In 700 words, address the following:

Discussion Thread: Resiliency in Leadership and Management

chapter 7 and 8 from satterlee on chapter 7 human resource management and resiliency in leadership
for chapter 8

Use the following as headings for your Discussion thread:

 Topic Title
o A short overview of the topic
 Three Concepts
o The 3 most important concepts you have learned from the textbook readings,
presentations, and website and article readings.
o In the Discussion, include why these are the most important for an organization to
consider.
 Biblical Integration
o Integrate a minimum of one biblical principle that relates to one or more of your
concepts. Listing a Bible verse alone is unacceptable. Provide a verse or biblical
principle and elaborate how it relates to your topic and today’s current culture.

Include an introduction with a thesis statement. Ensure each paragraph is at least 120 words, with in-
text citations in APA 7th edition

Sources

Introduction

Resilience has become increasingly important for individuals,

organizations and society to flourish in the uncertain, risky, turbulent
and ambiguous world we live in today (Van Der Vegt, Essens,
Wahlström, & George, Citation2015). Thus, the study of resilience
necessitates a nuanced understanding of its multifaceted aspects in
order to comprehend, predict and design the appropriate interventions,
so as hopefully to enhance individual and organizational resilience and
wellbeing at large (Cartwright & Cooper, Citation2009). Although the
extant research on resilience has accumulated a vast body of
knowledge and thereby has assisted us with comprehending these
complex HRM issues in diverse organizational settings, we argue that
the existing studies have not paid sufficient attention to the
multifaceted aspects of resilience and occupational contexts.
Therefore, by joining the current conversation on resilience, wellbeing
and HRM, we suggest that investigating resilience from a
multidisciplinary perspective situated in varying occupational contexts
can advance our collective understandings of the phenomena in
significant ways.

This paper has three general objectives. First, we show that resilience
has been a long-standing issue in organizational behavior and
organization studies and provide an overview of the puzzles that
inform this special issue. Second, we highlight the key insights and
contributions of the papers included in this special issue by reviewing
their theoretical underpinnings, methodological approaches and
findings. Finally, we outline a future research agenda on resilience in
organizations that can help advance the international HRM research.

The multifaceted aspects of resilience

The rise of resilience can be corroborated with the movement of

positive organizational behavior research (Youssef &
Luthans, Citation2007). Positivity has received significant attention in
positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, Citation2000), thus
providing the theoretical underpinnings for the growth in positive
organizational behavior research (Bakker & Schaufeli, Citation2008).
The purpose of positive psychology ‘‘…is to begin to catalyze a change
in the focus of psychology from pre-occupation only with repairing the
worst things in life to also building positive qualities’’ (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, Citation2000, p. 5). In other words, positive
psychology studies the strengths and virtues that enable individuals
and communities to thrive. A wide range of topics emerged including,
among others: positive emotion (Tugade & Fredrickson, Citation2004),
psychological capital (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, Citation2009), and
resilience (Masten, Citation2001; Shin, Taylor, & Seo, Citation2012).

Intuitively, resilience means bounce back, as both individuals and

organizations will face stressful situation, setbacks, or failure during
their respective lifecycles. However, people’s responses to failure vary
widely. Some bounce back after a brief period while others descend
into depression. Thus, resilience can serve as an important intellectual
concept to understand the variations of organizational actors’ bouncing
back behaviors. As a multifaceted concept, resilience may be viewed
as a static personal trait and capacity, or alternatively as a process
from a dynamic perspective (Kossek & Perrigino, Citation2016).
Viewing resilience as a personal trait, more recent research identified
and recognized resilience as a relatively common rather than a rare
trait - suggested in early writing as being held by only extraordinary
individuals. And so, reframing of resilience suggests: “that results…
from the operation of basic human adaptational systems”
(Masten, Citation2001, p. 227).

When viewing from a dynamic perspective, resilience as a capacity can

be enhanced and it occurs in a dynamic process in response to trigger-
events. In a similar vein, resilience as a process emphasizes the
appraisal of feedback and experiences with adaptation, by which
individuals adapt to dealing with risk in their environment. In viewing
resilience as a process, risk is a necessary component, because a
person who is not exposed to some risk cannot be said to be resilient.
This is particularly prescient as risk has become so prevalent across
multiple domains and occupational contexts. Managing risk effectively
necessitates resilience (Van Der Vegt et al., Citation2015). Our working
definition of resilience is resilience as bouncing back from setbacks
combined with remaining effective in the face of tough demands and
difficult circumstances, and moreover, growing stronger in the process
(Cooper, Flint-Taylor, & Pearn, Citation2013; Cooper, Citation2013). In
sum, we acknowledge that the diverse views on resilience are not
mutually exclusive but complementary since resilience is multifaceted
in nature.

Resilience, organizational contexts and HRM: a

multidisciplinary perspective

Resilience in organizational contexts cover multiple domains, thus a

multidisciplinary approach may be conducive to obtaining a nuanced
understanding of resilience, well-being and HRM in diverse
organizational settings. One recent review highlighted the role
of occupational context and argued paying close attention to
occupational contexts may significantly advance theoretical
developments in resilience research (Kossek &
Perrigino, Citation2016). In organization and management studies,
resilience can be understood as the skill and the capacity to be robust
under conditions of enormous stress and change (Coutu, Citation2002).
In management and business studies, resilience is related to
environmental and sustainability management in the face of drastic
environmental events (Linnenluecke, Citation2017). Furthermore,
recently scholars began to link resilience with the research stream of
conflict management (Williams, Gruber, Sutcliffe, Shepherd, &
Zhao, Citation2017). In the domain of strategic management,
resilience is pertinent to developing appropriate strategy for
organizations to survive and thrive in a competitive environment
(Carmeli & Markman, Citation2011).

The different organizational settings also expose a critical perspective

in relation to the issue of levels of analysis when examining the
antecedents, processes and consequences of resilience. Most of the
existing resilience studies stemming from positive psychology or
positive organizational behavior tend to focus on individual-level. For
instance, sports players need to correct and put mistakes aside and
bounce back rapidly. Entrepreneurs face adverse situations, great
uncertainty, stressful events, and difficult circumstances and need
resilience in the pursuit of entrepreneurial activities (Bullough, Renko,
& Myatt, Citation2014; Liu, Citation2019). Increasingly, studies have
begun to move the level of analysis so that the importance of team
resilience has been recognized for sports activities (Morgan, Fletcher,
& Sarkar, Citation2013) and military training (Seligman, Citation2011).
When moving to the organizational-level, prior research on
organizational safety might shed some revealing lights (Vogus,
Rothman, Sutcliffe, & Weick, Citation2014). For instance, the research
stream on high reliability organizations consists the element of
resilience (Leveson, Dulac, Marais, & Carroll, Citation2009). Recent
research identified the importance of resilience for community-level
phenomena, such as the resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems
(Roundy, Brockman, & Bradshaw, Citation2017).

To summarize, the vibrant research activities attest to the fact that in

contemporary society resilience is required in a wide range of
organizational contexts, and that, examining resilience from a
multidisciplinary perspective may engender revealing insights. Such a
multidisciplinary approach resonates with the recent quest that
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach is urgently encouraged
from scientists - including social scientists - (Trewhella, Citation2009;
Van Noorden, Citation2015), business leaders and policymakers in
order to tackle societal and economic grand challenges facing the
global economy today.

A brief introduction to the papers in this special

issue

In this section we introduce the seven papers in the special issue. We

discuss their theoretical underpinnings, methodological approaches,
findings and overall contributions to the study of the resilience, well-
being and HRM practices. Table 1 offers an overview of these seven
papers along with some key dimensions.

Table 1. An Overview of the papers in this special issue.

Download CSVDisplay Table

In the first article, Cooke and colleagues examined the extent to which
high-performance work system (HPWS) contribute towards enhancing
employees’ resilience as well as their levels of engagement. The
occupational context of this study is the Chinese financial services
industry with a sample of 2040 employees in the Chinese banking
industry. This study found out HPWS as a job resource can positively
affect resilience and subsequently employee engagement. Thus, the
paper sheds some interesting light on HRM interventions, especially
the role of HPWS on employee resilience.

By connecting the individual-level and organizational-level, in the

second article Branicki, Steyer, and Sullivan-Taylor sought to reveal the
microprocesses involved in producing resilient organizations. The
paper adopted a qualitative method and empirically examined the
resilience work of 137 resilient managers’ from127 private and public
sector organizations from the UK and France. The authors juxtaposed
everyday ‘business as usual’ and extreme events as two scenarios to
explore the implications for individual and organizational resilience.
This study suggests that micro-processes have significant implications
for resilience at both individual and organizational levels.

In the third article, Stokes et al continue the distinction between

extreme events and everyday managerial activities by highlighting the
micro-moments and dynamics and their implications in constructing
and influencing the manifestations of resilience in macro-contexts.
Theoretically, this paper connected the literature streams of resilience
and organizational ambidexterity and examined the managerial
challenges in handling organizational ambidextrous dynamics and
tensions surrounding resilience in relation to individual and
organizational stances towards strategic HRM practices. In relation to
the occupational contexts, two illustrative cases include a quasi-
governmental institution (everyday phenomenon) and an international
military organization (notional extreme example).
In the fourth article, Huang, Xing and Gamble examined employee
well-being and resilience from a gender perspective. By drawing from
the job demands-resources as the theoretical framework, this study
examined the differences of male and female employees in foreign-
invested retail stores in China and identified that the impact of job
security and emotional demands on employees differed by gender.
This paper contributed to the resilience literature by borrowing the job
demands–resources model and extended this model by articulating the
influence of gender on employee well-being and resilience. The
emerging economy context also made an additional contribution to the
resilience literature.

In the fifth article, Khan and colleagues continued this line of scholarly
inquiry with emerging economy context by examining employee
resilience in Pakistan. The telecommunications industry has undergone
significant transformation and changes in emerging economies at
large. What kind of HR practices may contribute to developing
employee resilience? Based on qualitative analysis of interviews with
managers and employees in one of Pakistan’s leading telecom
companies, it found out four key areas of HR practices – namely, job
design, information sharing and flow, employee benefits, and
employee development opportunities – which can enable the
development of employee resilience.

In the sixth article, Bustinza and colleagues argued specific Human

Resource Practices (HRPs) can be conducive to developing resilience
capabilities. HRPs that build resilience within an organization are
needed to implement technological change along with technological
capabilities successfully. Based on a sample of 205 manufacturing
firms, this study found out that resilience capabilities are a mediating
factor between technological capabilities and organizational
effectiveness, whilst environment dynamism and competitive intensity
are moderators of this relationship. The findings contribute to
understanding of the role of resilience in enhancing organizational
effectiveness.

In the seventh article, Davies, Stoermer and Froese examined

resilience as an antecedent of expatriate work adjustment and
turnover intentions. By juxtaposing the expatriation literature and the
conservation of resources theory, this study underlined that resilience
is positively related to expatriate work adjustment and that these
positive effects are more pronounced when expatriates perceive their
organizational climate to be highly inclusive. Furthermore, work
adjustment mediates the effects of resilience on turnover intentions
and that this mediation is moderated by a perceived organizational
inclusion climate. The occupational context is expatriates in South
Korea.

Collectively, these seven papers potently illustrate the wide scope of

the topic of resilience and HRM practices by encompassing
occupational contexts ranging from financial industry to retails and
telecommunication industry. Theoretically, the wide range of
theoretical perspectives - from job demand and resources to
ambidexterity and social identity theory - shows that different
theoretical views and their combinations are needed to truly
understand the nuances of phenomena as complex as resilience.
Furthermore, methodologically, the presence of quantitative and
qualitative studies demonstrates the broad range of possibilities for
scholars to investigate resilience, well-being and HRM practices from
many different methodological orientations.

The Global pandemic (Covid-19) is a health crisis that has not only
accelerated the changing nature of work but has largely threatened
employees’ interpersonal relationships. Covid 19 continues to be stressful
for individual workers given a significant shift in their lives and livelihood
(Hu, He and Zhou, Reference Hu, He and Zhou2020) and an
overwhelming degree of uncertainty and anxiety. Indeed, Grant and
Wade-Benzoni (Reference Grant and Wade-Benzoni2009) suggest that
exposure to death (e.g., through the covid pandemic) may activate
anxiety, self-protective and withdrawal behaviors while minimising
engagement (see also Sliter, Sinclair, Yuan & Mohr, Reference Sliter,
Sinclair, Yuan and Mohr2014). These, in turn, culminate into employee
physical and emotional stress and poor mental health and wellbeing.
There are suggestions that resiliency and leadership may be able to
buffer the stress and uncertainty that are associated with organisational
crisis, turbulence, and disruptions more broadly. Thus, in this issue (Issue
27.3), we assemble papers that provide differing perspectives on
resiliency and leadership in organisations. In these articles, authors
reflect on a variety of issues such as: antecedence and consequences of
resiliency, complaint system, knowledge behaviours, happiness at work,
organizational evolvability, leadership (transformation, servant, and
shared) and the connection between supervisor's incivility and
presenteeism.
We begin with the articles on the theme of resilience. Positive
psychologists (e.g., Masten and Reed, Reference Masten and Reed2002)
describe resiliency as “a class of phenomena characterised by patterns of
positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk” (pg. 75).
These risks may include everyday-life risk that vary from potential illness,
leading to a loss of loved one, economic instability, or micro-level internal
threats such as harassment or missing a career-threatening deadline on
a project (Luthans, Vogelgesang, Lester, Reference Luthans, Vogelgesang
and Lester2006). While resiliency may be trait-like or dispositional, we
know that it is also state-like and open to development (see
Coutu, Reference Coutu2002).
The first paper, “Deconstructing organizational resilience: A multiple case
study” by Börekçi, Rofcanin, Heras and Berber, extends the resiliency field
by focusing on relational and operational dimensions of resilience. Using
multiple case study approach, the authors analysed complementary
contributions of relational and operational resilience on organisational
resilience especially in survival and sustainability dimensions. In this
respect, the authors developed and refined a conceptual model which
argued that relational resilience and operational resilience in survival and
sustainable dimensions have a role to play in organisational resiliency.

In the next paper, “How to emerge stronger: Antecedents and

consequences of organizational resilience”, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Guinot
Chiva and López-Cabrales, analyse the role of corporate social
responsibility towards employees (CSRE) in the promotion of resilience at
work, and how resilience results in organizational learning capability
(OLC) and firm performance. Employing structural equation modelling to
test the research model with a sample of 296 companies from different
sectors, the authors found that CSRE had a positive influence on
organizational resilience. This, in turn, affected firm performance via OLC.
Altogether, the paper empirically identified the antecedents and
consequences of organisational resilience. The practical implications of
the results for human resource management activities were discussed.

Resilience is related to happiness at work (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown,

Mikels and Conway, Reference Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels and
Conway2009). We are aware that happiness has important consequences
for both individuals and organizations (Fisher, Reference Fisher2010).
Indeed, Cohn and colleagues argue that happiness, which is a sum of life
satisfaction, coping resources and positive emotions, predicts desirable
outcomes (e.g., financial success, supportive relationships, and health
and longevity). Based on the broad and build theory (Fredrick, Reference
Fredrickson2001), these authors also found that positive emotions
predicted increased resilience and life satisfaction. Nevertheless, the
measurement of happiness has been problematic (Fisher, Reference
Fisher2010). This is the challenge that the authors of our next paper
tackled head on. In this paper, “Happiness at work: Developing a shorter
measure”, Salas-Vallina and Alegre argue that despite the existence of
different constructs that capture positive attitudes, a comprehensive
measure of individual-level happiness is necessary because shorter scales
provide improvements in efficiency and efficacy. Following the Stanton,
Sinar, Balzer, and Smith (Reference Stanton, Sinar, Balzer and Smith2002)
and Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson, and Whitten (Reference
Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson and Whitten2014), the authors
developed a shortened version of the happiness at work scale while
maintaining its psychometric properties. The new scale offers a high
statistical potential to capture positive attitudes at work and opens
undeveloped research possibilities and a potential to change
organisational culture (Miller, Devlin, Buys, & Donoghue, Reference
Miller, Devlin, Buys and Donoghue2020). Moving forward, more research
is needed in measuring happiness at different levels such as transient,
person, unit, and organizational levels (see Fisher, Reference Fisher2010).
Still under the theme of resiliency, in the paper “Organizational
antecedents to designing a comprehensive complaint management
system”, Phabmixay, Rodríguez-Escudero and Rodríguez-Pinto investigate
the influence of organizational culture variables (the extent to which the
firm is customer and innovation oriented) and the nature of the
objectives pursued by complaint handling (defensive vs. improvement
objectives). The proposed model was tested on a sample of 140
manufacturing firms. The authors found that these antecedents shaped
the complaint management system in a diverse and significant manner.
Overall, the effective management of a complaint system should
minimise stress that may potentially complicate resilience in
organisations.

Organisational support is known to alleviate stress (Tucker, Reference

Tucker2015) that may deplete resiliency. Perceived organisational
support is the subject of the next paper by Alnaimi and Rjoub albeit in a
slightly different way. Specifically, the paper “Perceived organizational
support, psychological entitlement, and extra-role behavior: The
mediating role of knowledge hiding behavior” improves our
understanding of the impact of perceived organisational support on
knowledge hiding- a counterproductive behaviour that may harm
employees’ interpersonal relationship with respect to innovation (see
Connelly & Zweig, Reference Connelly and Zweig2015). The authors drew
on psychological ownership and social exchange theory as well as survey
data collected from 375 employees in Jordanian commercial banks to
explore the relationship between the variables of interest in their study.
They found that perceived organizational support had a positive impact
on extra-role behaviour, knowledge hiding behaviour had a negative
impact on extra-role behaviour, and psychological entitlement had a
positive impact on knowledge hiding behaviour, and (4) knowledge
hiding behaviour mediated the relationship between psychological
entitlement and extra-role behaviour. Future research should continue to
dig deeper into the relationship between organisational support, extra
role behaviour and organisational resilience.
Altogether, the debate on organizational resilience in JMO continues to
wax stronger. Kantur and Seri-Say published a conceptual integrative
framework on organisational resilience earlier with us (see Kantur & Iseri-
Say, Reference Kantur and İşeri-Say2012). Specifically, in their integrative
framework on organisational resilience, they introduced a new outcome
concept of organizational evolvability, emphasizing the heightened
sensitivity and increased wisdom of the post-event organization that
aimed to strengthen organizational resilience research for richer
theoretical and empirical progress. Along the same lines, Brunetto, Dick,
Xeri and Cully (2020) employed Appreciative Inquiry as a lens to identify
the process for building on employee existing wellbeing using the
discovery, dreaming, designing, and achieving destiny process.
The second theme in this issue is leadership. Leadership and decision
making are critical for organisational functioning. For example, several
studies have examined the role of differing leadership styles on employee
behaviours during crisis. In this respect, Hu et al., (Reference Hu, He and
Zhou2020) demonstrated that servant leadership is critical in guiding
employee with state anxiety. Similarly, Usdin (Reference Usdin2014)
showed that effective leaders promote resiliency using democratic,
diffused decision making, stressing intra-dependence, and promoting
individual agency and locally informed decisions. Such leaders build on
networks and cultural bonds and are continuously, ready, and flexible.
The next paper in this issue is on the role of transformational leadership
in employee engagement -a concept that is crucial for crisis management
(salim Saji, Reference Salim Saji2014).
In the paper “Employees’ self-determined motivation, transformational
leadership and work engagement”, Chua and Ayoko drew on the self-
determined theory of motivation, to build and test a theoretical model
linking employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership with
engagement through an intervening variable of differing aspects of
employees’ self-determined motivation. Data from a sample of 155
participants revealed that employees’ perceptions of transformational
leadership were positively related to employees’ self-determined
motivation (intrinsic, autonomous, and controlled) and work
engagement. Specifically, self-determined motivation (intrinsic,
autonomous) was positively linked with work engagement, while intrinsic,
autonomous, and controlled dimensions of self-determined motivation
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and work
engagement. The theoretical and practical implications of the results
were discussed.
Also, Oyet investigates the dark side of leadership (Liu, Liao and
Loi, Reference Liu, Liao and Loi2012) and especially how employees may
constitute themselves as targets of supervisor incivility in the paper,
“Investigating experienced supervisor incivility: Does presenteeism play a
role?” Drawing from Victim Precipitation Theory, and Conservation of
Resources Theory, the author argued that engaging in presenteeism will
be positively associated with experienced supervisor incivility, and that
presentees’ experienced productivity loss will mediate this relationship.
Furthermore, presentees’ self-efficacy and perceived control (personal
and condition resources, respectively) was hypothesised as boundary
conditions of the presenteeism–productivity loss relationship such that
presentees high in each resource will be less likely to experience
supervisor incivility. The results showed that experienced productivity
loss mediated the positive relationship between presenteeism and
experienced supervisor incivility. Additionally, self-efficacy moderated the
presenteeism–productivity loss relationship; but the relationship was
stronger for low self-efficacy presentees. This increased the likelihood of
experiencing supervisor incivility.
Next, Zeier, Plimmer and Franken, in their paper “Developing shared
leadership in a public organisation: Process, paradoxes and
consequences” interrogate the link between identity formation and the
subsequent development of shared leadership. They focused on how a
programme to develop shared leadership changed a public science
organisation, from one dependent on hierarchical leadership, to one that
employed shared leadership to better address the complex public
context. Using Day and Harrison's levels of leadership identity
framework, this study first examined the processes of a development
programme at individual, relational, and collective levels. Results
revealed cascading growth in leadership identities through processes
such as job crafting and contagion. Additionally, the inherent paradoxes
of power, goals, and attitude underlying shared leadership development
were identified. Within these paradoxes, tensions between vertical
hierarchy versus dispersed networks, task performance versus job
crafting, fatigue versus revitalisation, and cynicism versus evangelism
were found.
In the article, “Enabling the engine of workplace thriving through servant
leadership: The moderating role of core self-evaluations”, Usman, Liu, Li,
Zhang, Ghani, and Gul examine the connection between thriving, servant
leadership and core-self-evaluation. Data were collected at three points in
time from 260 professionals across diverse functional backgrounds and
industries. The results confirmed an indirect effect from Servant
Leadership to workplace thriving via agentic work behaviors. Importantly,
the moderation results demonstrated that the relationship between
servant leadership and workplace thriving was stronger when individuals
have high employee core-self-evaluations. Implications for theory and
practice were discussed.

The last article in the current issue revolves around ethical leadership. In
this paper, “A leader indeed is a leader in deed: The relationship of ethical
leadership, person–organization fit, organizational trust, and extra-role
service behavior”, Kerse test a multilevel model. The findings
demonstrated that ethical leadership strengthened the trust in the
organization both directly and over person–organization fit while ethical
leadership increased extra-role service behavior by means of
organizational trust. The theoretical and practical implications of all the
findings were discussed and evaluated in the context of national culture.

To conclude, there is evidence that the lack of leadership qualities in

times of crisis and disasters (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), is often
associated with poor disaster response (Valero, Jung, and
Andrew, Reference Valero, Jung and Andrew2015). There is also a high
potential for breakdowns in organisational functional systems in such
times. This is because functioning systems that maintain the organization
and even communities are overwhelmed with increased demands that
usually outweighs the capacity of the system (see Usdin, Reference
Usdin2014). In this respect, distributive leadership (i.e., a “shared, social
influence process …. to structure activities and relationships in a group or
organization” (Wright, Reference Wright2008, p. 3) was found to be a co-
influencer with resiliency in the post-Katrina New Orleans. Similarly,
transformational leadership was reported to have a positive and
significant effect on perceived organisational resiliency (Valero, et
al., Reference Valero, Jung and Andrew2015). Valero and associates found
that respondents who perceived their leaders to exhibit transformational
leadership style also perceived their organizations to be highly resilient.
Additionally, studies in resistance to organisational change show that
leadership acts as an input at multiple levels, influencing organizational
outcomes both directly especially by continuously shaping employee
attitude throughout change while indirectly regulating the antecedents
and moderators of their predisposition to change (Valero et al., Reference
Valero, Jung and Andrew2015; Applebaum, Degbe, MacDonald and
Nguyen-Quang, Reference Appelbaum, Degbe, MacDonald and Nguyen-
Quang2015). The above findings combine to suggest that leadership
plays a critical role in resilience at the individual, team, and organisational
levels. Future research should continue to tease out the relationship
between leadership and resiliency and at multiple levels.