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

net/publication/357602942

Modelling the resilience of start-ups during COVID-19 pandemic

Article in Benchmarking An International Journal · January 2022

DOI: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2021-0530

CITATIONS READS

19 408

3 authors:

Aswathy Sreenivasan Ma Suresh

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
33 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 171 PUBLICATIONS 2,510 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Juan Alfredo Tuesta Panduro

Universidad Nacional Agraria de la Selva, Tingo María
15 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Alfredo Tuesta Panduro on 26 February 2023.

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/1463-5771.htm

Modelling the resilience of start- Resilience

elements of
ups during COVID-19 pandemic start-ups
Aswathy Sreenivasan and M. Suresh
Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India, and
Juan Alfredo Tuesta Panduro


Universidad Privada del Norte, Lima, Peru Received 6 September 2021
Revised 1 December 2021
16 December 2021
Abstract Accepted 16 December 2021
Purpose – Resilience, the ability of start-ups to deal with anticipated instabilities and probable disruptions, is
becoming an important success element during coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). To survive in this
pandemic situation, resilience is an important concept for start-ups. The present paper aims to “identify”,
“analyse” and “categorize” the resilience factors for start-ups during the Covid-19 pandemic using total
interpretive structural modelling (TISM).
Design/methodology/approach – The resilience elements of start-ups during Covid-19 were identified and
shortlisted during the first phase, which included literature analysis and extensive interaction with experts.
TISM was used in the second phase to investigate or to determine how the factors interplayed between the
resilience factors of start-ups during Covid-19. The Matrice d’impacts Croises Multiplication Appliquee a un
Classment (MICMAC) method is used to rank and categorize the factors. Closed-ended questionnaire with the
scheduled interview was conducted to collect the data.
Findings – The first part of the study found ten resilience elements in total. The TISM digraph was
constructed in the second step to show why one resilience component led to another. The MICMAC analysis
divided these factors into four groups: autonomous, linkage, dependent and independent. These groups
represented resilience variables based on their driving and dependent power, which assist executives and
managers in proactively addressing them while using the TISM digraph as a guide.
Research limitations/implications – During the Covid-19 epidemic, this study focused primarily on
resilience characteristics for Indian start-ups.
Practical implications – This study will help key stakeholders and scholars to better understand the
elements that contribute to start-up’s resilience.
Originality/value – The TISM method for start-up’s resilience is suggested in this paper, which is a novel
attempt in the field of resilience in this industry.
Keywords Resilience, Start-ups, Dynamic capabilities, Sustainable resilience practice,
Total interpretive structural modelling
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Organizational resilience refers to how well a company is prepared to withstand or respond to
a crisis. Major international incidents such as the Covid-19 pandemic, global crisis of 2008, etc.
lead to increased focus on exploration of the concept of resilience (Rahi, 2019). These disasters
prompted firms to review their business procedures in order to better handle the
consequences of unexpected and unforeseen events that may disrupt their operations
(Bhamra et al., 2011). Organizational resilience research has mostly been performed in big
enterprises and established small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Given the economic
importance of start-ups, it is remarkable that there is practically little empirical study on
resilience building of start-ups at the firm level. The present study helps in addressing the
three main questions: (1) What are the resilience factors of start-ups during the Covid-19
pandemic? (2) How do they influence one another and resilience for start-ups as a whole
during Covid-19? (3) Which factors drive others, and which factors depend on others?
The Covid-19 pathogen has spread throughout the globe. The World Health Organization Benchmarking: An International
Journal
(WHO) has designated Covid-19 a worldwide outbreak, causing severe economic disruptions © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
throughout the world while attempting to minimize the spread and continuation of virus DOI 10.1108/BIJ-09-2021-0530
BIJ (Lu et al., 2020). The Covid-19 epidemic wreaked havoc on many industries in both developed
and developing nations, particularly on SMEs, with start-up businesses being the most
vulnerable (Aldianto et al., 2021). Start-ups have evolved as the key engines of economic
development and employment creation, as well as a driving force behind the radical
innovation. With year-over-year growth of 12–15% predicted, India has the world’s third
largest start-up economy (Deccan herald, 2020). Start-ups are a subset of SMEs and are young
enterprises with a lifespan of 3–5 years that engage in entrepreneurial activity. Start-ups are
thought to be more susceptible than established businesses in India (Haase and Eberl). They
have few resources to deal with life threatening catastrophes or to run their business on a
daily basis. One of the worries for start-ups was a lack of financial flow and the possibility of
closing down operations due to the pandemic. All parties were concerned about the economic
downturn for start-ups and what it meant for a sector that had grown rapidly. As a result,
start-ups are always operating in difficult circumstances. Workforce diversity, effective
communication with stakeholders, innovation ambidexterity, change management,
sustainable resilience practice, organizational flexibility, technology capability, team
empowerment, agile leadership and dynamic capabilities may be considered for start-ups’
resilience. The purpose of this study is to “identify”, “analyse” and “categorize” the resilience
factors for start-ups in the event of the Covid-19 pandemic. Many scholars have not
investigated the identification of resilience factors for start-ups. The current research uses the
total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach to identify the resilience factors and
analyse the hierarchical interrelationship among the factors to fill this gap. Through this
research the question of “what”, “how” and “why” will be answered.
The principal aims of this paper are as follows:
(1) To identify the factors of resilience for start-ups during Covid-19
(2) To analyse inter-relationships among these factors using TISM
(3) To categorize and rank the factors depending on their dependence and driving power
by using Matrice d’impacts Croises Multiplication Appliquee a un Classment
(MICMAC) analysis
The remainder of the manuscript is laid out as follows. The next segment is a study of the
resilience literature in businesses. In Section 3, the research methodology is discussed. The
fourth section includes the findings and discussions. The fifth section depicts managerial/
practical consequences, while the sixth and final section discusses the study’s findings and
limitations.

2. Literature review
Resilience is associated with personality traits and relates to a continuous developmental
cycle (Braes and Brooks, 2010). Walker et al. (2002) defined resilience as the capacity to
preserve a system’s operation when it is disturbed, or the capability to maintain the
components required upgrading or reorganizing if a disruption affects the framework of a
system’s functionality. A resilient business will constantly find ways to take risk and
capitalize on opportunities (Aldianto et al., 2021). Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) defined
resilience as the ability to accept and recover from adversity. Organizational resilience is a
complex combination of behaviours, attitudes and relationships that can be created, assessed
and controlled. In essence, resilience is displayed following an event or disaster (Lengnick-
Hall and Beck, 2003 August). Company resilience helps firms to respond swiftly to
disturbances while sustaining business operations and safeguarding people, resources and
ultimate brand value (Simeone, 2015). Wieland and Durach (2021) proposed that resilience
refers not just to a systems’ ability to “bounce back” after an inhibiting event, but also to its
ability to adjust and alter as the situation demands. The capacity to tolerate a disturbance or Resilience
series of interruptions and regain performance is referred to as resilience (Ivanov and elements of
Dolgui, 2020).
The concept of resilience has been discussed by different researchers across various areas
start-ups
i.e. psychological (Rutter, 1993), social (Maguire and Hagan, 2007), biological (Mealor and
Hild, 2007), supply chain (Pettit et al., 2010), ecological (Folke et al., 2010), economic (Martin,
2012), environmental (Vitanen and Kingston, 2014), family (Walsh, 2015) and engineering (Cai
et al., 2018). Belhadi et al. (2021) gave information on the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on
the automotive and aircraft supply chains. Rajesh et al. (2021) offered a framework for
measuring and forecasting the retail resilience of metropolitan town centres. Behzadi et al.
(2020) examined extant supply chain resilience indicators and proposed a new metric.
Hosseini et al. (2019) conceptualized and offered a systematic evaluation of contemporary
research on quantitative modelling of the supply chain resilience, while relating it to the
original idea of resilience capability. Rajesh (2020) provided a decision support framework for
executives to use in order to understand, measure and improve the amount of resilience in
industrial supply chain.
The overall resilience profile for each organization was examined by Afgana et al. (2011),
which represented the set of guidelines to be followed in the evaluation approach. Semeijn
et al. (2019) tested the relations of resilience in a two-wave design. Carayannis et al. (2014)
focused on the effects of business model innovation on organizations, particularly
organizational longevity, resilience and quality. In coping with adversities, Vakilzadeh and
Haase (2020) verified the necessity of specialized resources, competencies and structures.
However, empirical study on organizational resilience is still fragmented, and the existing
findings have yet to be summarized. Based on survey and interview data, Sapeciay et al.
(2017) investigated construction practitioners of New Zealand and their approaches to
organizational resilience practices in the built environmental discipline. Ishak and Williams
(2018) argue that organizational resilience may differ in kind. The topic of organizational
resilience had been investigated by Shani (2020). A complete model was developed and
evaluated using data from a quantitative research including 98 schools and 1,132 instructors
in Israel’s educational system. Souza et al. (2017) identified the dynamic capabilities that
foster organizational resilience towards sustainability. The empirical literature on
organizational resilience was investigated by Rahi (2019). The goal was to discover and
understand the indicators used to assess organizational resilience, as well as to encourage the
use of metrics to assess resilience in other domains such as project management and critical
infrastructure (Rahi, 2019). Aldianto et al. (2021) explored capacity (creative ambidexterity,
technology capability and strategic flexibility), behaviour (dynamic leader) and intellectual
(comprehension stock) in start-up organizations to develop a business resilience framework.
Small and medium-sized firms, which account for a significant portion of many economies,
are particularly sensitive to the impacts of severe weather. This is particularly essential in the
construction business, where SMEs hire most workers and generate the majority of revenues.
Wedawatta and Ingirige (2016) have discussed this issue in their paper. Lee and Wang (2017)
conducted a literature review to narrow the knowledge gap by examining entrepreneurial
resilience, a critical skill for entrepreneurs to overcome obstacles and adapt to the
uncertainties. Within the human resource development community, leadership development
has gotten a lot of attention. Hamedi and Mehdiabadi (2020) identified and prioritized the
human elements that influence entrepreneurial resilience. The non-resilience and resilience
problems that SMEs face in a developing nation were examined by Rahman and Mendy
(2019). They looked at non-resilience and integrated its traits with resilience barriers from the
Bangladeshi context, in contrast to the resilience literature. Branicki et al. (2017) looked at
how entrepreneurial behaviours assist SME resilience and figured out how SME resilience
may be fostered. Based on pre-Covid relation quality and, secondly, business opportunity
BIJ viewpoint, Fath et al. (2021) experimentally studied how SMEs linked with worldwide
network partners during Covid-19 and how the catastrophe has influenced network linkages
and resilience. Manfield and Newey (2018) explored various ideas about the nature of
strength and chose the best applicable to an entrepreneurial setting. Presumptions are woven
into a theoretical framework that demonstrates how different dangers necessitate different
resilience strategies. A portfolio of resilience skills results in overall organizational resilience.
Haase and Eberl (2019) identified start-up-specific context elements that prevent routinizing
based on the qualitative cross-case study. Furthermore, they demonstrate that a highly
recognized routine value is required to routinize effectively. They proposed methods for
increasing the perceived value of a routine in start-ups, including artifacts and rewards.
Based on the evolutionary viewpoint of resilience, the goal of the work is to present a modified
adaptation cycle framework that shows how firms integrated into a local system can improve
their resilience (Conz et al., 2017). Gray and Jones (2016) looked into the possibility of a joint
organizations learning and development strategy for micro-businesses and SME firms to
help them become more resilient and sustainable.
Following the literature review and discussions with the academic and industry experts,
ten factors have been selected as crucial for the current study.

2.1 Workforce diversity

A varied staff can provide complementary talents and habits, making it easier to deal with
problems. Start-ups guarantee that they can control and manage their diverse members to
contribute to long-term resilience. Kim et al. (2021) proposed workforce diversity as a
resilience element for mitigating the negative effects of recurrent chief executive officer (CEO)
turnover, and responded to the demand to investigate how organizational environment and
circumstances account for the effect of frequent CEO change.

2.2 Effective communication with stakeholder

Both outside and inside the start-up, effective communication with stakeholders must be
maintained. Start-ups can lessen employees’ uneasiness and mobilize stakeholders to combat
the problem by properly explaining the current state to them (Carayannis et al., 2014).
Communication is an extremely necessary component of resilience in many organizations.
Reliable communication will enable the organization and its members to adjust more rapidly
by boosting the capacity for transformation and improving the firm’s responsive phase
(Longstaff and Yang, 2008).

2.3 Innovation ambidexterity

Innovation ambidexterity refers to an organization’s ability to manage both incremental and
discontinuous innovation together. Lubatkin et al. (2006) state that ambidextrous firms
benefit from leveraging current skills to allow extra innovation and exploring new
possibilities to generate radical innovation.

2.4 Change management

Change management refers to the methods and procedures used by start-ups to define and
improve internal and external processes. It is vital to develop a planned change strategy to
achieve a smooth transition with minimal interruption. A careful examination of present
change management strategies is a good place to start (McCann et al., 2009). After surviving
adversity, research on organizational resilience emphasizes the necessity for transformative
activity (Vakilzadeh and Haase, 2020).
2.5 Sustainable resilience practice Resilience
Start-ups should teach their staff how to react to any unexpected circumstance by teaching elements of
them how to be resilient. Sustainable practices are intricately tied to financial performance
(Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011). Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal (2016) contend that such
start-ups
techniques also help companies become more resilient, allowing them to avoid upheavals and
recover from disruptions.

2.6 Organizational flexibility

Organizational flexibility entails adaptability, flexibility and agility; it allows for the
coordination and integration of resources and people inside the start-ups, allowing for
creating alternatives in every situation. In a crisis situation, organizational flexibility refers to
the altering and adaption of structures, processes and procedures that allow an organization
to maintain its movement and operations (Shani, 2020).

2.7 Technology capability

Technical competence refers to a company’s ability to employ and produce various
innovations through technological development, product design, production techniques,
manufacturing processes and technological innovation. Companies may enhance their
company performance by leveraging their technical skills to boost revenue, decrease costs or
do both (Aldianto et al., 2021).

2.8 Team empowerment

In the time of crisis, team empowerment is a motivational framework that involves team
members’ intrinsic drive and deliberate commitment towards their jobs. Empowered groups
were shown to have a higher feeling of connection and affiliation with the teams and
organizations objectives and goals, and they are more devoted and involved in the
organizations and team achievement and accomplishment of its goals (Shani, 2020;
Li et al., 2017).

2.9 Agile leadership

Agile leadership refers to a leader’s capacity to respond quickly, adaptable and flexibly to
unexpected events in an unfamiliar situation. It is based on shared values and concepts that
aim to improve organizational development by making it more effective and fun (Aldianto
et al., 2021). It adheres to a set of collectively agreed ideals and concepts that aim to improve
corporate development by making it more effective and fun (Joiner and Josephs, 2007).

2.10 Dynamic capabilities

Dynamic capabilities consist of three capabilities: identifying and assessing possibilities
(sensing), deploying resources to overcome barriers and capturing the benefits of completed
activities (seizing), and maintaining essential capabilities (transforming). The dynamic
capability viewpoint has also aided in the direction toward creativity (MacLean et al., 2015;
Helfat and Peteraf, 2009).
The literature review synthesis and working definition of the enablers are shown in
Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
From the above literature review, it is evident that not many studies are being conducted
on the factors related to resilience of start-ups during the Covid-19 pandemic. Many
researchers have studied resilience in India’s diverse business operations, but nobody has
created a theoretical framework for start-up resilience during the Covid-19 pandemic. Using
BIJ Reference Objective Dimension

Rutter (1993) Identified various elements influencing resilience and (1) Resilience
investigated how people evaluate their personal (2) Psychological
situations
Maguire and Hagan The complex character of social resilience was studied, (1) Resilience
(2007) and numerous features such as resistance, restoration, (2) Social
and innovation were discovered
Mealor and Hild The ecological responses and endurance of receiving (1) Biological
(2007) local plant communities to toxic incursions were studied (2) Resilience
Pettit et al. (2010) A supply chain resilience model was developed to assist (1) Supply chain
organizations in dealing with transformation
Folke et al. (2010) Investigated the social-ecological elements that (1) Ecological
contribute to Earth ecosystem resilience (2) Resilience
Martin (2012) Established the concept of “economic resilience” to help (1) Economic
comprehend how localized economies adapt to large (2) Resilience
recessionary disruptions
Vitanen and The intellectual development that links the digitalization (1) Environmental
Kingston (2014) of the city while addressing democratic issues and (2) Resilience
environmental resilience was observed
Walsh (2015) Methods for avoiding family disintegration were (1) Family
proposed, and the phenomenon of family persistence (2) Resilience
was observed
Cai et al. (2018) From the standpoint of dependability engineering, they (1) Engineering
proposed an accessibility engineering resilience metric (2) Resilience
Belhadi et al. (2021) Given an information on the impact of the Covid-19 (1) Supply chain
epidemic on the automotive and aircraft supply chains resilience
(2) Covid-19
Rajesh et al. (2021) Offered a framework for measuring and forecasting the (1) Resilience
retail resilience of metropolitan town centres (2) Retail
Behzadi et al. (2020) Examined extant supply chain resilience indicators and (1) Supply chain
proposed a new metric (2) Resilience metric
Hosseini et al. (2019) Conceptualized and completely offered a systematic (1) Resilience
evaluation of contemporary research on quantitative (2) Resilient supply
modelling of the supply chain resilience, while relating it chain
to the original idea of resilience capability
Rajesh (2020) Provided a decision support framework for executives to (1) Supply chain
use in order to understand, measure, and improve the (2) Resilience
amount of resilience in industrial supply chain
Semeijn et al. (2019) Tested the relations of resilience in a two-wave design (1) Resilience
(2) Sustainable
employability
Vakilzadeh and Verified the necessity of specialized resources, (1) Organizational
Haase (2020) competencies, and structures resilience
(2) Literature review
Afgana et al. (2011) The overall resilience profile for each organization was (1) Organizational
examined resilience
Carayannis et al. Focused on the effects of business model innovation on (1) Resilience
(2014) organizations (2) Business model
innovation
Sapeciay et al. (2017) Examined construction practitioners of New Zealand (1) Resilience
and their approaches to organizational resilience (2) Construction
practices in the built environmental discipline management
Ishak and Williams Argued that organizational resilience may differ in kind (1) Resilience
(2018) (2) Organizational
Table 1. commitment
Literature review
synthesis (continued )
Reference Objective Dimension
Resilience
elements of
Souza et al. (2017) Identified the dynamic capabilities that foster (1) Organizational start-ups
organizational resilience towards sustainability resilience
(2) Sustainability
Rahi (2019) Discovered and explained the indicators used to assess (1) Resilience
organizational resilience, as well as to encourage the use (2) Literature review
of metrics to assess resilience in other domains such as
project management and critical infrastructure
Aldianto et al. (2021) Explored capacity, behaviour, and intellectual in start- (1) Business resilience
up organizations to develop a business resilience (2) Start-ups
framework
Lee and Wang (2017) Conducted a literature review to narrow the knowledge (1) Entrepreneurial
gap by examining entrepreneurial resilience resilience
(2) Literature Review
Hamedi and Identified and prioritized the human elements that (1) Entrepreneurial
Mehdiabadi (2020) influence entrepreneurial resilience resilience
(2) Human elements
Conz et al. (2017) Presented a modified adaptation cycle framework that (1) Resilience
shows how firms integrated into a local system can (2) Local system
improve their resilience improvement
Gray and Jones Looked into the possibility of a joint organizations (1) Micro-businesses
(2016) learning and development strategy for micro-businesses (2) Resilient and
and SME firms to help them become more resilient and sustainable
sustainable
Haase and Eberl Identified start-up-specific context elements that prevent (1) Resilience
(2019) routinizing based on the qualitative cross-case study (2) Start-up case study
Manfield and Newey Explored various ideas about the nature of strength and (1) Resilience
(2018) chose the best applicable to an entrepreneurial setting (2) Entrepreneurial
setting Table 1.

TISM, the following research questions (RQs) are utilized to build the framework, particularly
in start-ups:
RQ1. What are the resilience factors of start-ups during the Covid-19 pandemic?
RQ2. How do they influence one another and resilience for start-ups as a whole during
Covid-19?
RQ3. Which factors drive others, and which factors depend on others?

3. Research methodology
The present study focuses on start-ups in India. This study’s data were gathered via a closed-
ended questionnaire (Patil and Suresh, 2019; Vaishnavi et al., 2019a, b). Initially, a literature
review on resilience of start-ups was undertaken using journal sources such as Sage,
Springer, Emerald, Science Direct and Taylor & Francis. The first stage was to conduct a
literature review, which resulted in the identification of 25 resilience criteria. Professionals
were invited to provide feedback on the 25 resilience factors. To identify the resilience factors,
we interviewed ten experts who had worked as executives and managers in a variety of start-
ups. Following the completion of the enablers, a closed-ended questionnaire was developed to
analyse the effect of all identified resilience of start-ups elements on one another, i.e. “pair-
wise comparisons” (Patil and Suresh, 2019). After completing the questionnaires, the
scheduled interviews were carried out. Proprietors, chief executive officers (CEOs), managers,
BIJ Sl.
No Factors Definition References/Experts opinion

1 Workforce diversity (F1) A varied staff can provide complementary Kim et al. (2021)
talents and habits, making it easier to deal
with problems. Start-ups guarantee that they
can control and manage their diverse
members to contribute to long-term resilience
2 Effective communication Both outside and inside the start-up, effective Carayannis et al. (2014),
with stakeholder (F2) communication with stakeholders will be Longstaff and Yang (2008)
maintained. Start-ups can lessen employees’
uneasiness and mobilize stakeholders to
combat the problem by properly explaining
the current state
3 Innovation ambidexterity It’s the ability to seek both incremental and Lubatkin et al. (2006)
(F3) discontinuous change at the same time.
Ambidextrous firms have the advantage of
leveraging existing capabilities to spur
greater innovation and explore new avenues
for radical change
4 Change management (F4) Change management refers to the methods Vakilzadeh and Haase (2020),
and procedures used by start-ups to define McCann et al. (2009)
and improve internal and external processes.
It’s vital to develop a planned change
strategy to achieve a smooth transition with
minimal interruption
5 Sustainable resilience Start-ups should teach their staff how to react Avery and Bergsteiner (2011),
practice (F5) to any unexpected circumstance by teaching Ortiz-de-Mandojana and
them how to be resilient Bansal (2016)
6 Organizational flexibility Organizational flexibility entails Shani (2020)
(F6) adaptability, flexibility, and agility; it allows
for the coordination and integration of
resources and people inside the start-ups,
allowing for creating alternatives in every
situation
7 Technology capability Technical competence refers to a company’s Aldianto et al. (2021)
(F7) ability to employ and produce various
innovations through technological
development, product design, production
techniques, manufacturing processes, and
technological innovation
8 Team empowerment (F8) In the time of crisis, team empowerment is a Shani (2020), Li et al. (2017)
motivational framework that involves team
members’ intrinsic drive and deliberate
commitment towards their jobs
9 Agile leadership (F9) Agile leadership refers to a leader’s capacity Aldianto et al. (2021), Joiner
to respond quickly, in adaptive way, and and Josephs (2007)
flexibly to unexpected events in an
unfamiliar situation. Agile leadership is
based on shared values and concepts that aim
to improve organizational development by
making it more effective and fun
10 Dynamic capabilities It consists of three capabilities: identifying MacLean et al. (2015), Helfat
(F10) and assessing possibilities (sensing), and Peteraf (2009)
deploying resources to overcome barriers and
capturing the benefits of completed activities
Table 2. (seizing), and maintaining essential
Factors definition capabilities (transforming)
supervisors, officers with two to three years of experience working in start-ups were chosen Resilience
for this study. Among the industries covered by the selected companies are agriculture, elements of
services, manufacturing, information technology, digital marketing, construction and
finance. In total, 27 persons were questioned in all. Each respondent got a personalized
start-ups
email describing the research objectives and inviting them to participate in the study
voluntarily. Once an agreement for the interview was reached, the phone interview was
conducted at their convenience. The interview began with a ten-minute overview of the
research and criterion categorization. The poll was eventually completed, with each interview
lasting for about 60 minutes. Finally, TISM is used to model and organize the variables in
order to better understand their interrelationships. Several start-ups in the growth phase
encountered several obstacles due to the new normal state during the Covid-19 epidemic. For
this reason, the TISM and MICMAC approaches are used to find the interrelationship
between the factors and build the hierarchical structure.
In the Covid-19 era, TISM is a methodology for discovering the interrelationships among
the factors impacting start-up resilience. In the industrial and service industries, many
researchers have employed the TISM technique to analyse factor correlations (Jena et al.,
2016, 2017; Patri and Suresh, 2017; Patil and Suresh, 2019; Menon and Suresh, 2019). In this
work, the TISM approach was utilized to examine the interrelationships between start-up
resilience. Jena et al. (2016) applied the TISM technique to identify and examine several
essential success variables that might aid India’s smartphone growth. Jena et al. (2017)
utilized the TISM approach to summarize the graph’s direct and related predicate
relationships fast. Patri and Suresh (2017) used the TISM technique to establish agility
factors in healthcare organizations and uncover inter-relationships among these drivers. Patil
and Suresh (2019) used the TISM technique to develop a relational framework that depicts the
driving and dependent components and scores the workforce’s agility characteristics. Menon
and Suresh (2019) provided an overview of TISM tools, describing how they were evolved
into a theoretical model and used in the service and industrial industries. Menon and Suresh
(2021a) used the TISM technique to investigate and limit the factors that might promote
agility in engineering faculty. This TISM method was used to “define”, “evaluate” and
“classify” key aspects influencing lean procurement in the Indian construction sector (Suresh
and Arun Ram Nathan, 2020). The TISM approach was used to discover and assess pandemic
ecological parameters (Lakshmi Priyadarsini and Suresh, 2020). Vaishnavi et al. (2019a)
employed the TISM approach to develop, appraise and build a model for measuring the
correlations between different organizational preparedness qualities in the healthcare
business. Vaishnavi et al. (2019b) used this TISM approach to identify and explore the
relationships between key preparedness components for adopting healthcare agility. The
TISM approach was used to “define”, “analyse” and “categorise” important components of
lean six sigma preparation (Vaishnavi and Suresh, 2020). Menon and Suresh (2021b) utilized
the TISM technique to assess the components that contribute to higher education agility and
their interrelationships. The most acceptable technique for determining the hierarchy of the
identified enablers and their interrelationships was TISM (Kashiramka et al., 2019; Sushil,
2012). Figure 1 shows the flow of detailed steps related to modelling for resilience in start-ups
during Covid-19 using the TISM approach. For the effective application of the TISM model,
the following steps are taken (Vaishnavi et al., 2019a, b; Vaishnavi and Suresh, 2020; Suresh
and Arun Ram Nathan, 2020; Menon and Suresh, 2021b):
(1) Factors identification
Identifying the factors influencing resilience in start-ups during Covid-19 era was the first
step. This was identified through the literature review and experts’ opinions on the same. The
identified major factors are listed in Table 2.
BIJ Identify the list of Resilience factors in Start-
\ ups during Covid-19 era through literature review
and experts’ opinion.

Identify the major factors that influence Experts

resilience in start-ups during Covid-19 Opinion

Definition: Working definition in context of

during the Covid-19.

Questionnaire preparation: ‘Pair-wise

comparison’ of factors.

Develop ‘Initial Reachability Matrix (IRM)’:

Interview with
Factor-A highly influencing Factor-B?, then enter 1 in respondents
IRM; otherwise 0. Consensus of the response is captured
for each comparisons.

Driving power: Sum of

Develop ‘Final Reachability Matrix (FRM)’:
1 and 1* in each row.
Perform transitivity check for all 0 entry in IRM. If
Dependence power:
transitivity is present then enter 1* in IRM; otherwise 0
Sum of 1 and 1* in
transitivity check: If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
each column.

Partition of FRM: Reachability set: Row factors in FRM. MICMAC analysis:

Antecedent set: Column factors in FRM. Intersection Set: Factors are classified
Common factors of row and column. Level I: The based on its driving
intersection factors are one and only present in the power and dependence
reachability set, these elements are removed from the set power. Ranking the
and designated as level-1. Then go to next iteration: factors.
continue the repeated process until all the factors are
removed from the set.
MICMAC Rank =
Driving
power/dependence
Interaction matrix: It is developed from FRM by
First rank: Crucial
translating the direct and significant transitive link.
factor/s

Last rank: Least

Digraph creation: It is created using information from important factors.
FRM and level partitions. First level factor at the top of
the digraph and the last level factors at the lowest level

Figure 1.
Flow of TISM for TISM model: In the digraph links interpretations are
resilience in star-tups articulated. How factor-A is influencing factor-B?
during Covid-19 era
 (2) Establishing relationship between factors Resilience
Contextual relationships between the elements must be established to arrive at the initial elements of
reachability matrix (IRM). For instance, “factor A influencing factor B”. If the answer to that is start-ups
“yes”, the relationship’s strength must be defined, which can be “very highly influencing”,
“highly influencing”, “moderate influencing”, “low influencing” and “no influence”. Only
“very high or high influential” relationships are examined in this case, and a “1” or a “0” is
inserted into the IRM. For this study, 27 responses have been collected, and the respondents
are proprietors, chief executive officers, operations managers, supervisors, product
developers, technology officers of various start-ups in India. Respondents were selected
based on their knowledge and observation capability to enhance the current practices of
start-ups. The IRM contains in Table 3.
(3) Interpreting the relationship between the factors
In this step, the question of “how” is answered. The TISM approach aims to understand how
“factor 1 affects factor 2”. The initial reachability matrix pair elements are regarded as “1”
entries. For instance: “how does factor A influence factor B?”
(4) Checking the transitivity by developing the final reachability matrix (FRM)
The FRM has been derived through transitivity check. The FRM is created by performing a
transitivity check, which involves identifying transitivity due to inference among a few
pairings of the IRM and incorporating it into model. All “0” entries in the IRM are transitivity
checkable; if transitivity exists, suitable “one star”, i.e. “1*”, should be inserted, otherwise, “0”
stays in the reachability matrix. The FRM is found in Table 4.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

F1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
F2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
F3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F4 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
F5 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
F6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Table 3.
F7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 IRM for factors
F8 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 influencing resilience
F9 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 in start-ups during
F10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Covid-19 era

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 Driving power

F1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1* 1 1 0 9
F2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 0 8
F3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
F4 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6
F5 0 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 8
F6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6
F7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
F8 0 0 1 1 0 1 1* 1 1 0 6 Table 4.
F9 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 FRM for factors
F10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 10 influencing resilience
Dependence 2 4 10 8 4 8 9 8 8 1 in start-ups during
Note(s): * Represents transitive links Covid-19 era
BIJ (5) Dividing the FRM factors into levels
The FRM is divided into levels (Vaishnavi et al., 2019b). To comprehend the level-wise
positioning of items, level partitions are performed on the final reachability matrix. The
antecedent set and the reachability set are derived as a result of this. The collection of
reachability factors includes the element itself as well as the additional aspects that it may
impact. The antecedent set, on the other hand, comprises of the factor plus any other factor
that may impact it. These two sets are combined to form an intersection set, which contains
common members from the antecedent and reachability sets. Elements with the same
intersection and reachability set are assigned the same level and are removed from the list for
further investigation. This phase is repeated multiple times until all items are assigned a level.
The partition reachability matrix is shown in Appendix Tables A1–A6.
(6) Interaction matrix design
To acquire the digraph, an “interaction matrix” is created by converting the digraph’s direct
and substantial transitive relationships or links into “1” and “1*”/“1**”, with no connection to
“0.” The significant transitive links are identified through expert opinion (Suresh and Arun
Ram Nathan, 2020) and direct links are depicting in Table 5.
(7) Creating the digraph and the TISM model
The FRM and level partitions are used to generate a digraph. The TISM primarily considers
digraph direct linkages and substantial transitive relationships. Factors in digraph are
arranged in ascending sequence, with the first level factor at the top, the second level
component at the second place, and so on. The TISM model is built with an interpretative
matrix and a digraph. Nodes are substituted by boxes containing factors in TISM Menon and
Suresh (2021a). Figure 2 depicts the TISM model, while Section 4.1 discusses the explanations
for the direct and important transitive connections.

4. Results and discussions

4.1 Interpretation of TISM digraph
Figure 2 represents the graphical representation of TISM analysis of the factors influencing
resilience in start-ups during the Covid-19 era.
4.1.1 Level VI. Level six has one factor, which is factor 10.
Dynamic capabilities influence workforce diversity. Sensing, seizing and transforming
help the diverse workforce to have appropriate and complementary behaviours and skills,
making it simpler for start-ups to face difficulties.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

F1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
F2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
F3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F4 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
F5 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1* 0
F6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
F7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
F8 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
F9 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
Table 5. F10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1
Interaction matrix Note(s): * Represents significant transitive links
 Level I
Innovation ambidexterity (F3) Resilience
elements of
start-ups

F7-F3
Level II Technology Capability (F7)

Level III
F4-F6 F6-F8 F8-F9
Change Organizational Team Agile leadership
management (F4) flexibility (F6) empowerment (F8) (F9)
F6-F4 F8-F6 F9-F8

F2-F5
Effective communication Sustainable resilience
Level IV with stakeholders (F2) practice (F5)
F5-F2

Level V Workforce diversity (F1)

F10-F1

Level VI Dynamic capabilities (F10)

Figure 2.
TISM model for factors
influencing resilience
in start-ups during
Covid-19 era
Note(s): : Significant Transitive Link : Direct Link

Dynamic capabilities influence effective communication with stakeholders. Understanding

the three capacities, i.e. sensing, seizing and transforming, helps communicate with the
stakeholders both within and outside the start-ups.
Dynamic capabilities influence innovation ambidexterity. Start-ups’ attempts to develop
and build novel frameworks and procedures assist in maximizing current capabilities and
exploring new avenues for disruptive innovation.
Dynamic capabilities influence change management. Start-ups can explain and implement
improvements in external and internal processes by identifying and assessing opportunities,
mobilizing resources to overcome obstacles, capturing the value of actions performed and
updating core capabilities.
Dynamic capabilities influence sustainable resilience practice. Dynamic capabilities help
in providing sustainable resilience management practices to their employees to respond to
any emergency.
Dynamic capabilities influence organizational flexibility. The requirement of
organizational flexibility in adapting to a dynamic reality is well acknowledged. The three
dynamic capacities, detecting, seizing and transforming, enable an organization’s people and
BIJ resources to integrate and produce alternatives for every situation (Englehardt and
Simmons, 2002).
Dynamic capabilities influence technology capability. Proper identification and
assessment of opportunities or proper sensing enables start-ups to develop and use
various technologies.
Dynamic capabilities influence team empowerment. Transforming helps in building a
motivational structure for team members and helps in promoting organizational resilience.
Dynamic capabilities influence agile leadership. Capturing the value of actions taken helps
the leader be adaptable, flexible and quick in responding to unforeseen events in unfamiliar
circumstances.
4.1.2 Level V. Level five has one factor, which is factor 1.
Workforce diversity influences effective communication with stakeholders. A diverse
workforce helps in reducing the sense of insecurity through proper communication.
Workforce diversity influences innovation ambidexterity. A varied workforce can bring
complementing talents and behaviours to the table, making it simpler to deal with the
obstacles. This has an impact on the ability to pursue both interrupted and incremental
change at the same time.
Workforce diversity influences sustainable resilience practice. A diverse workforce helps
in responding to emergencies through resilience management practice.
Workforce diversity influences organizational flexibility. Integrating and coordinating
people and resources in a company is easier with a diverse workforce.
Workforce diversity influences team empowerment. A diverse workforce promotes
organizational resilience by empowering teams and demonstrating coping skills when
confronted with crises and transitions.
Workforce diversity influences agile leadership. A diverse staff aids agile executives in
adhering to a set of mutually agreed-upon values and principles to improve company
development-both in terms of effectiveness and enjoyment.
4.1.3 Level IV. Level four has two factors, which are factor 2 and factor 5.
Effective communication with stakeholders influences innovation ambidexterity.
Through effective communication, ambidextrous firms have the advantage of using
innovative capabilities to allow extra creativity and discover different chances to promote
revolutionary innovation.
Effective communication with stakeholders influences change management. Building an
organized approach to change and achieving a smooth transition with minimal disruption
requires effective communication with stakeholders.
Effective communication with stakeholders influences sustainable resilience practice. It
helps in conducting accurate, sustainable resilience management practices for the employees.
Effective communication with stakeholders influences organizational flexibility. It
enables the integration and synchronization of resources and people inside an
organization, allowing for alternative solutions in any circumstances.
Effective communication with stakeholders influences team empowerment. It helps in
motivating the employees and reducing their insecurities.
Effective communication with stakeholders influences agile leadership. It allows agile
leaders to respond quickly, adaptably and flexibly to unforeseen occurrences in a new
situation.
Sustainable resilience practice influences effective communication with stakeholders.
Start-ups should educate their staff on responding to emergency circumstances by training
them to communicate the current state of affairs sustainably.
Sustainable resilience practice influences change management. It aids in developing an
organized response to change, which is essential for ensuring a smooth transition with
minimal interruption.
 Sustainable resilience practice influences organizational flexibility. The qualities of Resilience
flexibility, agility and elasticity are aided by proper sustainable resilience practices, which elements of
enable coordination and integration between resources and people in an organization,
allowing for the creation of alternatives for every situation.
start-ups
Sustainable resilience practice influences technology capability, recognizing the benefits
of engaging in technology without cutting into the primary revenue through effective long-
term resilience strategies. Start-ups are also creating methods for expanding their companies
in the case of a pandemic by maximizing the expansion of digital technologies.
Sustainable resilience practice influences agile leadership. Start-ups may employ
organizations more adaptively and flexibly with the support of proper sustainable
resilience methods.
4.1.4 Level III. Level three has four factors, which are factor 4, factor 6, factor 8 and
factor 9.
Change management influences innovation ambidexterity. The ability to concurrently
seek innovation and gradual and interrupted change is enhanced by establishing how start-
ups describe and implement changes within internal and external processes.
Change management influences organizational flexibility. Developing an organized
approach to change is essential for ensuring a smooth transition while minimizing
interruption. It allows for the coordination and integration of resources and people within an
organization, allowing for alternatives for each situation.
Change management influences technology capability. Developing a planned strategy to
change is essential for ensuring a smooth transition while minimizing interruption and
understanding the benefit of investing in technology without dipping into the preliminary
budget.
Change management influences team empowerment. Describing and implementing
changes help empower the team members, displaying coping behaviours when faced with
crises and transitions.
Change management influences agile leadership. Defining the techniques and processes
by which start-ups define and execute changes allows them to use organizations more
flexibly and adaptable.
Organizational flexibility influences innovation ambidexterity. Start-ups benefit from the
coordination and integration of resources and people in an organization because they create
innovations with an eye towards improvement and efficiency.
Organizational flexibility influences change management. Flexibility in the workplace
aids in the development of an organized approach to change, which is essential for ensuring a
smooth transition while minimizing interruption. To effectively transition into a digital
organization, start-ups must bring together people, processes and technology to handle all
areas of change management, which is only feasible via organizational flexibility (Phillips
and Wright, 2009).
Organizational flexibility influences technology capability. Start-ups benefit from
organizational flexibility because it allows them to take the initiative to develop digital
platforms through which users may access their products/services.
Organizational flexibility influences team empowerment. Flexibility in the organization
aids in the development of a motivational framework involving team members’ intrinsic
motivation and an active attitude toward their work.
Organizational flexibility influences agile leadership. Flexibility in the workplace aids in
defining a more flexible and adaptive organization, such as with a work-from-home system.
Employees who work from home can keep up with their responsibility.
Team empowerment influences innovation ambidexterity. Providing intrinsic
motivation and empowerment to team members aids start-ups in pursuing innovations as
a top priority.
BIJ Team empowerment influences change management. Providing intrinsic motivation and
empowerment to team members aids in the development of an organized approach to change,
which is essential for ensuring a smooth transition with minimal disruption.
Team empowerment influences organizational flexibility. Empowering team members
promotes organizational flexibility, which necessitates adaptability, agility and
elasticity.
Team empowerment influences agile leadership. Team empowerment influences start-
ups’ capacity to utilize organizations more adaptively and flexibly. In order to maintain their
business functioning effectively, start-ups also take the effort to interact. The development of
empowerment through ongoing conversation with their representatives, consumers and the
organizational strategy emerged as a popular theme and the primary driver of team agility
(Grass et al., 2020).
Agile leadership influences innovation ambidexterity. It stresses interaction and
collaboration across stakeholders and units in order to be responsive to changes.
Organizational leaders must be aware of these key changes in order to build agile
businesses—companies that can anticipate and adapt to rapidly changing events while
efficiently managing stakeholders and technological complexity (Aldianto et al., 2021).
Agile leadership influences change management and is based on principles and values
that are jointly consented upon to improve company growth and establish an organized
strategy to change.
Agile leadership influences organizational flexibility. It is defined as a leader’s capacity to
respond quickly, adaptable and flexibly to unforeseen occurrences in an unknown
environment, allowing for the integration and coordination of resources and people within
an organization to create alternatives for any situation.
Agile leadership influences technology capability. Start-ups employ organizations more
adaptively and flexibly, which aids them in establishing systems for expanding their
enterprises in the face of the pandemic by optimizing digital technological innovation.
Agile leadership influences team empowerment. In the larger leadership literature, the
concept of empowerment receives a lot of attention. Start-ups make attempts to collaborate in
order to stay in business, which leads to top management empowering team members who
are confident in their abilities to function as a team while still being able to work
independently (Parker et al., 2015).
4.1.5 Level II. Level two has one factor, which is factor 7.
Technology capability influences innovation ambidexterity. It can strengthen the ability
to capitalize on existing market opportunities while also seeking new ones in order to meet the
difficulties of emerging markets. Utilizing organizational ideas that have been acquired and
developed through time can be aided by technological capabilities (Aldianto et al., 2021).
4.1.6 Level I. Level one has one factor, which is factor 3.
Workforce diversity (F3) is influenced by all other factors, which was related to the
objective of this study. A varied staff can provide complementary talents and habits, making
it easier to deal with problems. Start-ups must be able to manage and understand its varied
members in order to contribute to long-term sustainability.

4.2 MICMAC analysis

MICMAC involves categorization of the identified factors into four classes (Lakshmi
Priyadarsini and Suresh, 2020; Suresh et al., 2019a) which shown in Table 6.
Figure 3 depicts the MICMAC graph. Table 5 shows the ranking of the factors influencing
resilience in start-ups during Covid-19. According to the ranking, dynamic capabilities and
workforce diversity are ranked 1 and 2, respectively. Innovation ambidexterity is ranked
sixth in the MICMAC analysis ranking.
 Factor’s Driving
Resilience
Class classification power Dependence Factors elements of

start-ups
Class-I Autonomous Weak Weak Nil
Class-II Dependent Weak Strong  Technology capability
 Innovation ambidexterity
Class- Linkage Strong Strong  Change management
III  Organizational flexibility
 Team empowerment
 Agile leadership
Class- Driving or Strong Weak  Dynamic capabilities
IV independent  Workforce diversity
 Effective communication with
stakeholders
 Sustainable resilience practice
Table 6.
Note(s): As per the MICMAC analysis, the factors influencing the resilience in start-ups during Covid-19 era Factor’s classification
are ranked (Suresh et al., 2019b; Sreenivasan and Suresh, 2021) in Table 7 using MICMAC

Factor Driving power Dependence Driving power/Dependence MICMAC rank

F1 9 2 4.50 2
F2 8 4 2.00 3
F3 1 10 0.10 6
F4 6 8 0.75 4
F5 8 4 2.00 3
F6 6 8 0.75 4 Table 7.
F7 2 9 0.22 5 MICMAC rank for
F8 6 8 0.75 4 factors influencing
F9 6 8 0.75 4 resilience in start-ups
F10 10 1 10.00 1 during Covid-19 era

Zone-IV Zone-III
10 F10
9 F1
8 F2,F5
7
6 F4,F6,
F8,F9
5
4
3
2 F7
1 F3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Zone-I Zone-II Figure 3.
MICMAC graph
Dependence
BIJ 5. Implication of the study
5.1 Managerial/practical implications
Start-ups are the most vulnerable businesses in the Covid-19 epidemic; thus this study
concentrates on them. It is now time for executives of start-ups to acquire more complex
methods and equipment for managing employees and companies. With more facts accessible,
employees should be technically capable of making smart judgements that previously
required many layers of clearance and hence more time. The proposed model in this research
will aid the executives and managers to sustain their start-ups in this Covid-19 pandemic. We
suggest that, based on the findings, the start-up must consider dynamic capabilities,
workforce diversity, effective communication with stakeholders, sustainable resilience
practice, change management, organizational flexibility, team empowerment, agile
leadership, technology capability and innovation ambidexterity to successfully continue
their business in the face of the worldwide pandemic. Using the TISM method, the
interrelationship between these factors was discovered. Using MICMAC analysis, these
factors were “prioritized” and “ranked” accordingly. More focus needs to be provided to the
factors such as dynamic capabilities, workforce diversity, effective communication with
stakeholders and sustainable resilience practice, as these are the key or driving factors. The
next focus should be given to the factors such as change management, organizational
flexibility, team empowerment and agile leadership, as they are factors considered to be the
linkage between driving and dependence factors. The final focus should be on the
dependence factors, including technology capability and innovation ambidexterity because
other factors influence these factors. Therefore, these factors are crucial for beginning
enterprises to build resilience in the face of the Covid-19 environmental and economic shocks.
Managers can gradually broaden decision-making limits, assuring that the individual has the
required knowledge to make excellent judgements, the accompanying power to make those
judgements, and exposure to enough resources to put those judgements into action. More
advice for start-ups will emerge as resilience of start-up research advances. Knowledge of
these factors should aid executives and academics in gaining a better grasp of how to
construct resilient start-ups comprised of resilient individuals. The application of these
factors during Covid-19 will offer feedback on their success as well as the development of
additional principles, all with the goal of enhancing start-ups and the work environment.

5.2 Theoretical implications

This study provided unique additions to the fragmented and restricted literature on start-up
resilience by searching, analysing and synthesizing it. A literature review is used to get
knowledge of many facets of resilience by analysing its definition. Most studies regard
resilience as a reactive characteristic that kicks in once a disturbance occurs. This study adds
to the extant literary works on resilience by offering a thorough list of variables that can drive
resilience in start-ups, explaining how these factors interact and presenting a hierarchical
structure that prioritizes the enablers based on their dependence and driving power. The
TISM technique allowed the researchers to address the three essential questions of theory
building–“what”, “how” and “why” (Whetten, 1989). TISM approach helps in identifying
these questions (Sushil, 2016; Dubey et al., 2017).
5.2.1 What. Answers the question by identifying the factors. In this study, ten factors have
been identified to answer this question.
5.2.2 How. Finds the interrelationship between the factors to answer the query. In this
study, this question was answered by identifying the interrelationship between the resilience
factors.
5.2.3 Why. Answers the question by expositions the connections. In this study, the
hierarchical levels of the factors were identified to answer this question.
6. Conclusion Resilience
Workers nowadays experience ongoing change in the job they do, how they execute it, where elements of
it is accomplished and with whom they engage. These organizational changes are only half of
the difficulty; employees who now have additional duties interacting directly with external
start-ups
customers and suppliers are progressively feeling the effects of external developments. The
resilient organization plans and executes effective activities to advance the firm, enhancing
the likelihood of its own survival during the Covid-19. Once Charles Darwin said that “it is not
the strongest species, nor the cleverest that survive, but the most receptive to change”.
Employees that are resilient invest less effort in integrating organizational change and hence
have a better potential to increase quality and productivity. As workers gain more power,
more choices are frequently made without instant consent and under time constraints. In
today’s service economy, meeting consumer requirements on the spot is critical. This, too,
increases the emphasis on the employee to analyse the issue swiftly, determine what can be
supplied to the client, be prepared to justify what she or he has done and proceed on to the
next circumstances. Workers are frequently placed in these circumstances with little training,
preparedness or resources. The employees must learn how to be resilient, that is, how to
swiftly create and practice positive adaptive actions that are appropriate for the current
circumstances while experiencing little stress. These resilient practices enable employees to
satisfy client requirements on the spot, seize opportunities that might otherwise be missed,
and prevent uncertainties like Covid-19 by acting swiftly and efficiently in emergency
conditions.
In this study, ten major resilience factors have been identified through literature review
and experts’ opinions in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. This study mainly focuses on
the resilience of start-ups during the Covid-19 pandemic. The resilience factors that have been
identified are dynamic capabilities, workforce diversity, effective communication with
stakeholders, sustainable resilience practice, change management, organizational flexibility,
team empowerment, agile leadership, technology capability and innovation ambidexterity.
Using the TISM and MICMAC analyses, a hierarchical framework of these factors is created,
and they are characterized as “autonomous”, “dependent”, “linkage” and “driving”. In this
study, it has been found that the key factors are dynamic capabilities, workforce diversity,
effective communication with stakeholders and sustainable resilience practice. Customers’
demands are identified by performing market studies and creating priorities for start-ups.
They must act on the possibilities they have identified and adjust to work routines by
applying methods specific to their organization’s circumstances. This study’s comprehensive
approach gives knowledge of the interrelationships among key factors that stimulate start-up
resilience in the Covid-19 era.

6.1 Limitations and future scope

This study has few limitations. One of the limitations is that the study focuses start-ups of
different sectors, rather than focussing any one sector; hence, in future, the researchers can
take up any one sector and do the study. The TISM framework is a theory-building technique
that establishes a basic structure of factor linkages. Given the post-pandemic global
circumstances and chaotic environment, the components’ interrelationships and hierarchical
structure may change. As a result, after the pandemic waves have subsided, this
investigation must be revisited to determine the precise interrelationships of components
and their hierarchical pattern. A systematic questionnaire was not employed in the study to
further assess the framework. A survey is used to create a theoretical model based on the
opinions of the experts. In future, the study might be expanded to numerous places with
many start-ups. Furthermore, this model may be experimentally tested through the use of
statistical techniques such as “exploratory factor analysis” and “confirmatory factor
analysis”, in addition to “structural equation modelling (SEM)”. The research may also take
BIJ into account other time periods to measure resilience, such as the conduct of longitudinal
studies to analyse resilience and its impact on resilient and company performance.

References
Afgana, N., Cvetinovi
c, D. and Andre, P. (2011), “Sustainable resilience of company management
system”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, Vol. 1
No. 7, pp. 251-267.
Aldianto, L., Anggadwita, G., Permatasari, A., Mirzanti, I.R. and Williamson, I.O. (2021), “Toward a
business resilience framework for start-ups”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 6, p. 3132.
Avery, G.C. and Bergsteiner, H. (2011), “Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business
resilience and performance”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 5-15.
Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M.J. and Olsen, T.L. (2020), “On metrics for supply chain resilience”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 287 No. 1, pp. 145-158.
Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Gunasekaran, A., Ndubisi, N.O. and Venkatesh, M. (2021),
“Manufacturing and service supply chain resilience to the COVID-19 outbreak: lessons learned
from the automobile and airline industries”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 163, p. 120447.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. and Burnard, K. (2011), “Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future
directions”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5375-5393.
Braes, B. and Brooks, D. (2010), “Organisational resilience: a propositional study to understand and
identify the essential concepts”, 3rd Australian Security and Intelligence Conference, Edith
Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Branicki, L.J., Sullivan-Taylor, B. and Livschitz, S.R. (2017), “How entrepreneurial resilience generates
resilient SMEs”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 1244-1263.
Cai, B., Xie, M., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. and Feng, Q. (2018), “Availability-based engineering resilience metric
and its corresponding evaluation methodology”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 172, pp. 216-224.
Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S. and Walter, C. (2014), “Business model innovation as
antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience”, Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 440-463.
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.
Deccan herald (2020), available at: www.deccanherald.com/business/study-on-challenges-faced-by-
start-ups-crucial-for-recovery-post-covid-19-897297.html (accessed 28 October 2021).
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218.
Englehardt, C.S. and Simmons, P.R. (2002), “Organizational flexibility for a changing world”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 113-121.
Fath, B., Fiedler, A., Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R.R. and Sullivan-Taylor, B. (2021), “International
relationships and resilience of New Zealand SME exporters during COVID-19”, Critical
Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 359-379.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockstr€om, J. (2010), “Resilience
thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 15
No. 4, p. 20.
Grass, A., Backmann, J. and Hoegl, M. (2020), “From empowerment dynamics to team adaptability:
exploring and conceptualizing the continuous agile team innovation process”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 324-351.
Gray, D. and Jones, K.F. (2016), “Using organisational development and learning methods to develop Resilience
resilience for sustainable futures with SMEs and micro businesses: the case of the ‘business
alliance’”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 474-494. elements of
Haase, A. and Eberl, P. (2019), “The challenges of routinizing for building resilient start-ups”, Journal
start-ups
of Small Business Management, Vol. 57, pp. 579-597.
Hamedi, H. and Mehdiabadi, A. (2020), “Entrepreneurship resilience and Iranian organizations: application
of the fuzzy DANP technique”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2009), “Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a
developmental path”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 91-102.
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2019), “Review of quantitative methods for supply chain
resilience analysis”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 125, pp. 285-307.
Ishak, A.W. and Williams, E.A. (2018), “A dynamic model of organizational resilience: adaptive and
anchored approaches”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 180-196.
Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2020), “Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply chain
resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 2904-2915.
Jena, J., Fulzele, V., Gupta, R., Sherwani, F., Shankar, R. and Sidharth, S. (2016), “A TISM modeling of
critical success factors of smartphone manufacturing ecosystem in India”, Journal of Advances
in Management Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 203-224.
Jena, J., Sidharth, S., Thakur, L.S., Pathak, D.K. and Pandey, V.C. (2017), “Total interpretive structural
modeling (TISM): approach and application”, Journal of Advances in Management Research,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 162-181.
Joiner, B. and Josephs, S. (2007), “Developing agile leaders”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Kashiramka, S., Sagar, M., Dubey, A.K., Mehndiratta, A. and Sushil, S. (2019), “Critical success factors
for next generation technical education institutions”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1605-1621.
Kim, Y., Jeong, S.S., Yiu, D.W. and Moon, J. (2021), “Frequent CEO turnover and firm performance: the
resilience effect of workforce diversity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 173 No. 1, pp. 185-203.
Lakshmi Priyadarsini, S. and Suresh, M. (2020), “Factors influencing the epidemiological
characteristics of pandemic COVID 19: a TISM approach”, International Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Lee, J. and Wang, J. (2017), “Developing entrepreneurial resilience: implications for human resource
development”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 519-539.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Beck, T.E. (2003), “Beyond bouncing back: the concept of organizational
resilience”, in National Academy of Management Meetings, Seattle, WA.
Li, N., Chiaburu, D.S. and Kirkman, B.L. (2017), “Cross-level influences of empowering leadership on
citizenship behavior: organizational support climate as a double-edged sword”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 1076-1102.
Linnenluecke, M.K. and Griffiths, A. (2010), “Corporate sustainability and organizational culture”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 357-366.
Longstaff, P.H. and Yang, S.U. (2008), “Communication management and trust: their role in building
resilience to ‘surprises’ such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and terrorism”, Ecology and
Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 3.
Lu, Y., Wu, J., Peng, J. and Lu, L. (2020), “The perceived impact of the Covid-19 epidemic: evidence
from a sample of 4807 SMEs in Sichuan Province, China”, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 323-340.
BIJ 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.
MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R. and Seidl, D. (2015), “Rethinking dynamic capabilities from a creative
action perspective”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 340-352.
Maguire, B. and Hagan, P. (2007), “Disasters and communities: understanding social resilience”,
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 16-20.
Manfield, R.C. and Newey, L.R. (2018), “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.
Martin, R. (2012), “Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks”, Journal of
Economic Geography, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
McCann, J., Selsky, J. and Lee, J. (2009), “Building agility, resilience and performance in turbulent
environments”, People and Strategy, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 44-51.
Mealor, B.A. and Hild, A.L. (2007), “Post-invasion evolution of native plant populations: a test of
biological resilience”, Oikos, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1493-1500.
Menon, S. and Suresh, M. (2019), “Total interpretive structural modelling: evolution and applications”,
International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application,
Cham, Springer, pp. 257-265.
Menon, S. and Suresh, M. (2021a), “Enablers of workforce agility in engineering educational
institutions”, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 504-539.
Menon, S. and Suresh, M. (2021b), “Factors influencing organizational agility in higher education”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 307-332.
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.
Parker, D.W., Holesgrove, M. and Pathak, R. (2015), “Improving productivity with self-organised teams
and agile leadership”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 64
No. 1, pp. 112-128.
Patil, M. and Suresh, M. (2019), “Modelling the enablers of workforce agility in IoT projects: a TISM
approach”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 157-175.
Patri, R. and Suresh, M. (2017), “Modelling the enablers of agile performance in healthcare organization:
a TISM approach”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 251-272.
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.
Phillips, P.A. and Wright, C. (2009), “E-business’s impact on organizational flexibility”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1071-1080.
Rahi, K. (2019), “Indicators to assess organizational resilience–a review of empirical literature”,
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 10 Nos 2/3, pp. 85-98.
Rajesh, R. (2020), “A novel advanced grey incidence analysis for investigating the level of resilience in
supply chains”, Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03641-5.
Rajesh, R., Agariya, A.K. and Rajendran, C. (2021), “Predicting resilience in retailing using grey theory
and moving probability based Markov models”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 62, p. 102599.
Rahman, M. and Mendy, J. (2019), “Evaluating people-related resilience and non-resilience barriers of
SMEs’ internationalisation: a developing country perspective”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 225-240.
Rutter, M. (1993), “Resilience: some conceptual considerations”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 14
No. 8, pp. 626-631.
Sapeciay, Z., Wilkinson, S. and Costello, S.B. (2017), “Building organisational resilience for the Resilience
construction industry”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 98-108. elements of
Semeijn, J.H., Cani€els, M.C. and Kooistra, D. (2019), “Cross-lagged effects of resilience and indicators of
start-ups
sustainable employability; a study among Dutch police officers”, Policing: An International Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 961-975.
Shani, O. (2020), “Organizational resilience: antecedents, consequences, and practical implications–for
managers and change leaders”, in Research in Organizational Change and Development,
Emerald Publishing.
Simeone, C.L. (2015), “Business resilience: reframing healthcare risk management”, Journal of
Healthcare Risk Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 31-37.
Souza, A.A.A., Alves, M.F.R., Macini, N., Cezarino, L.O. and Liboni, L.B. (2017), “Resilience for
sustainability as an eco-capability”, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 581-599.
Sreenivasan, A. and Suresh, M. (2021), “Modeling the enablers of sourcing risks faced by start-ups in
COVID-19 era”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing. doi: 10.1108/JGOSS-12-
2020-0070.
Suresh, M. and Arun Ram Nathan, R.B. (2020), “Readiness for lean procurement in construction
projects”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 587-608.
Suresh, M., Ganesh, S. and Raman, R. (2019a), “Modelling the factors of agility of humanitarian
operations”, International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 108-123.
Suresh, M., Mahadevan, G. and Abhishek, R.D. (2019b), “Modelling the factors influencing the service
quality in supermarkets”, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 1474-1486.
Sushil (2012), “Interpreting the interpretive structural model”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-106.
Sushil (2016), “How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models?”, Annals of Operations
Research, Vol. 270 Nos 1-2, pp. 473-487.
Vaishnavi, V. and Suresh, M. (2020), “Modelling of readiness factors for the implementation of Lean
Six Sigma in healthcare organizations”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 597-633.
Vaishnavi, V., Suresh, M. and Dutta, P. (2019a), “A study on the influence of factors associated with
organizational readiness for change in healthcare organizations using TISM”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1290-1313.
Vaishnavi, V., Suresh, M. and Dutta, P. (2019b), “Modelling the readiness factors for agility in
healthcare organization: a TISM approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 2372-2400.
Vakilzadeh, K. and Haase, A. (2020), “The building blocks of organizational resilience: a review of the
empirical literature”, Continuity and Resilience Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Viitanen, J. and Kingston, R. (2014), “Smart cities and green growth: outsourcing democratic and
environmental resilience to the global technology sector”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 803-819.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L., Norberg, J.,
Peterson, G.D. and Pritchard, R. (2002), “Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a
working hypothesis for a participatory approach”, Conservation Ecology, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 14.
Walsh, F. (2015), Strengthening Family Resilience, Guilford Publications, New York.
Wedawatta, G. and Ingirige, B. (2016), “A conceptual framework for understanding resilience of
construction SMEs to extreme weather events”, Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 428-443.
BIJ Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.
Wieland, A. and Durach, C.F. (2021), “Two perspectives on supply chain resilience”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 315-322.

Appendix

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,10 1
2 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,5,10 2,5
3 3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 3 I
4 3,4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
5 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,5,10 2,5
6 3,4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
7 3,7 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 7
8 3,4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
Table A1. 9 3,4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
Iteration-1 10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 10 10

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,10 1
2 2,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,5,10 2,5
4 4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
5 2,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,5,10 2,5
6 4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
7 7 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 7 II
8 4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
Table A2. 9 4,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9
Iteration-2 10 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 10 10

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,4,5,6,8,9 1,10 1
2 2,4,5,6,8,9 1,2,5,10 2,5
4 4,6,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9 III
5 2,4,5,6,8,9 1,2,5,10 2,5
6 4,6,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9 III
8 4,6,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9 III
Table A3. 9 4,6,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9 III
Iteration-3 10 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10 10 10
 Resilience
elements of
start-ups

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,5 1,10 1
2 2,5 1,2,5,10 2,5 IV
5 2,5 1,2,5,10 2,5 IV Table A4.
10 1,2,5,10 10 10 Iteration-4

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1 1,10 1 V Table A5.

10 1,10 10 10 Iteration-5

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

Table A6.
10 10 10 10 VI Iteration-6

About the authors

Aswathy Sreenivasan is a research scholar at Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India. She holds a master’s degree in business administration from
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India. Her field of study is Agility in Start-ups Operations, Lean in Start-
ups Operations. Her research interests include sustainability, service operations. She is currently
working on lean and agility in startups.
M. Suresh is an associate professor at Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,
Coimbatore, India. He holds a PhD in project management from Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, India, and master’s in industrial engineering from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore,
India. His research interests include issues related to lean and agile operations and performance
management. He has authored several papers in Operations Management and currently working on
lean and agile Healthcare Operations Management. He is also a member of International Society on
Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. M. Suresh is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
m_suresh@cb.amrita.edu
Prof. Juan Alfredo Tuesta Panduro is an administrator, university professor with more than 8 years
of undergraduate experience, thesis advisor, his lines of research are microfinance, licencing;
educational quality in higher education and dissemination of scientific research methodology. He has
published scientific articles and participated in international conferences as a speaker.

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