Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:45:56.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Employee Resilience: A Faceted Analytical Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Edna Rabenu and
Aharon Tziner
Edna Rabenu*
Affiliation:
School of Behavioral Sciences, Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel
Aharon Tziner
Affiliation:
School of Behavioral Sciences, Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edna Rabenu, School of Behavioral Sciences, Netanya Academic College, 1 University Street, Kiryat Yitzhak Rabin, Netanya, Israel4223587. E-mail: edna.rabenu@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We share Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger's (2016) concern over the confusion of the conceptual definition of resilience and believe that this thorny issue should be solved. Hence, our objective in this commentary is to dispel to some extent the fuzzy state of the resilience construct content, building on the extant resilience literature. This will help to enhance resilience construct validity.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016, pp. 480 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

We share Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger's (Reference Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman and Klieger2016) concern over the confusion of the conceptual definition of resilience and believe that this thorny issue should be solved. Hence, our objective in this commentary is to dispel to some extent the fuzzy state of the resilience construct content, building on the extant resilience literature. This will help to enhance resilience construct validity.

There is indeed a host of proposed conceptualizations of resilience (for a review see Meredith et al., Reference Meredith, Sherbourne, Gaillot, Hansell, Ritschard, Parker and Wrenn2011), developed in a series of waves of research (Richardson, Reference Richardson2002). Some of them, although very encompassing, are weak theoretically because they are based on statistically analyzing resilience data using factor analysis (e.g., Iacoviello & Charney, Reference Iacoviello and Charney2014). This statistical method has been sharply criticized on several grounds (e.g., Rabenu, Elizur, & Yaniv, Reference Rabenu, Elizur, Yaniv, Roazzi, Souza and Bilsky2015). The basic assumptions of its statistical model, for instance linearity, are often violated (Kelderman, Mellenbergh, & Elshout, Reference Kelderman, Mellenbergh and Elshout1981). Apart from this, factors with only one or two salient loadings are frequently found when using factor analysis to reveal the structure of various concepts (e.g., Cunningham, Reference Cunningham1981).

In the current commentary, we purport to introduce a definitional-formal framework of resilience, capitalizing on the facet analytical approach (Tziner, Reference Tziner1987). This approach posits that the components of a problem or an issue under investigation can be defined formally (Guttman, Reference Guttman1959). A facet is a criterion or a rule for classifying items associated with a given concept (Elizur, Reference Elizur1984; Roazzi, Campello de Souza, & Bilsky, Reference Roazzi, Campello de Souza and Bilsky2015). A natural way to define the structural configuration of a multicomponent concept is to spell out the facets considered to exhaust its content (Elizur, Reference Elizur1984; Tziner, Reference Tziner1987). According to this approach, the content of a concept is broken down into components—termed facets—that represent the most important properties of the concept domain (content). Facets are therefore a classification of elements of a concept's content, according to some rules (i.e., exclusive features). For instance, in Tziner and Rimmer (Reference Tziner and Rimmer1984), in an investigation of the underlying structure of ability tests, one of the facets was defined as “mental operation” (required by any ability test) and consisted of four elements: (a1) rule inference, (a2) abstract cognitive rule application, (a3) clerical rule application, and (a4) concrete rule application. Using the facet theoretical approach, we will try to circumscribe systematically the content of the resilience construct.

Reviewing the literature, we pinpointed four basic facets to define the resilience domain: (a) Modalities of Coping, (b) Time Span of Resilient Behavior, (c) Level of Growth, and (d) Domain of Resilient Outcome.

Facet A: Modalities of Coping

Masten (Reference Masten2001) identified positive self-perceptions and a positive outlook on life as cognitive contributors to higher resilience. Iacoviello and Charney (Reference Iacoviello and Charney2014) found that some of the factors obtained from factor analysis of resilience entail cognitive patterns of thinking and core beliefs that, when confronted with stressful situations, lead an individual to believe he/she can endure. Both of the researchers referred also to faith/spiritual belief as a constituent element. Consequently, we defined the first element: (a1) cognitive.

In addition, high-resilience individuals have emotional stability (Bonanno, Papa, & O'Neill, Reference Bonanno, Papa and O'Neill2001; Masten, Reference Masten2001). They also experience more positive emotions and less negative ones (Smith, Tooley, Christopher, & Kay, Reference Smith, Tooley, Christopher and Kay2010). Accordingly, we defined the second element: (a2) emotional.

High-resilience individuals positively adjust and adapt to adversity (e.g., King & Rothstein, Reference King, Rothstein, Rothstein and Burke2010; Kuntz, Näswall, Malinen, & Hodliffe, Reference Kuntz, Näswall, Malinen and Hodliffe2014; Luthans, Youssef-Morgan, & Avolio, Reference Luthans, Youssef-Morgan and Avolio2015; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000; Masten & Wright, Reference Masten, Wright, Reich, Zautra and Hall2010). Individuals with high resilience may promote adaptive coping strategies (Alim et al., Reference Alim, Feder, Graves, Wang, Weaver, Westphal and Charney2008) and seek more social support (Britt et al.; Iacoviello & Charney, Reference Iacoviello and Charney2014). They engage with spiritual role models and engage in activities that yield meaningful lives (Iacoviello & Charney, Reference Iacoviello and Charney2014). Thus, we defined the third element: (a3) instrumental (behavioral).

Facet B: Time Span of the Resilient Behavior

According to Bonanno (Reference Bonanno2004), resilience reflects the ability to maintain a stable equilibrium of normal functioning immediately after difficult events. Therefore, we defined the first element: (b1) immediately. However, it is different from recovery that usually requires a period of at least several months and then gradually returns to pre-event levels (Bonanno, Reference Bonanno2004). Thus, we defined the second element: (b2) after a while (a recovery process was needed).

Facet C: Level of Growth

Resilience refers to the ability to return to one's previous level of functioning (Carver, Reference Carver1998) or maintain a stable equilibrium of normal functioning after difficult events (Bonanno, Reference Bonanno2004). Accordingly, we added a first element: (c1) baseline level. However, many researchers refer to subsequent growth (e.g., Caza & Milton, Reference Caza, Milton, Cameron and Spreitzer2012; Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Youssef-Morgan and Avolio2015). They emphasize how resilient individuals thrive, rather than just survive, in a changing environment (Avolio & Luthans, Reference Avolio and Luthans2006; Caza & Milton, Reference Caza, Milton, Cameron and Spreitzer2012; Kuntz, et al., Reference Kuntz, Näswall, Malinen and Hodliffe2014; Luthans et al., Reference Luthans, Youssef-Morgan and Avolio2015). Thus, we defined the second element: (c2) higher level of growth.

Facet D: Domain of Resilient Outcome

Resilience is frequently defined as obtaining good results following exposure to adversity (e.g., Carver, Reference Carver1998; Cicchetti & Tucker, Reference Cicchetti and Tucker1994; Greene & Conrad, Reference Greene, Conrad and Greene2002; King & Rothstein, Reference King, Rothstein, Rothstein and Burke2010; Masten, Reference Masten2001). According to Hobfoll (Reference Hobfoll and Folkman2011), resilience refers to people's ability to withstand the most negative consequences of stressful challenge and remain vigorous, committed, and engaged in important life tasks. For most people, work is one of the major tasks in their lives. This facet includes the demonstration of resilience as elaborated by Britt and colleagues.

There is a positive relationship between resilience (as part of the psychological capital construct) and workplace performance outcomes (see a meta-analysis by Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, Reference Avey, Reichard, Luthans and Mhatre2011). Campbell (Reference Campbell, Ilgen and Pulakos1999) defined performance as a set of behaviors, the implementation of which is relevant to achieving the goals of a company or organization. We pay attention to direct performance, which includes the level of assignment completion and the quality of the work intended to complete tasks (determined by job expertise), but also to the contextual knowledge that is determined by personality, achievement motivation, and the worker's credibility (Borman & Motowidlo, Reference Borman, Motowidlo, Schmitt and Borman1993). Accordingly, we defined the first element—(d1) direct performance—and the second element—(d2) contextual (indirect) performance.

A positive relationship exists between resilience (as part of the psychological capital construct) and psychological well-being (Avey et al., Reference Avey, Reichard, Luthans and Mhatre2011). Moreover, individual resources when coping with stressful life events determine one's physical and mental well-being (Epstein-Mathias, Reference Epstein-Mathias2003). Resilience is a resource (an ability or potential) that allows individuals to withstand major stress or recover from it (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll and Folkman2011; Pooley & Cohen, Reference Pooley and Cohen2010; Schetter & Dolbier, Reference Schetter and Dolbier2011). Hence, we added a third element—(d3) well-being—and a fourth element—(d4) physical health.

The Structural Configuration of Resilience

The facet analytical approach attempts not only to formally define the facets comprising a concept's domain but also the relationships between these facets (Elizur, Reference Elizur1984; Tziner & Levy, Reference Tziner and Levy2010). The totality of these relationships can be formally expressed in a phrase called a “mapping sentence.” The mapping sentence serves as a guide to create structural configurations, to plan and collect observations, and to analyze data intended to empirically corroborate or disconfirm the hypothesized relationships between the facets and their components (Levy, Reference Levy and Kempf2005). We propose the following mapping sentence as a possible definition of the concept of resilience as presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Mapping sentence definition of resilience.

We assume that this framework provides a different and novel perspective that could contribute to dispelling the dispute over the conceptual structure and content of resilience. Of course, in future studies there would be a need to examine empirically the facet analytical structure emanating from the above mapping sentence using Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA), a nonmetric multidimensional scaling statistic aimed at examining the extent to which the hypothesized structure corresponds to the empirically unfolding structure.

References

Alim, T. N., Feder, A., Graves, R. E., Wang, Y., Weaver, J., Westphal, M., . . . Charney, D. S. (2008). Trauma, resilience, and recovery in a high-risk African-American population. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 1566–1575. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07121939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avey, J., Reichard, R., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22 (2), 127–152. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic leadership development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59 (1), 20–28. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., & O'Neill, K. (2001). Loss and human resilience. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 10 (3), 193–206. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(01)80014-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 378–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the New Age. In Ilgen, D. R. & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation and development (pp. 339–429). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caza, B. B., & Milton, L. P. (2012). Resilience at work: Building capability in the face of adversity. In Cameron, K. S. & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 895–908). New York, NY: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 533–549. doi:10.1017/S0954579400004673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, W. R. (1981). Ability factor structure differences in adulthood and old age. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elizur, D. (1984). Facet of work values: A structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein-Mathias, S. (2003). Meta-analyses of coping processes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.Google Scholar
Greene, R., & Conrad, N. (2002). Basic assumptions and terms. In Greene, R. (Ed.), Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research (pp. 1–27). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1959). Introduction to facet design and analysis. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Psychology, Brussels (pp. 130–132). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress. In Folkman, S. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iacoviello, B. M., & Charney, D. S. (2014). Psychosocial facets of resilience: Implications for preventing posttrauma psychopathology, treating trauma survivors, and enhancing community resilience. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 1–10. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v5.23970CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelderman, H., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1981). Guilford's facet theory of intelligence: An empirical comparison of models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 37–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, G. A., & Rothstein, M. G. (2010). Resilience and leadership: The self-management of failure. In Rothstein, M. G. & Burke, R. J. (Eds.), Self-management and leadership development (pp. 361–394). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kuntz, J. C., Näswall, K., Malinen, S., & Hodliffe, M. (2014). Resilience revisited: An employee-centered approach. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial International Society for the Study of Work and Organizational Values Conference, Riga, Latvia.Google Scholar
Levy, S. (2005). In Kempf, L. K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 175–188). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luthar, S.Cicchetti, D.Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71 (3), 543–562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 227–238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masten, A. S., & Wright, M. O. D. (2010). Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery and transformation. In Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Hall, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 213–238). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Meredith, S., Sherbourne, C., Gaillot, S. J., Hansell, L., Ritschard, H. V., Parker, A. M., & Wrenn, G. (2011). Promoting psychological resilience in the U.S. military. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google ScholarPubMed
Pooley, J., & Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: A definition in context. Australian Community Psychologist, 22 (1), 30–37.Google Scholar
Rabenu, E., Elizur, D., & Yaniv, E. (2015). Comparing SSA and factor analysis—The case of coping with stress. In Roazzi, A., Souza, B. C., & Bilsky, W. (Eds.), Facet theory: Searching for structure in complex social, cultural & psychological phenomena (pp. 139–152). Recife, Brazil: Editora Universitária/UFPE. Retrieved from https://mega.nz/#!ekRlFb6C!eIWKqRSxZ_XbFLCq2XprNiSIA0QdI382MLlEVPZ-I4cGoogle Scholar
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The meta theory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58 (3), 307–321. doi:10.1002/jclp.10020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roazzi, A., Campello de Souza, B., & Bilsky, W. (2015). Facet theory: Searching for structure in complex social, cultural and psychological phenomena. Recife, Brazil: UFPE.Google Scholar
Schetter, C. D, & Dolbier, C. (2011). Resilience in the context of chronic stress and health in adults. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5 (9), 634–652. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00379.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B. W., Tooley, E. M., Christopher, P. J., & Kay, V. S. (2010). Resilience as the ability to bounce back from stress: A neglected personal resource? Journal of Positive Psychology, 5 (3), 166–176. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.482186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tziner, A. (1987). The facet analytic approach to research and data processing. New York, NY: Verlag-Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., & Levy, S. (2010). H-R related facets and their relationship to organizational effectiveness: A faceted definition. Quality and Quantity: An International Journal of Methodology, 11, 549–564.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., & Rimmer, A. (1984). Examination of Guttman's model of ability tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1.Mapping sentence definition of resilience.