the characteristics that resonates with me during the pandemic is openness to experience.
Openness to
During this time where normal routine was completely ruffled, it is important to be creative and
experience
opening to new ideas. (Participant #C01N28)

Personally for myself, being conscientious allowed myself to have a high standard of discipline
and organization. As discussed, things were constantly changing, and holding myself and work Conscien-
to a higher standard of being dependable and organized helped me get through the day to day tiousness
works struggles during the pandemic. (Participant # C01N28)

For those who are high in extraversion... I think the constraints of working from home have also
Introversion/
contributed to struggles with mental well-being. I think being isolated from others – especially
Extroversion
when you’re high in extraversion – makes it more difficult for you to be fulfilled at your work.
(case-by-case)
(Participant #C02N07)
Dispositional
Agreeableness worked well for me during the pandemic because there were many opportunities to readiness
volunteer to take on new roles on new workgroups with people I had never worked with — this Agreeableness
led to career development and confidence building. (Participant #C01N25)

My manager exemplified emotional stability during those chaotic times. She never showed any
negative thoughts or emotions toward our team, she was consistent and calm during meetings Emotional Individual
and stressful situations, and was secure with keeping us in the loop with team. (Participant stability resilience
#C01N28)

In the post-COVID outbreak nursing environment, it was extremely important to be aware of our
own emotions and handle interpersonal issues as empathetically as possible. It was an
Emotional
extremely high-stress, high intensity, and very fluid environment. To maintain appropriate
intelligence
interpersonal interactions, it was extremely important for myself and those around me to have
control of their emotions. (Participant #C02N20)
COVID-19 has provided me an opportunity to learn a great deal about myself, including my Occupational
passion for medicine, my devotion to my community, and my ability to be resilient in the face of calling
uncertainty. (Participant #C01N36)

At the beginning, when we’re all working around the clock to respond to COVID-19, we weren’t
paying attention to our resilience. There was so much work to be done quickly and most believed
that the situation wouldn’t last long. However, we all quickly learned that working this way Occupational
wasn’t sustainable and we faced burnout and work fatigue. After that, our managers began to persistence Work
emphasize mental resilience and maintaining work-life balance even if working from home. We meaning-
were encouraged to take mental breaks when needed. (Participant #C02N07) fulness

During the pandemic, healthcare workers were given a whole new appreciation for what they do
and I think it inspired a lot of students to pursue going into medicine. Frontline workers were
seen as, and essentially were, heroes over the past year and were given recognition and attention Occupational
that we haven’t seen in our lifetime. (Participant #C01N34) pride and
Through it all, I have found my voice and increased my confidence. I suspect that when I look back efficacy Table 4.
at this time period, the pandemic will be a pivotal time in my development as a leader and as a Representative quotes:
person. (Participant #C01N25)
individual resilience (to
Source(s): Authors work be cont’d)
JOCM One characteristic that these individuals possessed was conscientious . . . They put their heart and
soul into the COVID testing site making sure the process and employees were properly managed
37,1 (Participant #C02N19).
Openness to experience and emotional stability obviously would have been extremely successful
during the pandemic because of their creative ideas and flexibility to change as well as their calm,
well-adjusted personalities (Participant #C02N09).
106 [Her] leadership style includes emotional stability. Even when things at work are changing and
spiraling out of control, [she] remains calm and level headed. She doesn’t act rash or panicked. She
takes her time, thinks about the situation, considers all possible outcomes, seeks advice from the
team, and acts professionally. For example, when my coworkers and I were being asked to work at a
different facility, there was a lot of stress and anxiety. There were so many uncertainties and rumors
were starting to spread. She remained calm and talked to each individual coworker about their
thoughts regarding the situation and the best way to handle it. She brought a sense of peace to the
department and ensured everyone that everything would be okay and she would work to find a way
to ease the situation (Participant #C02N18).
Although resilient individuals inherently possess the dispositional readiness to cope with
crises, they could develop a strong attachment to their jobs or themselves during the
pandemic. We identified work meaningfulness as the second second-order theme of the last
aggregate dimension of individual resilience. We categorized occupational calling,
persistence, pride and efficacy into work meaningfulness. Two quotes describe this:
COVID-19 has provided me an opportunity to learn a great deal about myself, including my passion
for medicine, my devotion to my community, and my ability to be resilient in the face of uncertainty.
On weeks when I work over 100 hours, I have learned to step back and instead of reflect on how tired
I am, I have learned to be thankful for the opportunities I have and for the impact I am able to have on
the patient’s I am lucky enough to serve (Participant #C01N36).
Each day I came into work, I was proud to be a nurse and proud to be on the frontline in a fight
against an invisible enemy. I was terrified every time I had to enter a room that this time would be the
time I got infected but it didn’t deter me from my mission (Participant #C02N20).
In sum, we identified individual resilience as the last aggregate dimension by grouping
dispositional readiness and work meaningfulness into the same dimension at the individual
level; the first second-order theme indicates an individual’s inherent characteristics before the
pandemic, whereas the second denotes their efforts to develop positive sense-making
(Ciasullo et al., 2023) or acquired capabilities during the pandemic.

Theoretical integration: an emerging process of organizational resilience

Based on several attributes around organizational resilience (i.e. first-order concepts, second-
order themes and the aggregate dimensions we identified above), we developed a process
model with multi-level analysis. As depicted in Figure 2, we propose a theoretical model with
two dimensions: time and unit levels. Time denotes an emerging process of organizational
resilience, whereas unit levels indicate the analysis level in which a specific precursor
(attribute) affects the development of organization resilience.
Specifically, an individual’s dispositional readiness toward organizational resilience
already existed before the pandemic. When the pandemic broke out, employees and
organizations perceived crisis emergence in terms of financial performance and productivity.
Once organizations detected the pandemic, TMTs attempted to maintain communication
channels by replacing face-to-face meetings with virtual ones, increasing the frequency of
communication with employees and sharing information about the pandemic as well as
organizational directions so that they could prevent themselves from generating excessively
 A unified
model of
organizational
resilience

107

Figure 2.
A theoretical model of
organizational
resilience: integration
of attribute, process
and multi-level
perspectives

negative perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. Along with the TMTs’ visibility, managers also
tried to closely consider the needs of every subordinate and actively develop group
cohesiveness. In doing so, some future senior leaders might emerge.
Most of prior studies have suggested that leaders’ communication consistently performs
pivotal functions of assessing risk, correcting misinformation about the disaster, connecting
with individuals to let them know they are safe and confirming the status of the disaster
(Spialeck and Houston, 2018). In our multi-level framework, however, two different-level
leaders fulfilled paradox aspects of organizational resilience (Giustiniano et al., 2020).
Resilient organizations including resilient leadership should have a paradox capability
(e.g. optimistic but realistic at the same time) like ambidextrous organizations that pursue
both exploration and exploitation simultaneously. In our analysis, TMT and middle
managers share roles of different sides required in paradox leadership.
TMT typically maintains communication channel and increases its frequency in terms of
the cognitive aspect, demonstrating organizational capacity to successfully cope with the
crisis and providing constructive sense-making (Weick, 1988). In contrast, a middle manager
usually takes an affective role of communication, helping employees keep their emotion stable
and feel safe. Once both TMT’s and managers’ visibility were combined, leadership resilience
might emerge and operational resilience such as changes in HRM practices will follow, in turn.
Organizations adopted several improvised HRM practices by changing the existing ones
just after the outbreak of the pandemic. Later, as the pandemic lasted longer than their initial
expectations, organizational leaders implemented more deliberate changes to HR practices.
The organizational initiative to increase TMTs’ and managers’ visibility and to promote
changes in HRM practices could render an individual’s perceptions of work itself, which can
facilitate readiness to cope with the pandemic, meaningful. Ultimately, as a whole,
performance recovered and organizational resilience finally emerged.

Discussion
The present study investigated the emergence of organizational resilience during the
pandemic. Adopting a qualitative methodology with grounded theory, this work analyzed the
JOCM experiences of hospital employees who responded to the pandemic. We identified 25 first-
37,1 order concepts and 8 second-order themes and categorized them into 4 aggregate dimensions
at different unit levels: organizational field, leadership, operation and individual units. The
conceptualization showed how organizational resilience emerged and what organizational
qualities contributed to their emergence during the pandemic.

108 Aggregate dimensions of organizational resilience

The first aggregate dimension, manifestation of resilience, showed that regardless of threat,
there were drops, recovery and increases in revenue and productivity. This dimension
resonates with the expanded concept of resilience that an organization is able to not only cope
with a crisis but also prosper beyond recovery (Duchek, 2020; Hillmann and Guenther, 2021).
Thus, this finding confirms that our target organizations are representative cases of
organizational resilience, providing a grounded rationale that other aggregate dimensions
can be considered qualities (or attributes) leading to organizational resilience.
The second dimension we identified was leadership resilience. The important role of
leadership has been widely discussed in resilience research (e.g. Boin et al., 2013; Luthans and
Avolio, 2003; Southwick et al., 2017; Teo et al., 2017; Valero et al., 2015), but existing studies
failed to identify the different activities conducted by various leaders of organizations.
Dominant activities commonly revealed in both TMTs’ and managers’ visibility themes were
related to communication, which is considered one of the core activities in performing
organizational leadership (Ruben and Gigliotti, 2016) and one of pivotal elements constituting
a culture of HRO (Cantu et al., 2020). However, the two forms of visibility played somewhat
different roles in the emergence of leadership resilience. TMT leadership was primarily
observed when it attempted to present organizational purposes, strategic directions, values,
mission and vision, especially in a crisis characterized by high uncertainty (Waldman et al.,
2001). Compared to TMTs’ visibility, middle managers’ visibility was found when they tried
to interpret TMTs’ strategic decisions and take the role of counselors or coaches who pay
close attention to employees’ emotional well-being (Huy, 2002; Jansen et al., 2014) through
consideration of the individual and the development of group cohesiveness.
Considering the nature of resilience, the commonly shared but separately divided roles of
leadership between TMTs and middle managers were effective. Organizational resilience
often requires different managerial practices and roles; it has to anticipate future further
dynamic changes and prepare to respond to them while absorbing existing external threats
(De La Garza and Lot, 2022; Giustiniano et al., 2020; V€alikangas, 2010). In this light,
Giustiniano et al. (2020) called resilient leadership in the pandemic paradox work, which refers
to a contradictory task encompassing both preparation and reaction, stability and flexibility,
present and future, or autonomy and control. Although the balanced fulfillment of both forms
of visibility may be observed in a single resilient leader, TMTs and middle managers in our
sample struck a balance in their fulfillment of different leadership roles.
The third dimension, operational resilience, consists of two second-order themes:
improvised and deliberate changes in HRM, such as job rearrangement and the provision
of new compensation and benefits. These resilience-enhancing HRM practices may increase
employees’ psychological capital and thus improve organizational performance (Bardoel
et al., 2014). Not surprisingly, although some changes in HRM (e.g. recruitment freeze) could
be observed as a result of other crises, other changes (e.g. reorganization of the physical
environment) were newly adopted interventions as a result of the pandemic. In particular,
improvised change in HRM is very similar to the concept of improvisation, which has been
repeatedly emphasized in resilience research (Coutu, 2002; Kendra and Wachtendorf, 2003;
Weick, 1993). Therefore, operational resilience suggests that improvised and deliberate
changes in HRM practices are effective ways to cope with abrupt crises, such as pandemics.
Although there have been several calls for paper to reveal the roles of HR intervention A unified
overcoming environmental disruptions or capitalizing resilience (e.g. Cooper et al., 2014), none model of
of studies responding to those demands (e.g. Johannsdottir et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022; Kwong
et al., 2021; Minbaeva and Navrbjerg, 2023) have suggested two time-lagged – either
organizational
improvised or deliberate – categories of HRM practices with regard to the pandemic as a resilience
target phenomenon, to our knowledge.
The last aggregate dimension, individual resilience, involves individual differences in
terms of disposition (Big Five personality traits) and work attitude (work meaningfulness). 109
Interestingly, our results showed that highly introverted employees experienced increases in
productivity, but highly extroverted employees experienced decreases in productivity when
they worked from home. A higher extroversion score is generally associated with a strong
perception of well-being and high resilience (Oshio et al., 2018); in other words, extroverted
employees can benefit from working in the workplace because they are energized through
social interactions with others (Watson et al., 1992). Although the pandemic diminished
interpersonal contact and exacerbated feelings of loneliness and depression to a certain
degree, relatively introverted employees adapted well to the work-from-home situation. This
finding also implies that introversion is not necessarily a counterproductive disposition;
rather, it may be a dispositional strength that can help people overcome the pandemic.
Introverts have a tendency to develop their thoughts internally and prefer forming solid ideas
before sharing them with others (Kahnweiler, 2009). Many respondents with relatively high
introversion reported that they had a good time with family and personally developing
themselves while working from home.
The other second-order theme, work meaningfulness, also confirmed the previous
findings; an individual can become resilient by accepting harsh reality (Cotu, 2002; Mallack,
1998) and overcoming denial (Hamel and V€alikangas, 2003). A sense of meaningfulness
accompanies not only a perception of identity and purpose (Ishak and Williams, 2018;
McCann et al., 2009) but also learning experience and an increased ability to thrive, grow and
flourish despite adversity (Teo et al., 2017; Wildavsky, 1988; Williams et al., 2017). The
individual resilience dimension resonates with the previous findings that individual
resilience is an important part of psychological capital along with hope and optimism
(Luthans and Avolio, 2003) and works effectively during crises. Given that an individual is an
ultimate executor of organizational strategy, individual resilience is an important component
of organizational resilience, especially during the pandemic.

Theoretical contributions
The present study has the following theoretical contributions. First, with a large body of rich,
real-life illustrations from hospital employees, our inductive study is the first (to the best of
our knowledge) to reveal the emerging process of organizational resilience during the
pandemic. Considering that hospitals were the organizations most severely confronted by the
turmoil brought by the pandemic, our study could find important organizational resilience
factors specific to the pandemic. Although some resilience studies with regard to healthcare
institutions have been published during the pandemic, none of them delved into the emerging
process across the levels. For instance, Gr€oschke et al. (2022) highlighted the interdependence
between individual resilience and healthcare organizational resilience but overlooked cross-
level interactions. Denis et al. (2021) considered healthcare HRM as a multi-level governance
effort but didn’t investigate how to develop organizational resilience along different stages.
Second, this study makes a unique contribution to the resilience literature by proposing an
integrated theoretical model. As mentioned earlier, every extant study on organizational
resilience adopted one or two of the three perspectives of attribute, process, or multi-level
approaches. Isolating specific precursors to resilience at a certain level unit from those at
JOCM other units across time, we proposed a theoretical model incorporating all three views.
37,1 Furthermore, our study provides empirically vivid and rich evidence of the applicability of
the theoretical model of organizational resilience.
Finally, this study is the first to highlight the important roles of the HRM practices
adopted during the pandemic with empirical evidence. Employees are often psychologically
vulnerable to external disturbances. The most significant characteristic of the pandemic is
future uncertainty; we do not know when it will end or where it will direct us. Defined as a lack
110 of information or knowledge about a situation, uncertainty is considered a major cognitive
and psychological stressor that renders an individual helpless (Greco and Roger, 2003).
Although organizational resilience emerges through the collective interactions among
multiple factors, ultimately, the actions necessary to keep an organization alive must be
performed by employees who are motivated by effective HRM practices (Lengnick-Hall et al.,
2011). Additionally, even though some prior studies highlighted the importance of HRM
practices in a crisis (e.g. Bardoel et al., 2014; N€aswall et al., 2019), they presented little empirical
evidence. Conversely, the current study is the first to provide empirical evidence that
improvised and deliberate changes in HRM might be effective in overcoming the pandemic.

Practical implications
This study has some practical implications. First, the results indicate that individuals in their
respective units should keep their own role perceptions and expectations in mind (Robbins
and Judge, 2021). In a broad context, this study supports Linnenluecke’s (2017) claim that a
resilient organization is a system where different-level entities (i.e. individuals, teams and
organizations) coordinate with each other to build a resilient organization. Thus, coordination
among different players is considered essential. Specifically, our results suggest that TMTs
should persistently communicate with employees to provide information about the current
crisis state and clear strategic directions to reduce employees’ fear and prevent anomie
stemming from future uncertainty. In addition, middle managers should not only be
concerned about employees’ physical safety from infection and psychological safety from
isolation, but they should also encourage employees to elicit meaningfulness from their work.
More importantly, TMTs and HR staff must revise HRM practices so that employees can
perform their roles in more flexible ways and develop optimistic attitudes. At the beginning of
the pandemic, TMTs’ and managers’ visibility may help employees maintain their routine.
However, if a pandemic lasts longer than expected, employees may become psychologically
exhausted and TMTs’ and managers’ efforts can become less effective. If an organization
provides improvised HR practices in the early stages of a crisis and more deliberate HR
practices later, employee motivation may persist consistently longer.

Limitations
Despite several theoretical contributions and practical implications, the present study has
several limitations. First, the present study could not elucidate the ultimate effects of
organizational resilience because the pandemic is ongoing. Future post-pandemic studies
may be able to confirm our findings, as most previous studies were conducted in a
retrospective way. However, we believe that this study provides many valuable insights that
can help organizations prepare and cope timely with an imminent crisis like the COVID-19
pandemic.
Second, our samples were limited in terms of numbers and scope because we focused on
the hospitals. Yet, the use of a hospital sample can be evaluated as a valuable contribution to
the resilience literature. People working in the medical sector are most keenly exposed to
threats from the pandemic, as their jobs deal with life and death. Thus, responses from those
working in hospitals provide valuable data for resilience research on the pandemic. However,
future research on other organizational fields, such as the manufacturing and service A unified
industries, can reconfirm our theoretical model with higher generalizability. model of
Finally, we witnessed that introversion, often perceived as less advantageous in certain
work environments, can paradoxically be a good asset in the pandemic. Due to the small
organizational
number of cases, we did not further analyze this phenomenon. However, our findings imply that resilience
the pandemic should be considered neither solely a threat nor an opportunity. Instead, scholars
and practitioners can develop an open attitude toward “destructive innovation” (Christensen
et al., 2006) during a pandemic. This finding calls for future research that can further highlight 111
the importance of a fit between some individual factors and a specific crisis type.

Conclusions
The COVID-19 pandemic, an ongoing and unpredictable crisis, has posed unprecedented
challenges globally. However, throughout history, humans have consistently showcased
remarkable resilience, successfully navigating through countless crises and disasters. This
enduring ability to overcome adversity serves as the most compelling and tangible proof of
human resilience. Our study presented vivid cases in which both individuals and organizations
are resilient agents who can survive and even find various ways to prosper regardless of
detrimental challenges. Resilience research fundamentally seeks to uncover and highlight
human strengths. We believe that the present study can offer valuable insights for both
researchers and practitioners in understanding and reinforcing the innate resilience of humans.

References
Ashmos, D.P. and Huber, G.P. (1987), “The systems paradigm in organization theory: correcting the
record and suggesting the future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 607-621.
Bardoel, E.A., Pettit, T.M., De Cieri, H. and McMillan, L. (2014), “Employee resilience: an emerging
challenge for HRM”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 52, pp. 279-297.
Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2010), “Perceiving and responding to challenges in job
crafting at different ranks: when proactivity requires adaptivity”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 158-186.
Blustein, D.L., Duffy, R., Ferreira, J.A., Cohen-Scali, V., Cinamon, G.C. and Allan, B.A. (2020),
“Unemployment in the time of COVID-19: a research agenda”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 119, pp. 103-436.
Boin, A. and van Eeten, M.J.G. (2013), “The resilient organization”, Public Management Review, Vol. 15,
pp. 429-445.
Brumback, G.B. (2009), “Managing the unexpected: resilient performance in an age of uncertainty”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 646-652.
Burnard, K. and Bhamra, R. (2011), “Organizational resilience: development of a conceptual
framework for organizational responses”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49,
pp. 5581-5599.
Buzzao, G. and Rizzi, F. (2023), “The role of dynamic capabilities for resilience in pursuing business
continuity: an empirical study”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 34,
pp. 1353-1385.
Cantu, J., Tolk, J., Fritts, S. and Gharehyakheh, A. (2020), “High Reliability Organization (HRO)
systematic literature review: discovery of culture as a foundational hallmark”, Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 28, pp. 399-410.
Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R. and Sadtler, T.M. (2006), “Disruptive innovation for social
change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, p. 94.
JOCM Chung, G.H. and Choi, J.N. (2018), “Innovation implementation as a dynamic equilibrium: emergent
processes and divergent outcomes”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 43, pp. 999-1036.
37,1
Ciasullo, M.V., Calabrese, M. and La Sala, A. (2023 In press), “Surfing across industrial revolutions: a
resilient sensemaking perspective on innovation”, Global Business and Organizational
Excellence.
Cooper, C.L., Liu, Y. and Tarba, S.Y. (2014), “Resilience, HRM practices and impact on organizational
performance and employee well-being”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
112 Vol. 25, pp. 2466-2471.
Coutu, D.L. (2002), “How resilience works”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, pp. 46-51.
Crichton, M.T., Ramsay, C.G. and Kelly, T. (2009), “Enhancing organizational resilience through
emergency planning: learnings from cross-sectoral lessons”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 24-37.
De La Garza, C. and Lot, N. (2022), “The socio-organizational and human dynamics of resilience in a
hospital: the case of the COVID-19 crisis”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
Vol. 30, pp. 244-256.
Denis, J.L., C^ote, N., Fleury, C., Currie, G. and Spyridonidis, D. (2021), “Global health and innovation: a
panoramic view on health human resources in the COVID-19 pandemic context”, The
International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Vol. 36, pp. 58-70.
DesJardine, M., Bansal, P. and Yang, Y. (2019), “Bouncing back: building resilience through social and
environmental practices in the context of the 2008 global financial crisis”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 45, pp. 1434-1460.
Duchek, S. (2014), “Growth in the face of crisis: the role of organizational resilience capabilities”,
Academy of Management Proceedings.
Duchek, S. (2020), “Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization”, Business Research,
Vol. 13, pp. 215-246.
Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (2008), “Working with pluralism: determining
quality in qualitative research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, pp. 419-429.
Filby, M. (2020a), “As coronavirus surged, Ohio hospitals lost billions in revenue”, The Columbus
Dispatch, available at: https://www.dispatch.com/story/lifestyle/health-fitness/2020/07/20/as-
coronavirus-surged-ohio-hospitals-lost-billions-in-revenue/112310816/ (accessed August 2023).
Filby, M. (2020b), “Ohio reports record new COVID-19 cases as hospitals struggle to keep up with
virus surge”, The Columbus Dispatch, available at: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2020/
11/23/dewine-ohio-hospital-leaders-provide-covid-19-update-monday/6389938002/ (accessed
August 2023).
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16, pp. 15-31.
Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006), “Relationships, layoffs and organizational
resilience: airline responses to crisis of September 11th”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 42, pp. 300-329.
Giustiniano, L., Cunha, M.P., Simpson, A.V., Rego, A. and Clegg, S. (2020), “Resilient leadership as
paradox work: notes from COVID-19”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 16,
pp. 971-975.
Greco, V. and Roger, D. (2003), “Uncertainty, stress, and health”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 34, pp. 1057-1068.
Gr€oschke, D., Hofmann, E., M€uller, N.D. and Wolf, J. (2022), “Individual and organizational resilience:
insights from healthcare providers in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 1-17.
Hamel, G. and V€alikangas, L. (2003), “The quest for resilience”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81,
pp. 52-63.
Hartmann, S., Weiss, M., Newman, A. and Hoegl, M. (2020), “Resilience in the workplace: a multilevel A unified
review and synthesis”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 913-959.
model of
Hillmann, J. and Guenther, E. (2021), “Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management
research?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 23, pp. 7-44.
organizational
Holmes, D. (2021), Many Ohio Hospitals Reaching Capacity with COVID-19 Patients, WOSU News,
resilience
available at: https://news.wosu.org/coronavirus/2021-08-25/many-ohio-hospitals-reaching-
capacity-with-covid-19-patients (accessed August 2023).
113
Horne, J.F. and Orr, J.E. (1998), “Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations”, Employment
Relations Today, Vol. 24, pp. 29-39.
Huy, Q.N. (2002), “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the
contribution of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 31-69.
Ishak, A.W. and Williams, E.A. (2018), “A dynamic model of organizational resilience: adaptive and
anchored approaches”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 180-196.
Jansen, M., Rensburg, V., Davis, A. and Venter, P. (2014), “Making strategy work: the role of the
middle manager”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 20, pp. 165-186.
Johannsdottir, L., Cook, D., Kendall, S., Latapı, M. and Chambers, C. (2022), “Human resource
management and institutional resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study from the
Westfjords of Iceland”, Sustainability, Vol. 14, pp. 1-18.
Jones, L., Brown, D. and Palumbo, D. (2020), “Coronavirus: a visual guide to the economic impact”,
BBC News, available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51706225 (accessed 3 April 2023)
Kahnweiler, J.B. (2009), The Introverted Leader: Building on Your Quiet Strength, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Kendra, J.M. and Wachtendorf, T. (2003), “Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center disaster:
reconstituting New York City’s emergency operations center”, Disasters, Vol. 27, pp. 7-53.
Kim, S., Vaiman, V. and Sanders, K. (2022), “Strategic human resource management in the era of
environmental disruptions”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 61, pp. 283-293.
Kwong, C., Demirbag, M., Wood, G. and Cooke, F.L. (2021), “Human resource management in the
context of high uncertainties”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 32, pp. 3569-3599.
La Sala, A., Fuller, R.P. and Calabrese, M. (2022), “From war to change, from resistance to resilience:
vicariance, bricolage and exaptation as new metaphors to frame the post COVID-19 era”,
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 113-129.
La Sala, A., Iandolo, F., Mohiya, M., Farronato, N. and Caputo, F. (2023 In press), “Unfolding resilience
in digital platforms from a microfoundations perspective”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011), “Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 243-255.
Linnenluecke, M.K. (2017), “Resilience in business and management research: a review of influential
publications and a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19, pp. 4-30.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A. and Winn, M. (2012), “Extreme weather events and the critical
importance of anticipatory adaptation and organizational resilience in responding to impacts”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21, pp. 17-32.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B. (2003), “Authentic leadership development”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E.
and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 241-258.
Malik, A. and Sanders, K. (2021), “Managing human resources during a global crisis: a multilevel
perspective”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 32, pp. 917-1455.
JOCM Mallak, L. (1998), “Putting organizational resilience to work”, Industrial Management, Vol. 40, pp. 8-13.
37,1 Malterud, K. (2001), “Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines”, The Lancet,
Vol. 358, pp. 483-488.
Markman, G.M. and Venzin, M. (2014), “Resilience: lessons from banks that have braved the economic
crisis and from those that have not”, International Business Review, Vol. 23, pp. 1096-1107.
McCann, J., Selsky, J. and Lee, J. (2009), “Building agility, resilience and performance in turbulent
114 environments”, People and Strategy, Vol. 32, pp. 44-51.
Meyer, A. (1983), “Adapting to environmental jolts”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 515-537.
Minbaeva, D.B. and Navrbjerg, S.E. (2023 In press), “Strategic human resource management in the
context of environmental crises: a COVID-19 test”, Human Resource Management.
Mohr, L.B. (1982), Explaining Organizational Behavior, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A. (1999), “The structure and function of collective constructs:
implications for multilevel research and theory development”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24, pp. 249-265.
N€aswall, K., Malinen, S., Kuntz, J. and Hodliffe, M. (2019), “Employee resilience: development and
validation of a measure”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 353-367.
Ohio Department of Health (2020), “Elective surgeries postponed in Ohio hospitals”, available at:
https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/electiveþsurgeries-postponed-in-ohio-
hospitals#:∼:text5(COLUMBUS%2C%20Ohio)%E2%80%94Ohio,healthcare%20workers%
20and%20first%20responders (accessd August 2023).
Oshio, A., Taku, K., Hirano, M. and Saeed, G. (2018), “Resilience and Big Five personality traits: a
meta-analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 127, pp. 54-60.
O’Reilly, K., Paper, D. and Marx, S. (2012), “Demystifying grounded theory for business research”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 15, pp. 247-262.
Pak, J., Chung, G.H., Kim, S. and Choi, J.N. (2016), Sources and Consequences of HRM Gap: The Korean
Experience, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Charleston.
Powley, E.H. (2013), “The process and mechanisms of organizational healing”, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 49, pp. 42-68.
Pratt, M.G. (2008), “Fitting oval pegs into round holes: tensions in evaluating and publishing
qualitative research in top-tier North American journals”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 11, pp. 481-509.
Raetze, S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M.T. and Kirkman, B.L. (2021), “Resilience in organizations: an
integrative multilevel review and editorial introduction”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 46, pp. 607-656.
Rerup, C. (2001), “‘Houston we have a problem’: anticipation and improvisation as sources of
organizational resilience”, Comportamento Organizacional e Gesto, Vol. 7, pp. 21-44.
Riolli, L. and Savicki, V. (2003), “Information system organizational resilience”, Omega, Vol. 31,
pp. 227-233.
Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2021), Organizational Behavior, 18th ed., Pearson, NY.
Ruben, B.D. and Gigliotti, R.A. (2016), “Leadership as social Influence: an expanded view of leadership
communication theory and practice”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 23,
pp. 467-479.
Shin, J., Taylor, M.S. and Seo, M.G. (2012), “Resources for change: the relationships of organizational
inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward
organizational change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, pp. 727-748.
Southwick, F.S., Martini, B.L., Charney, D.S. and Southwick, S.M. (2017), “Leadership and resilience”,
in Marques, J. and Dhiman, S. (Eds), Leadership Today, Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland, pp. 315-333.
Spialek, M.L. and Houston, J.B. (2018), “The development and initial validation of the citizen disaster A unified
communication assessment”, Communication Research, Vol. 45, pp. 934-955.
model of
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
organizational
Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T.J. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, in Positive Organizational resilience
Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds),
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 94-110.
Tasic, J., Amir, S., Tan, J. and Khader, M. (2020), “A multilevel framework to enhance organizational 115
resilience”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 23, pp. 713-738.
Teague, P. and Roche, W.K. (2014), “Recessionary bundles: HR practices in the Irish economic crisis”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 176-192.
Teo, W.L., Lee, M. and Lim, W.S. (2017), “The relational activation of resilience model: how leadership
activates resilience in an organizational crisis”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 136-147.
Valero, J.N., Jung, K. and Andrew, S.A. (2015), “Does transformational leadership build resilient public
and nonprofit organizations?”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 24, pp. 4-20.
V€alikangas, L. (2010), The Resilient Organization: How Adaptive Cultures Thrive Even When Strategy
Fails, McGraw Hill Professional, NY.
Van Der Vegt, G.S.P., Wahlstrom, E.M. and George, G. (2015), Managing Risk and Resilience, Academy
of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J. and Puranam, P. (2001), “Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 134-143.
Waller, M.J. and Roberts, K.H. (2003), “High reliability and organizational behavior: finally the twain
must meet”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 813-814.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., McIntyre, C.W. and Hamaker, S. (1992), “Affect, personality, and social
activity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 1011-1025.
Weick, K.E. (1988), “Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 25, pp. 305-317.
Weick, K.E. (1993), “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 628-652.
Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007), Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of
Uncertainty, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Wildavsky, A.B. (1988), Searching for Safety, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, Vol. 10.
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A. and Zhao, E.Y. (2017), “Organizational
response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research streams”, Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. 11, pp. 733-769.
Yin, R.K. (2011), Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Goo Hyeok Chung can be contacted at: ghchung@dongguk.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats