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

net/publication/364224713

Exploring entrepreneurship resilience capabilities during Armageddon: a

qualitative study

Article in International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · October 2022

DOI: 10.1108/IJEBR-03-2022-0293

CITATIONS READS

3 197

3 authors, including:

Julian Fares Sami Sadaka

The University of Sydney Lebanese American University
6 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Networks and Perception of Care View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julian Fares on 07 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2554.htm

Exploring entrepreneurship Resilience

capabilities
resilience capabilities during during
Armageddon
Armageddon: a qualitative study
Julian Fares
Department of Management Studies, Lebanese American University,
Beirut, Lebanon Received 23 March 2022
Revised 12 August 2022
Sami Sadaka Accepted 19 September 2022

Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon, and

Jihad El Hokayem
Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon and
American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Abstract
Purpose – During disturbances and unprecedented events, firms are required to be resilient to confront crises,
recover from losses, and even capitalize on new opportunities. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to examine
how different types of capabilities (routine, dynamic or ad hoc) steer an entrepreneurial firm into ecological,
engineering and evolutionary resilience and (2) to identify strategic activities that are deployed by firms with
different capabilities to achieve resilience.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were gathered using structured qualitative interviews with 26
entrepreneurial resilient firms that managed to survive a multitude of coinciding crises.
Findings – The findings show that each type of capability enhances the ability to achieve a specific resilience
outcome: ad hoc capability for partial engineering resilience, routine capability for ecological resilience and
dynamic capability for evolutionary resilience. Furthermore, ad hoc capabilities are shown to be favored when
firms’ losses are severe. In contrast, routine and dynamic capabilities are preferred when losses are mild. The
most significant capability deployment activities related to building resilience are corporate strategic changes,
global export strategy, cost reduction, stakeholder support, positive mindset, fund raising, network building,
product development, efficiency improvement and restructuring. These activities are segregated based on
capability and resilience types.
Practical implications – Practitioners are encouraged to cast off limiting assumptions and beliefs that firms
are conditioned to fail when faced with unprecedented crises. This study provides an integrative portfolio of
capabilities and activities as a toolbox that can be used by different entrepreneurs and policy makers to achieve
resilience and better performance.
Originality/value – The paper undertakes a first of its kind empirical examination of the association
between capabilities and resilience. The context is unique as it involves a multitude of coinciding
crises including Covid-19 pandemic, city explosion, economic collapse, political instability and a severe
banking crisis.
Keywords Resilience, Entrepreneurship, Capabilities, Crisis, Hierarchical capability
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
During turbulent times, firms are required to develop resilience capabilities to ensure
survivability and continuity. Resilience, commonly known as an inherent characteristic to
persevere and bounce back during adversity (Linnenluecke, 2017; Renko et al., 2021), has been
considered as an inevitable determinant of entrepreneurship success during unexpected events
(Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Callegari and Feder, 2021; Protogerou et al., 2022). Resilient International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
The authors would like to thank Andre Abi Awad - Founder of Entreprenergy, for his assistance in the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
participant recruitment and data collection process. His contribution is highly acknowledged. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-03-2022-0293
IJEBR entrepreneurial firms are able to anticipate, absorb and recover from internal and external
shocks while pursuing their strategic objectives (Witmer, 2019; Harries et al., 2018; Barasa et al.,
2018). However, achieving resilience requires specific entrepreneurial capabilities (Duchek,
2020), described as the firm’s ability to utilize an integrated set of processes, resources,
knowledge and skills to execute specific activities that address the requirements of a changing
environment (Winter, 2012; Felin et al., 2012; Fares et al., 2019).
Indeed, resilience building requires the proper utilization of a set of capabilities and processes
for different detrimental events at different intervals (Manfield and Newey, 2017; Autio et al.,
2011; Duchek, 2020; Fares et al., 2021; Corner et al., 2017). However, the two research areas of
capabilities and resilience are still progressing concurrently, but independently, despite
scholarly attempts to reach a complementary theorization. This led several authors to propose
conceptual frameworks that link different types of capabilities with different resilience
outcomes, while at the same time calling for further empirical findings that clarify these
associations (Manfield and Newey, 2017; Adobor and Mcmullen, 2018; Duchek, 2020). Despite
the aforementioned studies on resilience, it is not clear what capabilities entrepreneurial firms
should have, and what they should do in order to achieve resilience (Duit, 2016; Linnenluecke,
2017). Therefore, this study fills this gap in literature by empirically examining the inherent
relationship between resilience and capabilities in the context of a turbulent environment.
This study considers resilience as a desirable state that can be achieved, dissected into
multifaceted outcomes: ecological resilience, a conservative approach where firms maintain their
current order using a defensive responses (Limnios et al., 2014), engineering resilience where
firms are able to return to a previous state (Boin and Van Eeten, 2013), and evolutionary
resilience where firms capitalize on new opportunities and evolve into a new state (Ortiz-de-
Mandojana and Bansal, 2016; Williams et al., 2017; Redman, 2014). Given that firms require
capabilities to achieve resilience, this study reviews three distinct types of capabilities known to
the vast literature as routine capabilities – repetitive daily operational practices; dynamic
capabilities – fast and adaptive solutions to operations; or ad hoc capabilities – an instant
solution with no drastic changes in performance (Manfield and Newey, 2017; Ilmudeen et al.,
2020; Jeng and Pak, 2016; P
aez et al., 2022). Despite the growing research on capabilities, less
attention has been paid on how capabilities are transformed into activities that lead to resilience,
a notion defined in this study as “capability deployment activities” (Autio et al., 2011; Piening,
2013). These activities are considered part of a firm’s capabilities and involve strategies,
decisions and tactics that are deployed to respond to disturbances. Therefore, further research is
required to provide insights into the different activities that underlie each type of capability
(Duchek, 2020). Accordingly, this study sets forward two research questions:
RQ1. How are different types of capabilities (routine, dynamic and ad hoc) associated
with resilience outcomes (engineering, ecological and evolutionary) during crises?
RQ2. What are the deployment activities that underlie each type of capability?
For that aim, Lebanon is chosen as the unique research context which has witnessed the
coinciding occurrence of a multitude of crises. A qualitative analysis has been conducted on 26
entrepreneurial firms that managed to survive a series of recent coinciding crises such as Covid-
19 pandemic, Beirut Port explosion, economic collapse, political instability and a severe banking
crisis. These firms have also experienced previous crises such as, inter alia, the 2006 Lebanese
war, assassination of political figures, fire, etc. It is important for entrepreneurial companies to
understand their specific capabilities at hand that can help them achieve a certain resilience state
to survive during crisis. The paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding
resilience phenomena and its underlying capability mechanism, as a first step towards building
the entrepreneurship resilience repertoire. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First,
this study introduces the concept of resilience and elaborates on its three main dimensions:
ecological, engineering and revolutionary. This is followed by a brief explanation of routine, Resilience
dynamic and ad hoc capabilities. A theoretical model depicting the relationships between the capabilities
different variables is presented. Third, the methodology is presented involving participant
recruitment and data collection process, where this study relied on structured qualitative
during
interviews. Fourth, the findings of the study are presented outlining the relationship between Armageddon
different types of capabilities and resilience and associated capability deployment activities.
Finally, the findings and theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

2. Resilience
The concept “resilience” is not exclusive to organizational studies where it first notably appeared
in ecological literature (Westman, 1986). It was not until the 1990s when the concept was first
included in organizational studies and was defined as “a fundamental quality to respond
productively to significant change that disrupts the expected pattern of event without engaging
in an extended period of regressive behavior” (Horne, 1997). Despite the steady dissemination of
resilience in organizational studies, its conceptualization is still in its infancy where it has
different interpretations and lacks an all-inclusive framework (Duchek, 2020). As a result,
various definitions emerged (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2012; Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal,
2016; Boin and Van Eeten, 2013), however, this study adopts the definition of Lengnick-Hall et al.
(2011), that is, a “firm’s ability to effectively absorb, develop situation-specific responses to, and
ultimately engage in transformative activities to capitalize on disruptive surprises that
potentially threaten organization survival”. Organization resilience literature has
unsystematically expanded due to the lack of universal consensus among resilience scholars
(Linnenluecke, 2017), where each developed their own definition and conceptualization.
Therefore, it is generally agreed that the conceptualization of resilience has undertaken three
approaches: (1) resilience as a capability mechanism and (2) resilience as a developed process and
(3) resilience as an outcome (Duchek, 2020).
With respect to resilience as a capability mechanism, studies in this context mainly focus on
understanding how firms develop capabilities for achieving resilience (Parker and Ameen, 2018),
with less attention on unpacking the underling dimensions of resilience. Under this perspective,
both resilience and capability are conceptualized from a resource based view, where Van Der
Vegt et al. (2015) describes a firm’s resilience as the interaction of resources and capabilities to
achieve specific performance outcomes. Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) goes one step further and
capitalizes on human resource management as a predecessor for achieving resilience. By
studying SMEs in the manufacturing industry, Ismail et al. (2011) demonstrated that resilience is
a product of operational and strategic development. Recently, Parker and Ameen (2018) argued
that firms should possess four capabilities in order to become resilient which are: resource
configuration, risk management implementation, disturbance awareness and risk contingency.
Overall, resilience under this scheme is conceptualized as a dormant, path-dependent outcome of
enacted capabilities (Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal, 2016), and therefore, research in this area
provides comprehensive insights into the internal functionality and development of resilience
(Duchek, 2020). However, none of the above studies have paid significant attention to how ad
hoc, routine and dynamic capabilities might be related to resilience, considering the latest as a
desirable state (outcome) that can be achieved with multifaceted dimensions.
Another stream of research, yet very scarce, looks beyond capabilities and focuses on
resilience as a process. Here, scholars argue that resilience cannot be solely based on good
outcomes (Sutcliffe, 2003), but should also be viewed as a series of sequential phases that
firms have to undergo to become resilient, and involves anticipation, disclosure, recovery,
aftershock and conversion (Linnenluecke et al., 2012), whereby the phases of recovery and
aftershock reflect resilience. On the other hand, Burnard and Bhamra (2011) proposed a three
step resilience process driven by threat identification and treatment and involve detection,
IJEBR resilience-based responses and knowledge enhancement. Another process approach
emphasized on resilience improvement through three constructs: building situational
realization, addressing areas of weakness and enhancing adaptability (Mcmanus et al., 2008).
More recently, Williams et al. (2017) described resilience process as “the dynamic nature of
resilience as an interaction between the organization and the environment”. That said,
resilience should be conceptualized as a response mechanism not only after unexpected
events, but during and at pre and post phases as well (Williams et al., 2017; Alliger et al., 2015).
Building on this perspective and based on the arguments provided, Duchek (2020) recently
revolutionized the resilience literature by incorporating “resilience as a capability
mechanism” into “resilience as a process” decomposed into different phases of an
unexpected event. More specifically, she suggested a three stage resilience process
(anticipation, coping and adaptation) where each phase is underlined by certain
capabilities. Inspired by several studies (Somers, 2009; Ferreira et al., 2017; de Oliveira
Teixeira and Werther, 2013), Duchek stated that the anticipation phase involves the
capabilities of analyzing development internal and external to the firm, identifying upcoming
threats and preparing for the disturbances. The coping phase involves the capabilities of
accepting the problem and developing and implementing solutions (Madni and Jackson, 2009;
Catalan and Robert, 2011) while the adaptation phase involves documenting lessons learned
and conducting required changes (Limnios et al., 2014; Lindberg et al., 2010; Gressg ard and
Hansen, 2015). In summary, it is evident that there has been scholarly advancement to unfold
the concept of resilience from different perspectives, however, existing studies have
overlooked the earliest works that dissect capabilities into ad hoc, routine and dynamic
approaches, and how they aid firms into achieving one of the multifaceted forms of resilience
(ecological, engineering, evolutionary). This study aims to bridge this research gap.
Most studies have framed resilience as an outcome, or in other words, a state that can be
achieved, indicating that organizations strive to become resilient by using their own resources,
capabilities, processes and characteristics (Weick, 1993; Gittell et al., 2006; Kendra and
Wachtendorf, 2003). This notion stems from early works that considered resilience as a
measurement of recovery performance during crisis (Horne and Orr, 1998). Accordingly, many
studies developed scales to measure resilience in relation to certain behaviors that are considered
appropriate and to strategic goals that have been achieved (Mallak, 1998; Somers, 2009). These
include risk avoidance, access to critical resources, strategic problem solving, strategic alliances
and other strategies (Reinmoeller and Van Baardwijk, 2005; Carmeli and Markman, 2011). The
large body of research that considers resilience as an outcome, which is the focus of this study,
has reached a common observation that there are three main resilience states that organizations
can achieve, described briefly as ecological resilience – the ability to maintain order by using a
defense response mechanism; engineering resilience – the ability to bounce back to a previous
state; and evolutionary resilience – the ability to bounce forward towards a refined and
exploratory state. The section that follows reviews literature on each type.

2.1 Ecological resilience

Ecosystems have long been an exploratory field for studying the nature of resilience
(Westman, 1986), which invited many researchers to consider the concept of “ecological
resilience”, known as the ability of organizations and systems to absorb the maximum
disturbance before losing function and control, and shifting to a less desirable state (Li et al.,
2018; Brock et al., 2000). Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011, p. 244) stated “the emphasis is generally on
coping strategies and a quick ability to resume expected performance levels”. In other words,
resilience takes the form of a “strategic defense” to the disturbances of a system in order to
remain within some critical threshold (Limnios et al., 2014).
An important concept in ecological resilience is functional diversity, which refers to
having different responses to disturbances initiated by the different actors of a firm that all
contribute to performing the same function (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). In this case, the Resilience
firm can continue its operations despite the failure of some actors, as they will be capabilities
compensated by others (Adobor and Mcmullen, 2018). Resilience, in its general sense, implies
the possibility of returning to a pre-disruption conditions or change towards growth.
during
However, organizations that are ecologically resilient embrace flexibility, adaptability, self- Armageddon
organization, stability and survival, which are all relevant for entrepreneurial firms (Haider
et al., 2021). With respect to flexibility, it is the ability of a firm to rapidly respond to internal
and external changes (Garavelli, 2003) by means of having excess capacity and safety stocks
(Azadegan et al., 2013) that can be related for instance to manufacturing, design, common
parts, logistics and information system (Pettit et al., 2013; Christopher and Holweg, 2011). For
example, companies that had excess capabilities and flexible processes were able to maintain
operations after the 2011 Japanese tsunami than their counterparts (Marchese et al., 2012).
Finally, adaptability can build resilience through adaptive management strategies that
involve repetitive decision making based on sense making (Weick, 1988). In this case,
managers rely on existing and emerging information to make appropriate decisions and
evaluate their effectiveness (Decaro et al., 2017). Preventing the change of a current state
requires a prior assessment and profound knowledge of variables that might change during
turbulent events, where this can precipitate human interventions that can eliminate or at least
reduce adverse consequences (Rocha et al., 2015; Anderies et al., 2013). Firms should cope with
risks, process information, and anticipate future scenarios while skillfully deploying a set of
resources in an adaptive manner, thereby managing to remain in their current state.

2.2 Engineering resilience

There is a clear difference between ecological and engineering resilience, as noted by Holling
(1996), where the latest emphasizes the ability and rapidity of a system to bounce back to
normal conditions following perturbation (Gallop
ın, 2006). According to Ruhl (2010), the
aspects of engineering resilience are “reliability, efficiency, quality control and similar
strategies” to regain the traditional parameters in which conditions operate in, thereby
achieving steadiness and stability. Stability is also an essential aspect of ecological resilience
where it focuses on the existence of operation, but differs from engineering resilience which is
related to the efficiency of operations (Holling, 1996, p. 33). Resources and objectives might be
wiped out during crisis, but the efficiency of operations enables firms to bounce back. Such
conditions are familiar to entrepreneurial firms that experience the peaks and troughs of a
business venture, provided that these disturbances are not powerful enough to change the
strategic direction. However, in many cases, disturbances of high magnitude can obstruct
firms’ operations and direction to a large extent, leading to a change in business models and
an exploration of new markets and opportunities, which is an outcome shift akin to
evolutionary resilience perspective (Manfield and Newey, 2017).
Achieving engineering resilience requires a number of effective tools and capabilities such
as contingency planning, postponement strategy and business continuity planning. First,
contingency planning is part of risk analysis and serves as an early warning system for firms
to foresee potential disruptions, determine its likelihood and impact and develop responses to
mitigate the consequences (Sheffi, 2015; Pettit et al., 2013). Firms with such capability will
have an early advantage in absorbing and managing disruptions and implementing recovery
and restoration plans to rapidly recover (Ambulkar et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2010). Second,
firms can reduce risk and cost by applying a postponement strategy which focuses on
addressing urgent demand and delaying product customization to the last minute
(Algeddawy and Elmaraghy, 2012). Postponements can be made to delivery, packaging,
manufacturing, customer service and time (Swaminathan and Tayur, 1998). Third, the
process of returning to a previous state becomes easier when firms are supported by the
essential suppliers. Therefore, a Business Continuity Planning is required to identify
IJEBR strategic critical suppliers, determine the potential impact on them and the loss that can be
occurred from losing such suppliers (Zsidisin and Henke, 2019). In doing so, firms can better
formulate detailed strategies to deal with risks affecting them. Despite the high desirability
for achieving engineering resilience, the journey might become hazardous as firms tend to
neglect the fact that the environment and the consequences, for various reasons, may not be
entirely controllable or predictable (Berkley and Gunderson, 2015). As a result, firms fail to
become resilient because of their desire to achieve one optimal and stable state while avoiding
other alternative resilient states (Holling, 1996).

2.3 Evolutionary resilience

To this day, resilience has been conceptualized as being either a resistance or a recovery
response, mostly known as a defensive approach, with few studies describing it as offensive
(Adobor and Mcmullen, 2018). The notion here is that once the consequences of a disturbance
settle in, some organizations might have not been able to resist in their current conditions or
at least recover, and therefore, it may become necessary to move to a “newer and improved
state” that mainly requires a new set of capabilities and transformational practices
(Ambulkar et al., 2015). In these conditions, organizations go beyond adaptation, as seen by
ecological and engineering resilience, towards resource renovation and growth of processes
and capabilities (Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal, 2016; Ambulkar et al., 2015). This has led
Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) to define organizational resilience from an evolutionary
perspective as “a firm’s ability to effectively absorb, develop situation-specific responses
to, and ultimately engage in transformative activities to capitalize on disruptive surprises
that potentially threaten organization survival” (p. 244).
These ideas are closer to the realities that entrepreneurial companies face today, given the
rare conditions that systems are able to return completely to their initial state following a
disruption (Walker et al., 2009) and that entrepreneurship science greets the evolutionary
mindset of the entrepreneur, that is the continuous efforts to evolve and learn despite the
conditions. Therefore, evolutionary resilience may have greater contributions for our
understanding of entrepreneurial firms.
The evolutionary approach might sound appealing to many entrepreneurs, however, a
shift to a new state requires changes in business models, which in most cases, is not a
straightforward task (Hamel and Valikangas, 2004). Even under normal conditions firms are
encircled with discrepant strategic forces with unrecognizable implications which intensify
when firms are put in an insecure environment. Therefore, renewal should be driven not just
by a desire to change but as a strategic response to harsh conditions which might require
periodic doses of short-term solutions (Manfield and Newey, 2017).

3. Capability deployment activities for resilience

Achieving resilience on a macro level may sound straightforward, but in reality, it is a
product of interacting capabilities and high level learning that can steer the firm into
ecological, engineering and evolutionary states (Manfield and Newey, 2017). In other words,
resilience is derived from enactment of certain capabilities that the organization possesses or
forms (Ismail et al., 2011; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). Repeating the definition from the
introduction, capabilities refer to the firm’s ability to utilize an integrated set of processes,
resources, knowledge and skills to execute specific activities that address the requirements of
a changing environment (Winter, 2012; Felin et al., 2012).
Empirical studies have focused on organizational characteristics, resources or behaviors
to understand organizational resilience in a particular context (Duit, 2016; Boin and Van
Eeten, 2013). These studies provide little information on how resilience is practically achieved
by its internal mechanisms or what is formally known, in the context of this study, as
 _
“capability deployment activities” (Un and Montoro-Sanchez, 2010; Kantur and Işeri-Say, Resilience
2012), which explain the specific activities and strategies applied to achieve resilience. Boin capabilities
and Van Eeten (2013) supported this idea by arguing that an explanatory mechanism leading
to resilience is missing, as resilience can also be the result of an impromptu act and luck (p.
during
430). This mechanism has been described using different terminologies, such as the use of Armageddon
adequate resources (V€alikangas and Romme, 2013), effective relationships (Chen et al., 2021;
Fares and Chung, 2021), collaboration (V€alikangas and Romme, 2013), learning from past
experience (Orth and Schuldis, 2021), sense making (Van Der Merwe et al., 2020) and
strategies (Conz et al., 2017). This study considers these activities as “capability deployment
activities”, and explores how they underlie different capabilities (ad hoc, routine and
dynamic) towards achieving resilience. In other words, this study examines whether
capability deployment activities have been practiced in an ad hoc, routine or dynamic manner
for achieving different resilience outcomes.
There is an abundant literature on firms’ capabilities, but all efforts draw a distinction
between routine, dynamic and ad hoc capabilities. On one hand, routine capabilities are
“repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions carried out by multiple actors”
(Feldman and Pentland, 2003, p. 95) or known as day-to-day operations (Winter, 2012).
Routines can involve a certain degree of flexibility that does not lead to drastic changes in
operation, and are usually factored in stable environments (Schrey€ogg and Kliesch-Eberl,
2007). On the other hand, dynamic capabilities go beyond traditional repetitive daily practices
to involve distinguished and prominent reconfiguration of a firm’s resources, processes and
business model. Dynamic capabilities “create, extend or modify,” “integrate, build and
reconfigure” a firm’s operations (Teece et al., 1997) and are mainly associated with innovation
(Ellonen et al., 2009). Ad hoc capabilities are unsophisticated one-time solutions for a specific
problem that might enable organizations to survive, without returning to their previous state
or transforming into a new one (Manfield and Newey, 2017). This type of capability is relevant
to wounded organizations that lack routine and dynamic capabilities, and that have
experienced severe losses in resources, capacities and expiration of the previous vision and
objectives. Firms can be equipped with or develop a portfolio of capabilities to reconcile with
different conditions.

4. Study context
4.1 The national context: a multitude of crisis
Middle Eastern countries, in general, rely on entrepreneurial endeavors to improve their
economies given that they suffer from high youth unemployment rates (Oecd, 2016; Malik
and Awadallah, 2013; Vrontis et al., 2021). Lebanon is chosen as the national context of this
study due to the high number of crises that severely impacted the country in the past
three decades. The 15-year civil war between 1975 and 1990, followed by the assassination of
Prime Minister Rafik el Hariri, and the war with Israel in 2006 did not seem to be the end of the
Lebanese tragedy (Sadaka, 2022). According to the World Bank (Worldbank, 2021), the
current economic and financial crisis in Lebanon is ranked among the top three severe crises
worldwide since 100 years. The New York Times stated “It really feels like the country is
melting down” (Leonhardt and Yar, 2021). The Lebanese GDP dropped more than 40% and
the Lebanese currency “Lira” lost 90% of its purchasing power compared to the dollar value
(1$ 5 25,000 Lira and increasing) after it equaled 1,500 Lira in 2019. This has undermined the
people’s purchasing power to acquire even the essential commodities such as food, shelter,
medicine and basic healthcare service. The banking sector has informally imposed tight
capital controls, disallowing personnel and firms from withdrawing any amounts in dollars
with debit and credit cards no longer valid for international transactions. Firms suffered as
banks and have stopped granting loans and are not able to attract deposits.
IJEBR This was followed by the Covid-19 pandemic that threatened all sectors, most notably the
Lebanese health care system that was at the verge of collapse (Kawa et al., 2021). This forced
the American University of Beirut to seek help from the international community to urgently
provide funds and fuel after ventilators and other machines were at risk of imminently
shutting down due to power blackouts. Beyond these crises, nearly 2,750 tons of Ammonium
nitrate, unsafely stored at Beirut’s port exploded on August 4th, 2020, leaving more than 200
people dead, 6,000 injured and half a city destroyed with more than 300,000 properties
damaged (Hamouch, 2021). This explosion was considered the third largest non-nuclear
explosion in history. Also, Lebanon, being considered as one of the smallest economies in the
MENA region, was affected the most by the civil war in Syria (Calı et al., 2015) where it had to
accommodate 1.5 million refugees fleeing Syria, with approximately 80 percent of them
lacking legal status, a figure that has risen compared to the previous year. The Lebanese
political system is described as a sectarian system that prioritizes the interests of its religious
sects embracing sectarian identities ahead of national interest (Al-Habbal, 2011). This has
handicapped Lebanese citizens and firms as it became difficult to access essential services
(employment, medical care, dealing with state institutions) without being part of a political/
sectarian network (Traboulsi, 2012).

5. Methodology
5.1 Research design
Due to the unexplored nature of the capability-resilience events amidst unprecedented crisis,
it was important to uncover the richness of the events and the individual’s perception,
knowledge and feelings about the occurring events not possible by quantitative research.
Therefore, data were gathered using structured qualitative interviews which focused on the
interplay between capability types, deployment activities and resilience outcomes. This
heeds the growing calls to empirically investigate the inherent association between capability
and resilience using qualitative research that is less common, yet novel, given that the
majority of such studies are conceptual (Sala et al., 2022; Duchek, 2020). This study employed
both the deductive and inductive approaches which has become more common in qualitative
data analysis (Bonner et al., 2021), as it provides a more conclusive interpretation of the data
and minimizes confounding bias (Azungah, 2018).
The deductive approach is used to explore the first research question where the data on
the variables of inquiry (types of capabilities and resilience outcomes) can be grouped in line
with core concepts in extant literature. The inductive approach is used to address the second
question which calls for identifying deployment activities related to different capabilities,
which require a more thorough interpretation of organic data to educe codes and themes
(Thomas, 2006). Interpretivism is adopted as the epistemological paradigm for the inductive
approach, where the explored phenomenon and the subjectivity of the researcher both
provide compelling findings (Saunders et al., 2012) and are suitable for theory building
(Nordqvist et al., 2009).

5.2 Sampling and data collection

The purposive data sampling technique (non-random sampling) was used where the
researchers make subjective judgment of the most suitable participants for providing the
data required to address the research questions (Fletcher et al., 2018). In this case, participants
are selected based on certain attributes and experiences that they possess which provide
insights about the phenomenon of inquiry (Koerber and Mcmichael, 2008). Therefore, two
criteria were followed prior to conducting the interviews. First, the samples had to include
entrepreneurs in charge of an established firm (ex: founder or managing partner) that can
provide a comprehensive overview of implemented strategies across different areas and Resilience
departments. Second, the entrepreneurial firms should have (partially) survived the crises capabilities
because the concept of resilience is based on the survivability of firms from internal and
external shocks (Witmer, 2019; Harries et al., 2018; Barasa et al., 2018), and therefore, firms
during
that have been unsuccessful were excluded. Armageddon
The authors had personal connections with the directors of “Entreprenergy” – the largest
entrepreneurship Arabic podcast in Lebanon and Middle East which aids Wantrepreneurs
and new entrepreneurs in their business venture and support existing ones. Accordingly, 26
of the most well-known influential entrepreneurs in Lebanon and the MENA region were
selectively chosen for the interviews, and were all provided verbal or written consents (either
through phone or by emails) to participate. The size of the firms ranged from 10 to 100þ
employees with 21 firms having 50 or fewer employees and only two firms having larger than
100 employees. With respect to gender, 16 firms were directed by male entrepreneurs and 10
firms by female entrepreneurs. These numbers show that female entrepreneurship is
increasing in the MENA region (Ennis, 2019). The majority of firms have been operating for
more than 15 years with only four firms below 6 years. There is an equal distribution of firms
(34.62%) that operate in both Lebanon and the MENA region while others expand to other
regions (Europe and United States). The firms operated in diverse industries including
manufacturing, IT solutions, advertising, entertainment, technological services and
consumer goods and food services. Demographic factors of participants were considered
in the purposive sample to achieve wider inclusion of participants, generalizability and
credibility and reduce demographic bias (Carminati, 2018); because, for example, millennial
entrepreneurs have different needs and requirements compared to older entrepreneurs (Liu
et al., 2019). Therefore, both male and female entrepreneurs from different industries were
chosen with a variance of expertise ranging from three years to more than 15 years Table 1
shows the participants’ profiles.
Between April 2020 and January 2021, the 26 entrepreneurs underwent loosely structured
interviews with well-designed and planned interview questions. The first questions focused
on the participants’ biography and career development background which include education,
early career entrepreneurial initiatives, challenges and extracurricular activities. The next
questions were designed to capture the unfiltered narratives of the firm’s current status and
struggles per incident. The researchers focused on the participant’s self-explication of all
crises and resilience-related topics: the type of the crisis and its impact on the firm, the firm’s
first response and consecutive actions, changes in business model, capability type employed
and associated activities, relationships with stakeholders and resilience results. All
participants were asked the same set of questions in a successive manner where this
enhances the identification of the investigated themes at future stages. All interviews were in
English and were conducted via Zoom platform. Several measures were taken to increase
validity and reliability (Yin, 2009). First, interview scripts were sent to the interviewees who
approved and commented on the information collected. Second, secondary data in the form of
newspapers and online videos were used, which had documented the experience of many
entrepreneurs. Third, an external auditor has been asked to review and inspect the research
process and data analysis method shown by the first and second-order coding and themes
displayed in Figures 1–4.

5.3 Data analysis

The date were analyzed using both the deductive and inductive approaches. Based on the
research framework of Chileshe et al. (2016), the analysis was conducted in a four step process.
First, all interviews were transcribed and sent to the interviewees for approval to ensure
validity and reliability, and then imported into ATLAS.ti. Ink for coding and theme
development. Second, initial manual coding was conducted inspired by the open coding
IJEBR Firm Role of Experience Area
ID Brief description participant Industry (in years) coverage

1 Manufactures more than General Manufacturing 9 Lebanon

500 types of paint and manager
coatings
2 R&D firm that Founder Manufacturing 9 Lebanon,
manufactures cardiac USA
activity monitoring devices
and medical technology
software
3 E-commerce platform for Co-founder CGFS 5 Lebanon
SMEs responsible for
providing commodity
products
4 A provider of a full CEO Technology 14 Lebanon,
spectrum of point-of-sale MENA
and IT solutions for
hospitality and retail
management
5 Online beauty shop with Co-founder CGFS 6 Lebanon,
over 15,000 products and and CEO MENA
350 brands available from
perfume, skincare,
makeupetc.
6 Specializes in event and Founder Entertainment 11 Lebanon,
festival planning and UAE
development of local and
international entertainment
programs
7 A creative boutique Founder Advertising 25 Lebanon,
consultancy that provides a MENA
range of advertising and
communication services
8 A microbrewery that sells Owner CGFS 7 Lebanon
all kinds of local drinks such
as beer, vodka, gin and Arak
9 A tech company that Founder Technology 11 MENA, GCC
provides services such as IT
consultancy, CIO advisory,
gap analysis and support
services
10 Two restaurants of Co-founder CGFS 10 Lebanon
Armenian roots
11 Delivery of commodity Co-founder CGFS and 40 Lebanon,
products. Supports women, Logistics MENA
students and children in
Lebanon through grants
and education centers
12 Provides automation lines Shareholder Manufacturing 30 Lebanon,
for production companies and Manager MENA
Table 1.
Participants’ profiles (continued )
Firm Role of Experience Area
Resilience
ID Brief description participant Industry (in years) coverage capabilities
during
13 Manufactures high-tech Founder Manufacturing 21 International
products for companies Armageddon
such as Google, Microsoft
and Facebook. Develops
R&D centers that harvest
solar energy and recycling
water
14 Agricultural company Founder CGFS 4 Lebanon
specialized in selling local
food products
15 Web development and Co-founder Advertising 10 International
digital transformation
company that provides
citizens with digital
government solutions
16 Mobile and collaboration Founder Advertising 21 International
company that produces
videos to connect companies
with society
17 A branding agency that Founder Entertainment 15 Lebanon,
provides photography and Technology KSA, UAE
services and 2d and 3d
animations
18 Provides ready to wear Founder Entertainment 7 Lebanon,
bridal and evening KSA, UAE
collections for individuals
and entertainment events
19 A multi- fashion brand store Founder Manufacturing 11 Lebanon,
and a lifestyle solution for and Fashion MENA
sophisticated and modern
women
20 Provide catering and goods Founder CGFS 19 Lebanon
for events, dinners and
festivals
21 Catering and corporate gifts Founder Entertainment 20 Lebanon,
for birthdays and events Dubai
22 Leading production Founder Technology 15 Lebanon,
company for several MENA
companies including
Shutterstock and Getty
23 A startup in music Co-founder Entertainment 8 55 Countries
technology that produces and Technology
innovative tuning devices
for string musical
instruments
24 Supply of medical Founder CGFS 5 Lebanon
equipment such as
respiratory devices, hearing
aid devices and complete
home service

(continued ) Table 1.
IJEBR Firm Role of Experience Area
ID Brief description participant Industry (in years) coverage

25 A printing press and CEO Advertising 10 Lebanon,

advertising agency MENA
specialized in 3D printing
technology for all types of
events
26 A multi-discipline CEO Technology and 12 Lebanon,
sustainability development Environment Europe
firm that provides eco
solutions involving
reduction of carbon
Table 1. footprint

Figure 1.
Data coding structure
for capability and
resilience

method, where the researcher iteratively inspects and interprets the data and develops
observations based on the examined phenomenon. This started with identifying the words,
synonyms and meanings aligned with each type of capability. For example, codes related to
ad hoc capability included “daily adaptation”, “sales discontinued”, “daily changes in
 Resilience
capabilities
during
Armageddon

Figure 2.
Data Coding Structure
for Ad hoc Capability
Deployment Activities

operations” and “changes limited to safety precautions”. Codes related to routine capability
included “existing rules and policies are enforced”, “use of current programs and centers”,
“utilization of current business models”, “collaboration with existing clients and partners”.
With respect to resilience, for instance, codes related to evolutionary resilience included
“growth of business idea”, “new company created with different products and services” (see
Figure 1 for more information).
As part of the deductive approach, the authors went back and forth between the codified
data to make sense of the new emerging observations and develop new theoretical
underpinnings (Alvesson and Sk€oldberg, 2017). For instance, codes for “operations resumed
with caution” and “slight increase in sales numbers” were consolidated to the “firm recovery”
concept, which is a core aspect of engineering resilience. The analysis of the interviews
IJEBR

Figure 3.
Data coding structure
for routine capability
deployment activities
 Resilience
capabilities
during
Armageddon

Figure 4.
Data coding structure
for dynamic capability
deployment activities

produced more than 110 initial codes that were relevant to the research questions and the
main constructs in the theoretical model. Third, the codes that are interconnected with a
shared meaning were compiled to develop focused keywords to the second-order themes
while eliminating less frequent codes (Pierre and Jackson, 2014).
Fourth, as the process progressed, the second-order themes were refined by combining
some and dropping irrelevant ones for the purpose of achieving more definite inference for
the categories (Charmaz, 2017). Continuous iterative analysis led to the final stage of the
analysis where the researchers determined how second-order themes related to each other
and how they can be integrated into more meaningful theoretical themes. The final overview
of the thematic analysis for capabilities and resilience (first research question) involved seven
second-order categories and three aggregated themes that represent the interaction between
capabilities and resilience: (1) ecological resilience achieved through routine capabilities;
(2) evolutionary resilience achieved through dynamic capabilities; (3) partial engineering
resilience achieved through ad hoc capabilities. Figure 1 represents the data structure. The
inductive approach was more used for identifying capability deployment activities related to
different types of capabilities (second research question) where the final data structure
compromised of 32 s order categories and 14 aggregated themes representing the capability
deployment activities shown in Figures 2–4. Based on these findings, seven propositions
IJEBR were developed for how capabilities and resilience conjugate with different capability
deployment activities. In other words, the findings related to the two research questions are
conclusively combined to provide more all-inclusive theoretical implications to existing
literature, illustrated in Figure 5.

6. Findings
Our analysis indicates that the different types of capabilities are related to different resilience
outcomes. Our main findings are categorized into different themes and categories, namely the
association between ad hoc capability and engineering resilience, routine capability and
ecological resilience, dynamic capability and evolutionary resilience. Furthermore, capability
deployment activities that underlie each capability and that contribute to the achievement of
resilience are identified. Nonetheless, a significant finding that emerged from our analysis is
the concept of hierarchical deployment of capabilities, where the different types of
capabilities are deployed in a consecutive structured order, beginning with ad hoc capability,
followed by routine capability on to dynamic capability.

6.1 Ad hoc capability and engineering resilience

Our interviews show that firms with ad hoc capability, those that applied unsophisticated
one-time solutions, were able to achieve engineering resilience partially, defined as a slow
restoration of functions and achievement of steadiness and stability after crises. This was
possible through the deployment of several ad hoc capability activities that helped firms
recover which include fund raising.
The crises were unbearable to a degree that we almost closed the company. Since October 17,
business has dropped drastically in terms of sales volume due to road blockages and economic
hardships. So we had to create instant solutions and one solution was to do crowdfunding. We told
our story to many people, including two investors, and we got a lot of unexpected support which
helped us maintain our employees and recover. –Co-founder, Consumer Goods and Logistics, 60
employees
Other capability deployment activities that were employed involve receiving support from
stakeholders, reducing cost and maintaining a positive mindset for the purpose of
capitalizing on new opportunities that emerge from crises (Quotes are displayed in Figure 2).
The association of the variables (ad hoc capability, deployment activities, and engineering

Figure 5.
Hierarchical
deployment of
capabilities (and
summary of findings)
resilience) is portrayed in Figure 5. We also find that all firms that employed ad hoc Resilience
capabilities and achieved engineering resilience provided consumer goods and food services. capabilities
A full scale recovery was not evident due to the considerable losses that incurred to
resources and operations, which shown to obstruct firms’ ability to fully recover in a short
during
time span (Darkow, 2019). The main idea that engineering resilience portrays is the ability to Armageddon
bounce back to normal conditions (Ambulkar et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2010), which principally
is a process that is not possible without first observing considerable losses.
Our business completely stopped during the 17th of October revolution. We went from 100 sales per
day to almost zero sales in just two weeks. Also, during the pandemic, our cancel rates on orders
wend from 1 in a 100 to 7 in a 100 –CEO, Consumer Goods, over 15,000 products and 350 brands
We suffered significant losses as soon as the Lebanon Pound started devaluing. We decreased the
importation of medical products and we were unsure whether to sell our inventory or keep it for the
future. We had no other option than to breach the contracts with our customers (hospitals) because
they were paying us in installments. As a result, we faced legal repercussions because some
customers took it in a very negative way –Founder, Medical Equipment Goods, 100 employees,
2000þ products
In summary, firms that suffered significant losses had to apply ad hoc capabilities including
fund raising, maintaining a positive mindset, reducing cost and receiving stakeholder
support, leading to a partial recovery of operations and resources. From the above, we
propose that:
P1. When losses are severe, entrepreneurial firms, especially that provide consumer
goods and food services, employ ad hoc capabilities that lead to partial engineering
resilience.
P2. The capability deployment activities of fundraising, creating a positive mindset, cost
reduction and stakeholder support are important for firms with ad hoc capabilities to
achieve engineering resilience.

6.2 Routine capability and ecological resilience

The second theme that emerged shows that firms that achieved ecological resilience have
employed routine capabilities. In other words, firms that were able to absorb the disturbances
and continue their expected performance have responded to crises by applying repetitive
daily operations costumed to their conventional business model (De Carolis et al., 2009). Our
observations reveal that routine-based firms, which are all shown to provide technological
and manufacturing services, were not severely affected by crises.
Even though the Lebanese currency depreciated in value, we did not stop the production process. I
supported my team and tried to keep my prices affordable, especially for the Lebanese women, in
order to preserve the nice Lebanese image. We also gave a lot of workshops for the upcoming
entrepreneurs in e-commerce. We also raised some funds and supported those who were affected by
the Port explosion –Founder, Design and Manufacturing, 100 employees
An important observation is that when the disturbances can be absorbed and managed, firms
are more likely to favor routine capabilities where resources and operations are still available
to be employed, rather to conduct significant changes to business models that are costly and
laborious. We also see that routine capabilities did not just remain intact but were scaled up
and improved to encounter crises.
At some point we thought that it was the end, but we decided to channel our capacities into research
and development and focused on improving our offerings. Our sales continued and were able to
double our revenues and maintain all our employees –Founder, Design and Manufacturing, 20
employees,
IJEBR While the country was closed, we were reconsidering how to move forward and progress. Since we
design and manufacture automation equipment for companies, we were trying to be more efficient
and how can we automate our processes. We were strict with not wasting any product and not firing
any of our employees –Shareholder and Manager, Design and Manufacturing, 30 employees

P3. When losses are moderate but can be absorbed and controlled, entrepreneurial firms,
especially that provide design and manufacturing services, employ and improve
routine capabilities that lead to ecological resilience.
As illustrated in the quotes in Figure 3, the emerging themes of routine capability deployment
activities involve network building, global export strategy, corporate strategic changes and
efficiency improvement. The global strategy of exporting has been a compelling reason for
why firms, that were already exporting before crises, were able to continue operations and not
be significantly affected.
Despite everything that happened in the country, the crises created many needs and opportunities
and highlighted the importance of export. We now export medical technology software to more than
14 countries around the globe. We were not directly affected by the crises because 99% of our
revenues are from abroad –Founder, Design and Manufacturing, 20 employees
For other firms, network building is considered a significant routine practice for confronting
crises and maintaining performance
We have a very strong network locally and globally that is supported by a decentralized
management. During Covid-19, we made the best use of our connections and the different initiative
that we were part of, and we were able to contribute to the community despite the challenges. We also
gathered donations in order to package food rations and distribute them to people living in poverty
–Co-founder, Manufacturing and Logistics, 100 employees

P4. The capability deployment activities of network building, global export strategy,
corporate strategic changes, efficiency improvement, cost reduction and stakeholder
support are important for firms with routine capabilities to achieve ecological resilience.
In summary, firms that employed routine capabilities did not experience major losses to
resources or operations due to capability deployment activities of exporting, network building,
corporate strategic changes and efficiency improvement, leading to ecological resilience.

6.3 Dynamic capability and evolutionary resilience

The third theme considers the relationship between dynamic capability and evolutionary
resilience. The empirical evidence shows that when firms do not encounter significant losses,
they leverage their resources and operations, thus reconfiguring their business model to shift
to a new and improved state.
Since we are re a digital entertainment company, we were not affected as much as other businesses.
However, we had more work coming in, so we decided to reinvent our business model that led to
better productivity. We also considered this time as a chance to recruit new talent . . . –Co-founder,
Entertainment, 25 employees
By the end of this year we completely changed our plan. We shifted from music education and app
development to the production of a new automative instrument tuner in less than three months. We
never imagined we would make a third product and campaign and be successful. [. . ..] we went out of
stock. So yes a lot have changed –Co-founder, Entertainment Technology, 20 employees
 P5. When losses are not severe, entrepreneurial firms, especially that provide Resilience
advertising, entertainment and technological services, employ dynamic routine capabilities
capabilities that lead to ecological resilience.
during
Despite the significance of the above findings, a deeper observation shows a hierarchical Armageddon
deployment of capabilities, in the sense that firms that employed dynamic capability have
first attempted an ad hoc capability followed by routine capability, to finally reach dynamic
capability as a last-gasp attempt for achieving resilience and better performance. This
hierarchical deployment of capabilities is only observed for entertainment and recreation
firms that first suffered severe losses but were capable of leveraging their resources and
operations. Figure 5 demonstrates this argument showing higher level capability (dynamic)
underpinned by lower level capabilities (routine and ad hoc).
To further elaborate, at the first instant of an unprecedented crisis, firms enter into a shock
state where operations and resources are overstretched and traditional activities become
ineffectual in containing the devastations (Darkow, 2019). Accordingly, firms seek instant
relevant solutions that might not necessary be part of routine practices which are usually
convenient in normal stable conditions. When the chaotic event and potential devastations
are turned into a manageable course, firms aim to continue routine practices that were
effective in the past to return into normalcy. Regardless whether routine practices yield
positive results or not, firms utilize dynamic capabilities, redefining or creating new business
models that align with new market opportunities that emerge from crises, in an attempt to
move to a new state. The transition from ad hoc capability to dynamic capability is outlined
by several respondents:
We had to perform instant practical steps which did not align with the company’s vision. Already
46% of our work was from outside Lebanon, so as part of our normal operations, we further
entered new markets such as Dubai and did not want to enter UAE or KSA. Later, our business
development team performed radical digital transformations that enabled us enter UAE and
KSA markets. We wanted to maintain the business and move forward instead of downsizing
and waiting for the eventual collapse of the business –Managing Director, Creative Agency,
40 employees
At first, we entered a hibernation phase not knowing what to do. Then I started coming up
with ideas . . .. and started implementing immediate actions . . . The solution was to continue
working with what we had. We used our abandoned primary materials and we created a ready
to wear evening collection. Later, we wanted to create something innovative so we launched
virtual appointments where women can design and schedule their fittings –Owner, Recreation,
30 employees

P6. When losses are severe, entrepreneurial firms deploy ad hoc, routine and dynamic
capabilities in a hierarchical manner to achieve ecological resilience and better
performance.
Another respondent reflected on the dynamic capability that his company possessed which
include changes in vision and business model to achieve evolutionary resilience.
Furthermore, our observation reveals four deployment activities associated with dynamic
capability (outlined below by the same respondent) and are: strategic alliances, restructuring
and team expansion, global market penetration and product development. Figure 4 shows
more quotes associated with each activity deployment theme.
During crises we reconstructed the company’s vision and developed a new business model and plan
that will work in the future. We made significant improvements and achieved positive results
because we reduced the size of the company . . .. We entered new global markets, such as KSA and
IJEBR UAE, and partnered with new companies there. [. . ..] new products such as protective helmets and
sanitary items were launched –Founder – Entertainment and Recreation, 400 employees

P7. The capability deployment activities of strategic alliances, restructuring and team
expansion, global market penetration strategy and product development are
important for firms with dynamic capabilities to achieve evolutionary resilience.
In summary, firms that are not severely affected by crises directly employ dynamic
capabilities to achieve evolutionary resilience through several capability activities involving
strategic alliances, restructuring, global market penetration and product development. On the
other hand, firms that were severely affected by crises favor a hierarchical deployment of
activities in the following order: ad hoc, routine and dynamic to achieve evolutionary
resilience.

7. Discussion
This study started by highlighting that resilience is a desired state for entrepreneurial firms
during crises to recover from absurdity and resume expected performance levels. However,
existing research on entrepreneurial resilience overlooked the role that capabilities play in
steering an entrepreneurial firm into ecological, engineering and evolutionary resilience
states. Manfield and Newey (2017) provided, perhaps, the most compelling theoretical
framework that conceptualizes the multifaceted nature of resilience from a multidimensional
capability perspective. Yet, their contribution remains theoretical with a lack of empirical
conclusive findings. Further, very little research has identified the portfolio of capability
activities that underline different capabilities and resilience dimensions.
First, it is shown that firms with ad hoc capabilities achieved partial engineering
resilience. Thus, firms that applied one instant solution were able to partially return to their
previous state. The absence of a full scale recovery is attributed to the severe losses in
resources and operations that ad hoc-based firms incurred. Accordingly, this study unpacks
an anticipated phenomenon that emerged from the interviews, which is the magnitude of the
crises effect that seems to influence firms’ decisions regarding how to address the
disturbances. This study argues that when the effect of crises and losses are severe, firms
tend to search for unorthodox solutions beyond their internal operations and business model
(De Carolis et al., 2009). This is referred to as “slack” which are “potentially utilizable
resource” (George, 2005) that operate above defined boundaries which can be swerved or
reassigned to counteract disturbances (Senyard et al., 2014). The capability deployment
activities of fundraising, maintaining a positive mindset, stakeholder support and cost
reduction are considered slack resources. This phenomenon also explains the unexpected and
surprising finding that ad hoc capabilities lead to partial engineering, where both concepts
are contradictory in nature. To further explain, ad hoc capabilities involve one instant
solutions that might ensure survivability, most likely without returning to a previous state,
while engineering resilience is the ability of firms to bounce back to their previous state.
Hence, the ability of firms to return to their previous state using capabilities that most likely
do not lead to that state can only be explained through the utilization of slack resources not
directly affected by crises and not related to internal processes. This study also sheds light on
how firms in different industries are affected by crises. Congruent with previous literature,
the qualitative study shows that the majority of ad hoc-based firms belonged to the consumer
goods and food service industry, and therefore, have incurred the most losses because food
chains and security are among the first to be disrupted during unexpected events (Derossi
et al., 2021; Bracale and Vaccaro, 2020).
 Second, the findings show that firms with routine capabilities achieved ecological Resilience
resilience. To elaborate, firms that applied repetitive daily operations were able to absorb the capabilities
disturbances and resume normal operations. This phenomenon falls in line with the
ambidexterity doctrine that firms first search for local solutions when threats arise (Raisch
during
and Birkinshaw, 2008; Lubatkin et al., 2006). Manfield and Newey (2017) provided an Armageddon
untestable proposition that firms with routine capabilities are more likely to bounce back to a
previous state (engineering resilience). This study extends the insights of Manfield and
Newey (2017) by showing that ecological resilience is also an option for routine-based firms.
This study also shows that a firm’s losses cannot be overlooked in respect with which type
of capabilities employed and which resilience outcome can be achieved. For instance, despite
the severity of the coinciding crises, firms that employed routine capabilities have only
experienced low to moderate losses compared to ad hoc-based firms. This aligns with
previous literature showing that in presence of minimal disruptions that do not cause serious
disorganization and which do not require an extensive response, firms activate familiar
repetitive routines that can mitigate these disruptions without having to search for
unnecessary “outside-the-box” solutions that might be costly (Parker and Ameen, 2018;
Manfield and Newey, 2017). Because of the minimal disruptions that occurred, routine
capabilities not only were employed but were also improved by the utilization of unaffected
resources and operations. Nevertheless, the findings also show that routine capabilities have
been applied in crises where this contradicts previous beliefs that routine capabilities are
normally executed in relatively steady environments where firms are accustomed to threats
(Nelson and Winter, 1982; Becker, 2004). In addition, routine-based firms are shown to belong
to the manufacturing and design industries. More importantly, the capability deployment
activities (network building, global export strategy, corporate strategic changes, efficiency
improvement, stakeholder support and cost reduction) that these firms implemented are
shown to be the same activities in previous research that examined how manufacturing and
design firms respond to economic crisis (Cucculelli and Peruzzi, 2020).
Third, the relationship between dynamic capabilities and evolutionary resilience shows
that firms were able to shift to a new and improved state by conducting significant changes to
business models. This was possible because such firms have not experienced severe losses
and, therefore, were able to leverage their resources and operations to capitalize on
opportunities beyond existing boundaries with the firm often for conducting revolutionary
strategic maneuvers (Manfield and Newey, 2017). This finding is in contrast with Helfat and
Peteraf’s (2003) affirmation that dynamic capabilities “do not involve production of a good or
provision of a marketable service”. In addition, our finding does not resonate with previous
literature that dynamic capabilities do not necessary lead to resilience and competitive
advantage but is more of an ability to reconfigure existing traditional capabilities to create
value indirectly (Zahra et al., 2006). In contrast, this study shows that dynamic capabilities
have aided firms to achieve evolutionary resilience.
Nevertheless, despite increasing research on entrepreneurial capabilities and resilience
(Manfield and Newey, 2017; Adobor and Mcmullen, 2018; Duchek, 2020), current studies did
not explore the possibility that different types of capabilities might be employed in a
hierarchical order. Rather, the majority of literature on hierarchical capabilities in the context
of entrepreneurship has concentrated on the operationalization of dynamic capabilities at
first-order and second-order levels (Zhang, 2014; Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009; Easterby-
Smith et al., 2009), with limited expansion to ad hoc and routine capabilities. This study
provides a more complete macro picture by extending these arguments to show that the
hierarchical paradigm involves the employment of ad hoc, routine and dynamic capabilities
in a sequential order (Figure 5). It is important to note that this phenomenon is possible for
dynamic-based firms that suffered severe losses but had the ability to employ different
capabilities at different times. With respect to the type of industry that dynamic-based firms
IJEBR operated in, it was shown that such firms provided advertising, entertainment and
technological services and were the least affected by the crises. This finding was expected as
existing studies showed an increase in demand for technological solutions, mobile
applications, and entertainment services during crisis (Fu and Mishra, 2022; Doerr et al.,
2021) Therefore, firms that provide such services outperformed other firms coming from
different industries (Fu and Mishra, 2022).

8. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to organization resilience literature by strengthening the arguments
that resilience should, in most cases, be treated as a state that can be achieved (Herbane, 2019)
as shown by the respondents. This does not contradict in any way the conceptualization that
resilience is an Ex ante phenomenon–individual traits and characteristics or a process that
develops with time (Korber and Mcnaughton, 2017). Rather, the findings extend the
theoretical scope of resilience by showing that its three main types (engineering, ecological
and evolutionary) do exist and should be well acknowledged as the building blocks for better
performance. Furthermore, this study introduces the concept of “hierarchical deployment of
capabilities” as a new lens to explore resilience, where different types of capabilities can be
employed on different contingent circumstances, ranging from ad hoc to dynamic
capabilities.
While there are theoretical frameworks that connect resilience and capability literature
(Manfield and Newey, 2017; Duchek, 2020), this study widens this theoretical scope by
providing in-depth empirical findings about the process of resilience building through
capability types and an effective catalyst being capability deployment activities. Thus, this
study contributes to an in-depth understanding of capability types as building blocks for
resilience, where ad hoc capability being associated with engineering resilience, routine
capability with ecological resilience and dynamic capability with evolutionary resilience.
This heads the growing calls to test how organizational resilience works (Duchek, 2020)
through an empirical examination of the resilience-capabilities association that has only been
conceptually related (Manfield and Newey, 2017; Duchek, 2020). Moreover, the existing
repository of capability deployment activities in literature is extended by new activities
identified in this research, such as fund raising, positive mindset and global export strategy
which previous studies have overlooked (Chen et al., 2021; Fares et al., 2017; V€alikangas and
Romme, 2013; Van Der Merwe et al., 2020).
In addition, this study extends the insights of Manfield and Newey (2017) that
incorporated resilience outcomes and different threat profiles, arguing that firms’ responses
regarding which type of capability to employ is based on the familiarly and severity of the
threat. This study adds value to this strand of theorization but from a firm’s perspective,
urging to base the analysis on the degree of firm losses as a complementary lens to the threat
characteristics. This study contributes to capability and resilience literature by unpacking
the magnitude of losses where firms with mild losses were able to achieve ecological and
evolutionary resilience through routine and dynamic capabilities respectively.
Another important contribution lies in extending theoretical work on entrepreneurship by
leveraging on the interplay between resilience and capabilities in a crisis setting. Contrary to
traditional research that aims to explore entrepreneurial activities during a specific type of crisis
(Mcinnis-Bowers et al., 2017; Skouloudis et al., 2020; Devece et al., 2016; Djip, 2014) this study
managed to investigate the behavior and attitudes of entrepreneurs during a multitude of severe
crises (Covid-19 pandemic, Beirut port explosion, economic collapse, banking sector), where
entrepreneurs belonged to different genders, industries and geographic locations. This study
managed to show that entrepreneurs do respond flexibly and diversely to different challenges
depending on the capabilities they possess, the degree of losses and the local context in which
they operate. This contradicts conventional perspectives that all businesses are affected Resilience
similarly during crises and there exists one collective solution for all (Williams and Vorley, 2014). capabilities
Contrary, it was shown that during crisis entrepreneurs uncover their entrepreneurial
enthusiasm and expand on opportunities that were not considered before, and to a further
during
extent, even achieve innovation and growth (Russell and Faulkner, 2004). Armageddon

9. Practical implications
This study provides several contributions to practitioners, involving, but not limited to
entrepreneurs, senior managers and employees. First, the authors encourage practitioners to
cast off limiting assumptions and beliefs that firms are conditioned to fail when faced with
unprecedented crises that are assumed to block all possible exit strategies. This study
deliberately chose a number of firms, both small and large in size, and which operate in
different locations, that have undergone a multitude of severe crises not common in most
countries, to purposely provide hope and courage that resilience is not far of each.
Second, this study provides an integrative portfolio of capabilities, activities and previous
experiences as a toolbox that can be used by different entrepreneurs regardless of their condition.
Activities such as corporate strategic change, global export strategy, stakeholder support, cost
reduction, positive mindset, fund raising etc. should be considered during crisis. Policy makers
interested in supporting entrepreneurial firms should develop programs and workshops that aim
specifically at raising funds and spreading awareness about the importance of maintaining a
positive environment. These deployment activities are standard but fundamental constructs in
entrepreneurship thinking which can be acted upon as an immediate response to crisis and
which, as shown in this study, can be beneficial, especially for entrepreneurs that are
handicapped by severe losses who can only act from an ad hoc perspective.
Third, the authors suggest that practitioners can benefit from the findings that link
capability types with resilience outcomes. More precisely, firms, regardless of their
capability, can achieve resilience, where a routine capability leads to partial ecological
resilience, ad hoc capabilities lead to engineering resilience, and dynamic capabilities
associated with evolutionary resilience. Indeed, firms can either maintain their operations,
bounce back to their previous condition, and even grow and adopt a new business model.

10. Limitations and future directions

One limitation of this study is that the entrepreneurial firms of Lebanese heritage were only
considered in this study, excluding the perspectives of other ethnic entrepreneurship groups.
Another limitation is that the sample only involved profit-driven firms that belong to the
private sector. Understanding the capability-resilience behavior of nonprofit firms and public
firms would have provided a more conclusive understanding of resilience across firm types.
Perhaps, public firms would have behaved differently given its wider inclusion of
shareholders and shares being traded in the stock market.
This study provides several opportunities for future exploitation. First, it would be
interesting to conduct a similar research in other geographic locations where entrepreneurial
firms have been affected. This would allow for a cross-national comparative analysis where
differences in outcomes might be influenced by political and economic variables that vary
between countries. As an example, entrepreneurship in Mediterranean countries evolves
around network building, information gathering and effective strategic solutions, whereas in
the United Kingdom, entrepreneurship endeavors are influenced by job creation (Porf
ırio
et al., 2016). Second, it would be equally interesting to conduct a group comparative study on
how the resilience-capability interplay might change between entrepreneurship groups each
belonging to a different industry or demographic characteristics. Third, crisis management
IJEBR literature demands exploring the process of resilience at a pre-crisis and post-crisis phase as
organizations are not only required to be reactive but also proactive, that is, building
resilience and preparing contingency plans before an adversity (Williams et al., 2017; Alliger
et al., 2015). Finally, given the cross-disciplinary nature of resilience, the authors invite
researchers from different disciplines of hospitality, health, public policy, finance and
psychology to operationalize the theoretical model proposed presented in this article in their
research fields, as a first step towards developing an all-inclusive framework on the main
antecedents that positively shape organization resilience in the context of crises.

11. Conclusion
The concept of resilience in entrepreneurship literature has not gone beyond conceptual work
and inconclusive assumptions, remaining as a black box in management science. This paper
empirically examines organization resilience from a capability approach by finding how
different types of capabilities (routine, dynamic and ad hoc) lead to different types of
resilience (ecological, engineering and evolutionary). This qualitative study shows that
entrepreneurial firms that encountered severe losses were able to partially bounce back after
disturbances (engineering resilience) by embracing ad hoc capabilities, focusing on one
instant solution without drastic operational changes. On the other hand, firms that
maintained their current operations (ecological resilience) during crises have adopted routine
capabilities where losses were less severe. Finally, firms that were able to capitalize on new
opportunities and evolve into a new state (evolutionary resilience) were proficient in dynamic
capabilities, focusing on adaptive solutions and changes to business models. Each of the
above findings is underlined by specific capability activities that have been deployed to build
up resilience. These involve corporate strategy changes, stakeholder support, cost reduction,
maintaining a positive mindset, fund raising etc. As a result, the notion that resilience
required enabling capabilities becomes a distinct concept in entrepreneurship research. The
authors hope that this study would yield fruitful discussions about entrepreneurship
resilience that aid firms survive during unprecedented times.

References
Adobor, H. and Mcmullen, R.S. (2018), “Supply chain resilience: a dynamic and multidimensional
approach”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1451-1471.
Al-Habbal, J. (2011), The Institutional Dynamics of Sectarianism: Education and Personal Status Laws
in Postwar Lebanon, Lebanese American University, School of Arts and Sciences.
Algeddawy, T. and Elmaraghy, H. (2012), “Product variety management in design and manufacturing:
challenges and strategies”, Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic
Sustainability, Springer, pp. 518-523.
Alliger, G.M., Cerasoli, C.P., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Vessey, W.B. (2015), “Team resilience: how teams
flourish under pressure”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 176-184.
Alvesson, M. and Sk€oldberg, K. (2017), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research,
Sage, London.
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009), “What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct
in strategic management?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 29-49.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. and Grawe, S. (2015), “Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale
development and empirical examination”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33, pp. 111-122.
Anderies, J.M., Folke, C., Walker, B. and Ostrom, E. (2013), “Aligning key concepts for global change
policy: robustness, resilience, and sustainability”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 8.
Autio, E., George, G. and Alexy, O. (2011), “International entrepreneurship and capability Resilience
development—qualitative evidence and future research directions”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 11-37. capabilities
Azadegan, A., Napshin, S. and Oke, A. (2013), “The influence of R&D partnerships on innovation in
during
manufacturing firms: the moderating role of institutional attachment”, International Journal of Armageddon
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 248-274.
Azungah, T. (2018), “Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis”,
Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 383-400.
Barasa, E., Mbau, R. and Gilson, L. (2018), “What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A
systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience”, International Journal of
Health Policy and Management, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 491-503.
Becker, M.C. (2004), “Organizational routines: a review of the literature”, Industrial and Corporate
Change, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 643-678.
Berkley, J. and Gunderson, L. (2015), “Practical resilience: building networks of adaptive
management”, Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems”, Springer, pp. 201-216.
Boin, A. and Van Eeten, M.J. (2013), “The resilient organization”, Public Management Review, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 429-445.
Bonner, C., Tuckerman, J., Kaufman, J., Costa, D., Durrheim, D.N., Trevena, L., Thomas, S. and
Danchin, M. (2021), “Comparing inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand
health service implementation problems: a case study of childhood vaccination barriers”,
Implementation Science Communications, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 100.
Bracale, R. and Vaccaro, C.M. (2020), “Changes in food choice following restrictive measures due to
Covid-19”, Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1423-1426.
Brock, W.A., M€aler, K.-G. and Perrings, C. (2000), “Resilience and sustainability: the economic analysis
of non-linear dynamic systems”, Citeseer.
Burnard, K. and Bhamra, R. (2011), “Organisational resilience: development of a conceptual
framework for organisational responses”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49
No. 18, pp. 5581-5599.
Calı, M., Harake, W., Hassan, F. and Struck, C. (2015), “The Impact of the Syrian conflict on Lebanese
trade”, available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lebanon/publication/the-impact-of-
the-syrian-conflict-on-lebanese-trade#:∼:text5The%20war%20has%20reduced%20the,crisis
%20export%20level%20to%20Syria.
Callegari, B. and Feder, C. (2021), “Entrepreneurship and the systemic consequences of epidemics: a
literature review and emerging model”, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, pp. 1-32.
Carmeli, A. and Markman, G.D. (2011), “Capture, governance, and resilience: strategy implications
from the history of Rome”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 322-341.
Carminati, L. (2018), “Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two traditions”, Qualitative
Health Research, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 2094-2101.
Catalan, C. and Robert, B. (2011), “Evaluation of organizational resilience: application in Quebec”,
Proceedings of the Fourth Resilience Engineering Symposium France, pp. 50-58.
Charmaz, K. (2017), “The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry”, Qualitative
Inquiry, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 34-45.
Chen, R., Xie, Y. and Liu, Y. (2021), “Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring organizational
resilience: a multiple case study”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 5, p. 2517.
Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R. and Hosseini, M.R. (2016), “Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in the
construction industry: a qualitative study”, Engineering, Construction, and Architectural
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 134-157.
IJEBR Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2011), “‘Supply Chain 2.0’: managing supply chains in the era of
turbulence”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 63-82.
Conz, E., Denicolai, S. and Zucchella, A. (2017), “The resilience strategies of SMEs in mature clusters”,
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 186-210.
Corner, P.D., Singh, S. and Pavlovich, K. (2017), “Entrepreneurial resilience and venture failure”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 687-708.
Cucculelli, M. and Peruzzi, V. (2020), “Post-crisis firm survival, business model changes, and learning:
evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 459-474.
Darkow, P.M. (2019), “Beyond ‘bouncing back’: towards an integral, capability-based understanding of
organizational resilience”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 145-156.
De Carolis, D.M., Yang, Y., Deeds, D.L. and Nelling, E. (2009), “Weathering the storm: the benefit of
resources to high-technology ventures navigating adverse events”, Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
De Oliveira Teixeira, E. and Werther, W.B. Jr (2013), “Resilience: continuous renewal of competitive
advantages”, Business Horizons, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 333-342.
Decaro, D.A., Arnol, C.A.T., Boama, E.F. and Garmestani, A.S. (2017), “Understanding and applying
principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance”,
Ecology and Society: A Journal of Integrative Science for Resilience and Sustainability, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Derossi, A., Bhandari, B., Van Bommel, K., Noort, M. and Severini, C. (2021), “Could 3D food printing
help to improve the food supply chain resilience against disruptions such as caused by
pandemic crises?”, International Journal of Food Science and Technology, Vol. 56 No. 9,
pp. 4338-4355.
Devece, C., Peris-Ortiz, M. and Rueda-Armengot, C. (2016), “Entrepreneurship during economic crisis:
success factors and paths to failure”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 5366-5370.
Djip, V. (2014), “Entrepreneurship and SME development in post-conflict societies: the case of Bosnia
and Herzegovina”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 254-274.
Doerr, S., Erdem, M., Franco, G., Gambacorta, L. and Illes, A. (2021), “Technological capacity and
firms’ recovery from Covid-19”, Economics Letters, Vol. 209, p. 110102.
Duchek, S. (2020), “Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization”, Business Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 215-246.
Duit, A. (2016), Resilience Thinking: Lessons for Public Administration, Public Administration, Vol. 94,
2. pp. 364-380.
Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M.A. and Peteraf, M.A. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities: current debates and
future directions”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. S1-S8.
Ellonen, H.-K., Wikstr€om, P. and Jantunen, A. (2009), “Linking dynamic-capability portfolios and
innovation outcomes”, Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 753-762.
Ennis, C.A. (2019), “The gendered complexities of promoting female entrepreneurship in the Gulf”,
New Political Economy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 365-384.
Fares, J., Chung, K., Longman, J., Passey, M. and Valentijn, P. (2017), “Analysing stakeholder advice
networks: an Australian integrated health care project”, Project Management Research and
Practice, pp. 1-14.
Fares, J. and Chung, K.S.K. (2021), “Effects of support network structure and position on cancer care
experience”, Social Network Analysis and Mining, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Fares, J., Chung, K.S.K. and Abbasi, A. (2021), “Stakeholder theory and management: understanding Resilience
longitudinal collaboration networks”, Plos One, Vol. 16 No. 10, p. e0255658.
capabilities
Fares, J., Chung, K.S.K., Passey, M., Longman, J. and Valentijn, P.P. (2019), “Exploring the
psychometric properties of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care measurement tool for care
during
providers in Australia”, BMJ Open, Vol. 9 No. 12, p. e027920. Armageddon
Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), “Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of
flexibility and change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 94-118.
Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Heimeriks, K.H. and Madsen, T.L. (2012), “Microfoundations of routines and
capabilities: individuals, processes, and structure”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49
No. 8, pp. 1351-1374.
Ferreira, P., Wilson, J.R., Ryan, B. and Sharples, S. (2017), “Measuring resilience in the planning of rail
engineering work”, Resilience Engineering in Practice”, CRC Press, pp. 145-156.
Fletcher, M., Zhao, Y., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Buck, T. (2018), “Three pathways to case selection in
international business: a twenty–year review, analysis and synthesis”, International Business
Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 755-766.
Fu, J. and Mishra, M. (2022), “Fintech in the time of COVID 19: technological adoption during crises”,
Journal of Financial Intermediation, Vol. 50, pp. 100945.
Gallop
ın, G.C. (2006), “Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 293-303.
Garavelli, A.C. (2003), “Flexibility configurations for the supply chain management”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 141-153.
George, G. (2005), “Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 661-676.
Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006), “Relationships, layoffs, and organizational
resilience: airline industry responses to September 11”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 300-329.
Gressgard, L.J. and Hansen, K. (2015), “Knowledge exchange and learning from failures in distributed
environments: the role of contractor relationship management and work characteristics”,
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 133, pp. 167-175.
Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (2002), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and
Natural Systems, Island Press.
uter, M., Folke, C. and Reyers, B. (2021), “Rethinking resilience and development: a
Haider, L.J., Schl€
coevolutionary perspective”, Ambio, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 1304-1312.
Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2004), “The quest for resilience”, icade. Revista de la Facultad de
Derecho, No. 62, pp. 355-358.
Hamouch, M.E. (2021), “Solferino academy”, Solferino Academy.com.
Harries, T., Mcewen, L. and Wragg, A. (2018), “Why it takes an ‘ontological shock’ to prompt increases
in small firm resilience: sensemaking, emotions and flood risk”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 712-733.
Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2003), “The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 997-1010.
Herbane, B. (2019), “Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic renewal in SMEs”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 31 Nos 5-6, pp. 476-495.
Holling, C.S. (1996), “Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience”, Engineering Within
Ecological Constraints, Vol. 31, p. 32.
Horne, J.F. III (1997), “The coming age of organizational resilience”, Business Forum, Vol. 22 Nos 2-3, p. 24.
Horne, J.F. and Orr, J.E. (1998), “Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations”, Employment
Relations Today, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 29-39.
IJEBR Ilmudeen, A., Bao, Y., Alharbi, I.M. and Zubair, N. (2020), “Revisiting dynamic capability for
organizations’ innovation types: does it matter for organizational performance in China?”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 507-532.
Ismail, H.S., Poolton, J. and Sharifi, H. (2011), “The role of agile strategic capabilities in achieving
resilience in manufacturing-based small companies”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5469-5487.
Jeng, D.J.-F. and Pak, A. (2016), “The variable effects of dynamic capability by firm size: the
interaction of innovation and marketing capabilities in competitive industries”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
_
Kantur, D. and Işeri-Say, A. (2012), “Organizational resilience: a conceptual integrative framework”,
Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 762-773.
Kawa, N., Abisaab, J., Abiad, F., Badr, K., El-Kak, F., Alameddine, M. and Balsari, S. (2021), “The toll of
cascading crises on Lebanon’s health workforce”, The Lancet Global Health, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. e177-e178.
Kendra, J.M. and Wachtendorf, T. (2003), “Elements of resilience after the world trade center disaster:
reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Centre”, Disasters, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 37-53.
Koerber, A. and Mcmichael, L. (2008), “Qualitative sampling methods: a primer for technical
communicators”, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 454-473.
Korber, S. and Mcnaughton, R.B. (2017), “Resilience and entrepreneurship: a systematic literature
review”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 1129-1154.
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 No. 3, pp. 243-255.
Leonhardt, D. and Yar, S. (2021), “Lebanon’s crisis”, The New York Times”, available at: https://www.
nytimes.com/2021/10/14/briefing/lebanon-financial-crisis-lira.html.
Li, C.-Z., Cr
epin, A.-S. and Folke, C. (2018), “The economics of resilience”, International Review of
Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 309-353.
Limnios, E.A. M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A. and Schilizzi, S.G. (2014), “The resilience architecture
framework: four organizational archetypes”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 104-116.
Lindberg, A.-K., Hansson, S.O. and Rollenhagen, C. (2010), “Learning from accidents–what more do we
need to know?”, Safety Science, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 714-721.
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
No. 1, pp. 4-30.
Linnenluecke, M.K. and Griffiths, A. (2012), “Assessing organizational resilience to climate and
weather extremes: complexities and methodological pathways”, Climatic Change, Vol. 113 No. 3,
pp. 933-947.
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 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Liu, J., Zhu, Y., Serapio, M.G. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2019), “The new generation of millennial entrepreneurs:
a review and call for research”, International Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, p. 101581.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), “Ambidexterity and performance in small-
to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646-672.
Madni, A.M. and Jackson, S. (2009), “Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering”, Resilience
IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 181-191.
capabilities
Malik, A. and Awadallah, B. (2013), “The economics of the arab spring”, World Development, Vol. 45,
pp. 296-313.
during
Mallak, L.A. (1998), “Measuring resilience in health care provider organizations”, Health Manpower
Armageddon
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 148-152.
Manfield, R.C. and Newey, L.R. (2017), “Resilience as an entrepreneurial capability: integrating
insights from a cross-disciplinary comparison”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1155-1180.
Marchese, K., Paramasivan, S. and Held, M. (2012), “Bouncing back: supply chain risk management
lessons from post-tsunami Japan”, Industry Week, Vol. No, pp. 1-3.
Mcinnis-Bowers, C., Parris, D.L. and Galperin, B.L. (2017), “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurship and resilience among the Boruca Indians
of Costa Rica”, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Mcmanus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J. and Brunsdon, D. (2008), “Facilitated process for improving
organizational resilience”, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nordqvist, M., Hall, A. and Melin, L. (2009), “Qualitative research on family businesses: the relevance
and usefulness of the interpretive approach”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 294-308.
Oecd, F. (2016), FDI in Figures, Organisation for European Economic Cooperation, Paris.
Orth, D. and Schuldis, P.M. (2021), “Organizational learning and unlearning capabilities for resilience
during COVID-19”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 509-522.
Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N. and Bansal, P. (2016), “The long-term benefits of organizational resilience
through sustainable business practices”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 1615-1631.
P
aez, L.C.C., Pinho, J.C. and Prange, C. (2022), “Dynamic capabilities configurations: the firm lifecycle and
the interplay of DC dimensions”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 910-934.
Parker, H. and Ameen, K. (2018), “The role of resilience capabilities in shaping how firms respond to
disruptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 535-541.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K.L. (2010), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2013), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and
implementation of an assessment tool”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-76.
Piening, E.P. (2013), “Dynamic capabilities in public organizations: a literature review and research
agenda”, Public Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 209-245.
Pierre, S.E.A. and Jackson, A.Y. (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis after Coding, Sage Publications, Los
Angeles, CA.
Porf
ırio, J.A., Carrilho, T. and M
onico, L.S. (2016), “Entrepreneurship in different contexts in cultural
and creative industries”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 5117-5123.
Protogerou, A., Kontolaimou, A. and Caloghirou, Y. (2022), “Creative industries and resilience in times
of crisis: the role of firm and entrepreneurial team characteristics”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1075-1105.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409.
IJEBR Redman, C.L. (2014), “Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits?”,
Ecology and Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1-8.
Reinmoeller, P. and Van Baardwijk, N. (2005), “The link between diversity and resilience”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, p. 61.
Renko, M., Bullough, A. and Saeed, S. (2021), “How do resilience and self-efficacy relate to
entrepreneurial intentions in countries with varying degrees of fragility? A six-country study”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 130-156.
Rocha, J.C., Peterson, G.D. and Biggs, R. (2015), “Regime shifts in the Anthropocene: drivers, risks, and
resilience”, PloS One, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. e0134639.
Ruhl, J. (2010), “General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems-with
applications to climate change adaptation”, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1373.
Russell, R. and Faulkner, B. (2004), “Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 556-579.
Sadaka, S.F. (2022), “Challenges of IFRS implementation in emerging economies: the case of Lebanon”,
Accounting History, p. 103237322210938.
Sala, P.K., Philbin, S.P. and Barikzai, S. (2022), “A qualitative research study of the tech startup
journey through entrepreneurial pivoting”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior
and Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1050-1074.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Essex.
Schrey€ogg, G. and Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007), “How dynamic can organizational capabilities be?
Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 913-933.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P. and Davidsson, P. (2014), “Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for
resource-constrained new firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 211-230.
Sheffi, Y. (2015), The Power of Resilience: How the Best Companies Manage the Unexpected, MIT Press.
Skouloudis, A., Tsalis, T., Nikolaou, I., Evangelinos, K. and Leal Filho, W. (2020), “Small and medium-
sized enterprises, organizational resilience capacity and flash floods: insights from a literature
review”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 18, p. 7437.
Somers, S. (2009), “Measuring resilience potential: an adaptive strategy for organizational crisis
planning”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 12-23.
Sutcliffe, K.M. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of
a New Discipline.
Swaminathan, J.M. and Tayur, S.R. (1998), “Managing broader product lines through delayed
differentiation using vanilla boxes”, Management Science, Vol. 44 Nos 12-part-2, pp. S161-S172.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Thomas, D.R. (2006), “A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data”,
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-246.
Traboulsi, F. (2012), A History of Modern Lebanon, Pluto Press, London.
Un, C.A. and Montoro-Sanchez, A. (2010), “Innovative capability development for entrepreneurship: a
theoretical framework”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 413-434.
V€alikangas, L. and Romme, A.G.L. (2013), “How to design for strategic resilience: a case study in
retailing”, Journal of Organization Design, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 44-53.
Van Der Merwe, S.E., Biggs, R. and Preiser, R. (2020), “Sensemaking as an approach for resilience
assessment in an essential service organization”, Environment Systems and Decisions, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 84-106.
Van Der Vegt, G.S., Essens, P., Wahlstr€om, M. and George, G. (2015), Managing Risk and Resilience, Resilience
Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY.
capabilities
Vrontis, D., El Chaarani, H., El Nemar, S., El-Abiad, Z., Ali, R. and Trichina, E. (2021), “The motivation
behind an international entrepreneurial career after first employment experience”, International
during
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 645-675. Armageddon
Walker, B.H., Abel, N., Anderies, J.M. and Ryan, P. (2009), “Resilience, adaptability, and
transformability in the goulburn-Broken catchment, Australia”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 14
No. 1, p. 12.
Weick, K.E. (1988), “Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations [1]”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-317.
Weick, K.E. (1993), “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 628-652.
Westman, W.E. (1986), “Resilience: concepts and measures”, in Resilience in Mediterranean-type
Ecosystems, Springer, pp. 5-19.
Williams, N. and Vorley, T. (2014), “Economic resilience and entrepreneurship: lessons from the
Sheffield city region”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 26 Nos 3-4, pp. 257-281.
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 No. 2, pp. 733-769.
Winter, S.G. (2012), “Capabilities: their origins and ancestry”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49
No. 8, pp. 1402-1406.
Witmer, H. (2019), “Degendering organizational resilience–the Oak and Willow against the wind”,
Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 510-528.
Worldbank (2021), “Lebanon sinking into one of the most severe global crises episodes”, amidst
Deliberate Inaction, available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/05/01/
lebanon-sinking-into-one-of-the-most-severe-global-crises-episodes.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage.
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Davidsson, P. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a
review, model and research agenda”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 917-955.
Zhang, Z. (2014), “Hierarchical dynamic capabilities and strategic entrepreneurship in changing
industrial environments”, Frontiers of Business Research in China, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 388-410.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Henke, M. (2019), “Research in supply chain risk: historical roots and future
perspectives”, Revisiting Supply Chain Risk, Springer, pp. 1-12.

Corresponding author
Julian Fares can be contacted at: julian.fares@lau.edu.lb

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