Theoretical and Empirical Approaches and Typologies Into Failures and Enhancement of Organizational Resilience Analysis

Concept And Definition Of Organizational Resilience

The concept of resilience is criticized (Carpenter and Brock, 2008) because the conceptual and hypothetical organizational resilience constructs can be confusing as pseudo‐multi‐dimensional construct as being interrelated (Hirsch and Levin, 1999; Wong et al. 2008). There is not any agreement on a formal and uniform definition of organizational resilience (Linnenluecke, 2017).

There is little consensus on the concept of organizational resilience (Kendra and Wachtendorf, 2003; Linnenluecke, 2017). Organizational resilience as a broad concept comprises multiple and divergent themes used loosely for a set of diverse phenomena (Hirsch and Levin, 1999, p. 200). The concept of organizational resilience is fuzzy and lacks of consistency (Amann and Jaussaud 2012; Brand and Jax, 2007; Burnard and Bhamra, 2011; Linnenluecke, 2017). The absence of resilience and the attributes attached to the concept are assessable ex‐post.

Organizational resilience is an emergent concept (Paul et al., 2016, King et al., 2016). The term resilience comes from the Latin resilience which means ‘to recoil or rebound’ and it is being used since the 1620’s. It has evolved sin then to include the notion of sense in the 19^th century (MacMillan, 2017). The concept of resilience is derived from the Latin word resilio (resilire), which means to rebound, spring back (Klein et al. 2003; van der Vegt et al. 2015). A conceptual definition of organizational resilience identifies attributes that are common to the phenomenon (Podsakoff et al. 2016, p. 165).