Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (Reference Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman and Klieger2016) offer compelling arguments for the need to consider resilience trajectories and to identify the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors accountable for unique trajectories. We welcome the call for more focused research efforts toward uncovering the role of resilience in organizations and concur with Britt et al. that there is a need for a clearer characterization of resilience among employees, the correlates of resilience, and the way that resilience can be facilitated. Our objective here is to build on the main thrust of Britt et al.’s focal article by outlining a novel perspective on employee resilience, which we believe will constitute an important contribution to the organizational resilience literature.
The focal article's recommendations are grounded on the assumption that the capacity for and demonstration of resilience are dependent on exposure to significant adversity or trauma, and the article posits that managing psychosocial risk factors in the workplace (i.e., adversity mitigation) may prove a fruitful avenue to maintaining employee resilience. We contend that predicating our understanding of employee resilience exclusively on responsiveness to significant adverse events restricts the scope of the construct. In essence, conceptualizing employee resilience solely under the lens of positive response to significant adversity may bind us to a posttraumatic growth perspective (i.e., positive adaptation contingent on crisis exposure) and detract from the consideration of resilience as a capability that can be developed and enacted in both stable and crisis environments. Considering employee resilience in noncrisis contexts refocuses our attention on the possibility of proactive resilience development, ensuring both continuous improvement in routine situations and adaptive responses to major adversity. This conceptualization invites the investigation of resilience-promoting factors that are part of business as usual and that all employees may experience.
The view of resilience outlined in our commentary emphasizes the importance of a resilience-enabling organizational environment during times of stability that ensures resilience in the event of a crisis. Building on recently advanced notions of inherent and adaptive resilience (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Barnes, Berry, Burton, Evans, Tate and Webb2008; Nilakant et al., in press), we posit that employee resilience can be enacted across a range of environments, including business-as-usual contexts, provided the organization enables its ongoing development among workers. In what follows, we will expand and elaborate on what this perspective entails for the study of employee resilience and what opportunities this conceptualization of resilience offers for employees and organizations. The resilience perspective discussed herein is based on the following tenets: (a) Employee resilience can be manifested in both stable and adverse conditions, (b) employee and organizational resilience capabilities that are proactively developed in stable environments (i.e., inherent resilience) will be associated with the resilience levels developed and exhibited under significant adversity (i.e., adaptive resilience), and (c) the onus for developing resilience does not rest solely on the employee, as resilience building comprises a reciprocal process involving employees and their organization.
Challenging the Assumption of Significant Adversity as a Resilience Catalyst
The capacity to exhibit an adaptive response to significant adversity remains the epitome of resilience, a notion that echoes the prevalent outlook in the individual resilience literature (Bonnano, Reference Bonnano2004; Fletcher & Sarkar, Reference Fletcher and Sarkar2013; Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, Reference Harland, Harrison, Jones and Reiter-Palmon2005; Stephens, Heaphy, Carmeli, Spreitzer, & Dutton, Reference Stephens, Heaphy, Carmeli, Spreitzer and Dutton2013) and intersects the recommendations put forth in the focal article. This outlook is further reinforced in the organizational resilience research domain, where resilience is viewed as a capability both essential to, and inextricable from, crisis and risk management (e.g., van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom, & George, Reference Van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom and George2015). Although advances in individual resilience research have long departed from a restoration of equilibrium perspective in favor of a learning and continual growth viewpoint (e.g., Youssef & Luthans, Reference Youssef, Luthans, Gardner, Avolio and Walumbwa2005), resilience is still largely discussed as signaling responsiveness to severe adversity, and less attention has been given to the potential for this capability to evolve in the context of typical challenges at work. In contrast, recent calls for research suggest a move from this traditional adversity responsiveness approach to one that emphasizes ongoing capability creation and sustainability (Sutcliffe & Vogus, Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus, Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003; van der Vegt et al., Reference Van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom and George2015). We propose that the combination of these approaches offers the most useful conceptualization of the resilience construct. Individuals and organizations are resilient to the extent that they engage in a deliberate, continuing process of developing resilience capabilities. This is akin to the notion of inherent resilience mentioned above (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Barnes, Berry, Burton, Evans, Tate and Webb2008; Nilakant et al., in press). Inherent resilience describes the development of resilience capability in an environment characterized by low to moderate levels of adversity exposure (i.e., business as usual), to the extent that individuals are provided with the necessary resources for capability development (e.g., performance feedback, peer and managerial support). On the other hand, adaptive resilience refers to effective responsiveness to instances of significant adversity. Evidence from organizations operating in pre- and postdisaster environments suggests that inherent resilience prior to exposure to a significant adverse event is associated with adaptive resilience, operationalized as business growth and employee engagement and well-being in the months and years following a major crisis (Nilakant et al., in press). Whether inherent resilience represents a prerequisite to adaptive resilience or whether the former merely constitutes one of several predictors of the latter remains to be empirically verified. Nevertheless, the preliminary evidence summarized above suggests that the mechanisms and resources that underpin adaptive resilience do not differ substantially from those involved in inherent resilience, namely, the role of organizations as enablers of employee resilience development.
A New Perspective on Resilience Development in Organizations
Inherent and adaptive resilience comprise critical elements of resilience capabilities in organizations, the former by increasing organizational preparedness for future challenges and the latter by ensuring adaptive response to crises (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Barnes, Berry, Burton, Evans, Tate and Webb2008; Nilakant et al., in press). It is therefore important to identify the factors and mechanisms that contribute to their development. Recent research suggests that, beyond safeguarding infrastructural preparedness and creating a learning-oriented organizational culture, developing and maintaining employee well-being and engagement are foundational to ensuring inherent resilience capability (Nilakant et al., in press). The fact that well-being and engagement comprise core elements of resilience capability reinforces the need for organizations to establish an enabling context for these elements to develop. As suggested in the focal article, resilience is demonstrated via indicators of positive adaptation, which include well-being in addition to business growth. In our view, resilience is signaled by behaviors that contribute to increasing organizational resources, which result in, and can in turn be aided by, improved levels employee well-being, engagement, and performance. This view signals the need for change in organizational outlook on resilience management. While organizations acknowledge the importance of developing resilience among employees, resilience building to date has most often been associated with “hardiness training” and other personal resilience-oriented activities, typically disconnected from everyday work demands and context. The conventional and still often espoused approach to resilience development is therefore grounded on individual-centric interventions. We propose that this approach should be replaced or at least supplemented by a strategy that comprises the mutual enhancement of employee and organizational capabilities via resource provision and the continual minimization of hurdles. Organizations stand to gain from considering people management strategies that embed resilience building into business as usual (Devilly, Gist, & Cotton, Reference Devilly, Gist and Cotton2006; Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, Reference Grawitch, Gottschalk and Munz2006; Varker & Devilly, Reference Varker and Devilly2012), rather than investing in targeted resilience interventions, which may have limited transferability to the occupational context. Integrating resilience building with organizational functioning would also address a problem raised by Britt et al.: the tendency for “blaming the victim” by placing the onus of resilience building on employees. The need to consider the organization's health in addition to the health and resilience levels among employees when managing stress and resilience has been argued for (e.g., Devilly et al., Reference Devilly, Gist and Cotton2006). This is consistent with our view that resilience should signify the mutual enhancement of employees and organizations. Such a perspective implies shared responsibility for resilience building. In practice, the organization offers a context for resilience promotion, and employees utilize the resources available to engage in resilient behaviors, which in turn develop and sustain resilience capability. This reciprocal responsibility approach also suggests that, rather than selecting for resilience, organizations can support employee resilience among their staff by crafting a resilience-promoting environment. For example, resilient employee behaviors such as developing innovative solutions and making suggestions for operational changes to how the work is done require an organizational environment that fosters autonomous decision making and accountability for results, two factors that have long been identified as essential to positive well-being and performance outcomes (cf. Hackman & Oldham, Reference Hackman and Oldham1976).
An important point to make is that we do not deem employees resilient if they are simply “getting by” under significant adversity. Recommendation 6 in the focal article suggests that there is dark side to resilience. Indeed, working under sustained exposure to major challenges can lead to negative outcomes, such as burnout and fatigue (Kuntz, Reference Kuntz2015). Our conceptualization of employee resilience is based on the fact that positive, proactive behaviors are inextricably linked to supportive and development-oriented working environments. The negative outcomes of persevering (such as burnout) are usually observed when organizations are not enabling to the extent necessary. We propose that resilient behaviors among employees will be related to positive outcomes, even when circumstances are challenging or highly stressful, but only to the extent that the organization fosters a resilience-building context. This is in line with theories on the importance of resources that allow for proactive coping strategies (cf. Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007; Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984), which suggest that severe adversity can be endured for a period of time and eventually overcome if adequate support is provided.
Directions for Future Research
Frequent organizational changes and increased uncertainty require that employees learn to operate effectively under quantitatively and qualitatively diverse environmental demands. Hence, we propose an operational definition of employee resilience as a suite of workplace behaviors that signal both inherent and adaptive resilience (Näswall, Kuntz, Hodliffe, & Malinen, Reference Näswall, Kuntz, Hodliffe and Malinen2015). This operationalization facilitates a holistic appraisal of the extent to which both employees and the organization are prepared to handle challenges that occur as part of a fast-changing and often unpredictable business environment. We suggest that employees are resilient to the extent that they exhibit inherent resilience, reflected on responsiveness to incremental changes that occur routinely; preparedness for a range of potential adverse events; and the capacity to develop solutions that substantively improve organizational functioning. Further, and consistent with the traditional view, positive adaptive behaviors during and following significant adverse events are also indicative of employee resilience. We define employee resilience as the capacity of employees to utilize resources in order to continually adapt and flourish at work, even when faced with adversity. The demonstration of resilient behaviors is predicated on the organization's and its leaders’ ability to create an environment that enables and supports employees.
The behavioral approach to employee resilience presented in this commentary denotes the importance of fostering supportive and proactive work behaviors, which are germane to adaptation across a range of situations and result in positive workplace outcomes. This approach is grounded on three assumptions: (a) Employee resilience is an individual behavioral capability that can be developed, (b) resilient employee behaviors will be enacted to the extent that resilience-promoting factors (i.e., interpersonal and organizational enablers) are present, and (c) the construct reflects the capacity not only to adapt to a crisis but also to proactively seek opportunities for improvement in stable environments. Fostering the development of employee resilience under favorable conditions, as part of routine organizational functioning, will substantially aid the enactment of resilience in adverse circumstances. We suggest that there is an opportunity for organizations to increase their capacity for resilience in a cost-effective manner, both at the organizational and employee levels, by embedding resilience-building practices within everyday work. This will not only ensure better preparedness in the event of a crisis but also improve overall organizational functioning and performance outcomes.
You have
Access
Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (Reference Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman and Klieger2016) offer compelling arguments for the need to consider resilience trajectories and to identify the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors accountable for unique trajectories. We welcome the call for more focused research efforts toward uncovering the role of resilience in organizations and concur with Britt et al. that there is a need for a clearer characterization of resilience among employees, the correlates of resilience, and the way that resilience can be facilitated. Our objective here is to build on the main thrust of Britt et al.’s focal article by outlining a novel perspective on employee resilience, which we believe will constitute an important contribution to the organizational resilience literature.
The focal article's recommendations are grounded on the assumption that the capacity for and demonstration of resilience are dependent on exposure to significant adversity or trauma, and the article posits that managing psychosocial risk factors in the workplace (i.e., adversity mitigation) may prove a fruitful avenue to maintaining employee resilience. We contend that predicating our understanding of employee resilience exclusively on responsiveness to significant adverse events restricts the scope of the construct. In essence, conceptualizing employee resilience solely under the lens of positive response to significant adversity may bind us to a posttraumatic growth perspective (i.e., positive adaptation contingent on crisis exposure) and detract from the consideration of resilience as a capability that can be developed and enacted in both stable and crisis environments. Considering employee resilience in noncrisis contexts refocuses our attention on the possibility of proactive resilience development, ensuring both continuous improvement in routine situations and adaptive responses to major adversity. This conceptualization invites the investigation of resilience-promoting factors that are part of business as usual and that all employees may experience.
The view of resilience outlined in our commentary emphasizes the importance of a resilience-enabling organizational environment during times of stability that ensures resilience in the event of a crisis. Building on recently advanced notions of inherent and adaptive resilience (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Barnes, Berry, Burton, Evans, Tate and Webb2008; Nilakant et al., in press), we posit that employee resilience can be enacted across a range of environments, including business-as-usual contexts, provided the organization enables its ongoing development among workers. In what follows, we will expand and elaborate on what this perspective entails for the study of employee resilience and what opportunities this conceptualization of resilience offers for employees and organizations. The resilience perspective discussed herein is based on the following tenets: (a) Employee resilience can be manifested in both stable and adverse conditions, (b) employee and organizational resilience capabilities that are proactively developed in stable environments (i.e., inherent resilience) will be associated with the resilience levels developed and exhibited under significant adversity (i.e., adaptive resilience), and (c) the onus for developing resilience does not rest solely on the employee, as resilience building comprises a reciprocal process involving employees and their organization.
Challenging the Assumption of Significant Adversity as a Resilience Catalyst
The capacity to exhibit an adaptive response to significant adversity remains the epitome of resilience, a notion that echoes the prevalent outlook in the individual resilience literature (Bonnano, Reference Bonnano2004; Fletcher & Sarkar, Reference Fletcher and Sarkar2013; Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, Reference Harland, Harrison, Jones and Reiter-Palmon2005; Stephens, Heaphy, Carmeli, Spreitzer, & Dutton, Reference Stephens, Heaphy, Carmeli, Spreitzer and Dutton2013) and intersects the recommendations put forth in the focal article. This outlook is further reinforced in the organizational resilience research domain, where resilience is viewed as a capability both essential to, and inextricable from, crisis and risk management (e.g., van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom, & George, Reference Van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom and George2015). Although advances in individual resilience research have long departed from a restoration of equilibrium perspective in favor of a learning and continual growth viewpoint (e.g., Youssef & Luthans, Reference Youssef, Luthans, Gardner, Avolio and Walumbwa2005), resilience is still largely discussed as signaling responsiveness to severe adversity, and less attention has been given to the potential for this capability to evolve in the context of typical challenges at work. In contrast, recent calls for research suggest a move from this traditional adversity responsiveness approach to one that emphasizes ongoing capability creation and sustainability (Sutcliffe & Vogus, Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus, Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003; van der Vegt et al., Reference Van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom and George2015). We propose that the combination of these approaches offers the most useful conceptualization of the resilience construct. Individuals and organizations are resilient to the extent that they engage in a deliberate, continuing process of developing resilience capabilities. This is akin to the notion of inherent resilience mentioned above (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Barnes, Berry, Burton, Evans, Tate and Webb2008; Nilakant et al., in press). Inherent resilience describes the development of resilience capability in an environment characterized by low to moderate levels of adversity exposure (i.e., business as usual), to the extent that individuals are provided with the necessary resources for capability development (e.g., performance feedback, peer and managerial support). On the other hand, adaptive resilience refers to effective responsiveness to instances of significant adversity. Evidence from organizations operating in pre- and postdisaster environments suggests that inherent resilience prior to exposure to a significant adverse event is associated with adaptive resilience, operationalized as business growth and employee engagement and well-being in the months and years following a major crisis (Nilakant et al., in press). Whether inherent resilience represents a prerequisite to adaptive resilience or whether the former merely constitutes one of several predictors of the latter remains to be empirically verified. Nevertheless, the preliminary evidence summarized above suggests that the mechanisms and resources that underpin adaptive resilience do not differ substantially from those involved in inherent resilience, namely, the role of organizations as enablers of employee resilience development.
A New Perspective on Resilience Development in Organizations
Inherent and adaptive resilience comprise critical elements of resilience capabilities in organizations, the former by increasing organizational preparedness for future challenges and the latter by ensuring adaptive response to crises (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Barnes, Berry, Burton, Evans, Tate and Webb2008; Nilakant et al., in press). It is therefore important to identify the factors and mechanisms that contribute to their development. Recent research suggests that, beyond safeguarding infrastructural preparedness and creating a learning-oriented organizational culture, developing and maintaining employee well-being and engagement are foundational to ensuring inherent resilience capability (Nilakant et al., in press). The fact that well-being and engagement comprise core elements of resilience capability reinforces the need for organizations to establish an enabling context for these elements to develop. As suggested in the focal article, resilience is demonstrated via indicators of positive adaptation, which include well-being in addition to business growth. In our view, resilience is signaled by behaviors that contribute to increasing organizational resources, which result in, and can in turn be aided by, improved levels employee well-being, engagement, and performance. This view signals the need for change in organizational outlook on resilience management. While organizations acknowledge the importance of developing resilience among employees, resilience building to date has most often been associated with “hardiness training” and other personal resilience-oriented activities, typically disconnected from everyday work demands and context. The conventional and still often espoused approach to resilience development is therefore grounded on individual-centric interventions. We propose that this approach should be replaced or at least supplemented by a strategy that comprises the mutual enhancement of employee and organizational capabilities via resource provision and the continual minimization of hurdles. Organizations stand to gain from considering people management strategies that embed resilience building into business as usual (Devilly, Gist, & Cotton, Reference Devilly, Gist and Cotton2006; Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, Reference Grawitch, Gottschalk and Munz2006; Varker & Devilly, Reference Varker and Devilly2012), rather than investing in targeted resilience interventions, which may have limited transferability to the occupational context. Integrating resilience building with organizational functioning would also address a problem raised by Britt et al.: the tendency for “blaming the victim” by placing the onus of resilience building on employees. The need to consider the organization's health in addition to the health and resilience levels among employees when managing stress and resilience has been argued for (e.g., Devilly et al., Reference Devilly, Gist and Cotton2006). This is consistent with our view that resilience should signify the mutual enhancement of employees and organizations. Such a perspective implies shared responsibility for resilience building. In practice, the organization offers a context for resilience promotion, and employees utilize the resources available to engage in resilient behaviors, which in turn develop and sustain resilience capability. This reciprocal responsibility approach also suggests that, rather than selecting for resilience, organizations can support employee resilience among their staff by crafting a resilience-promoting environment. For example, resilient employee behaviors such as developing innovative solutions and making suggestions for operational changes to how the work is done require an organizational environment that fosters autonomous decision making and accountability for results, two factors that have long been identified as essential to positive well-being and performance outcomes (cf. Hackman & Oldham, Reference Hackman and Oldham1976).
An important point to make is that we do not deem employees resilient if they are simply “getting by” under significant adversity. Recommendation 6 in the focal article suggests that there is dark side to resilience. Indeed, working under sustained exposure to major challenges can lead to negative outcomes, such as burnout and fatigue (Kuntz, Reference Kuntz2015). Our conceptualization of employee resilience is based on the fact that positive, proactive behaviors are inextricably linked to supportive and development-oriented working environments. The negative outcomes of persevering (such as burnout) are usually observed when organizations are not enabling to the extent necessary. We propose that resilient behaviors among employees will be related to positive outcomes, even when circumstances are challenging or highly stressful, but only to the extent that the organization fosters a resilience-building context. This is in line with theories on the importance of resources that allow for proactive coping strategies (cf. Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007; Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984), which suggest that severe adversity can be endured for a period of time and eventually overcome if adequate support is provided.
Directions for Future Research
Frequent organizational changes and increased uncertainty require that employees learn to operate effectively under quantitatively and qualitatively diverse environmental demands. Hence, we propose an operational definition of employee resilience as a suite of workplace behaviors that signal both inherent and adaptive resilience (Näswall, Kuntz, Hodliffe, & Malinen, Reference Näswall, Kuntz, Hodliffe and Malinen2015). This operationalization facilitates a holistic appraisal of the extent to which both employees and the organization are prepared to handle challenges that occur as part of a fast-changing and often unpredictable business environment. We suggest that employees are resilient to the extent that they exhibit inherent resilience, reflected on responsiveness to incremental changes that occur routinely; preparedness for a range of potential adverse events; and the capacity to develop solutions that substantively improve organizational functioning. Further, and consistent with the traditional view, positive adaptive behaviors during and following significant adverse events are also indicative of employee resilience. We define employee resilience as the capacity of employees to utilize resources in order to continually adapt and flourish at work, even when faced with adversity. The demonstration of resilient behaviors is predicated on the organization's and its leaders’ ability to create an environment that enables and supports employees.
The behavioral approach to employee resilience presented in this commentary denotes the importance of fostering supportive and proactive work behaviors, which are germane to adaptation across a range of situations and result in positive workplace outcomes. This approach is grounded on three assumptions: (a) Employee resilience is an individual behavioral capability that can be developed, (b) resilient employee behaviors will be enacted to the extent that resilience-promoting factors (i.e., interpersonal and organizational enablers) are present, and (c) the construct reflects the capacity not only to adapt to a crisis but also to proactively seek opportunities for improvement in stable environments. Fostering the development of employee resilience under favorable conditions, as part of routine organizational functioning, will substantially aid the enactment of resilience in adverse circumstances. We suggest that there is an opportunity for organizations to increase their capacity for resilience in a cost-effective manner, both at the organizational and employee levels, by embedding resilience-building practices within everyday work. This will not only ensure better preparedness in the event of a crisis but also improve overall organizational functioning and performance outcomes.