UNIVERSITY OF ST.

GALLEN
School of Management
Organization Studies

School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences, International Affairs and

Computer Science (HSG)

How to respond to the “U” in VUCA & crisis

How can organization be prepared for the unknown?

Submitted by:

Group 5

Sofia Rakitianska | [m. number here]

Victor Duthu | [22-625-263]
Giovanni Taddei | 22-994-347
Giovanni Prina | 22-994-495
Davide Lamperti | 22-993-992

Professor:

Sandra Berenbold
Enabling Human Potential and Synergistic Collaboration (6,133,1.00)
University of St. Gallen

Date of Submission:

--/05/2025
 Abstract
Insert here abstract concepts and theoretical introduction
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations (optional)...............................................................................................1
VUCA Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity...........................................1
List of Figures (optional)..........................................................................................................1
List of Tables (optional)............................................................................................................1
1 Heading 1............................................................................................................................0
1.1 Heading 2..................................................................................................................................0

1.1.1 Heading 3...............................................................................................................................0

1.1.1.1 Heading 4...................................................................................................................................0

2 Heading 1............................................................................................................................1
2.1 Heading 2..................................................................................................................................1

2.1.1 Heading 3...............................................................................................................................1

2.1.1.1 Heading 4...................................................................................................................................1

3 Resilience in Organizations...............................................................................................2
3.1 Duchek’s Model........................................................................................................................2

3.2 Darkow’s Model.............................................................................................................................2

3.3 Comparing the Two Approaches....................................................................................................2

3.4 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................2

4 Heading 1............................................................................................................................3
4.1 Heading 2..................................................................................................................................3

4.1.1 Heading 3...............................................................................................................................3

4.1.1.1 Heading 4...................................................................................................................................3

5 Heading 1............................................................................................................................4
5.1 Heading 2..................................................................................................................................4

5.1.1 Heading 3...............................................................................................................................4

5.1.1.1 Heading 4...................................................................................................................................4

References..................................................................................................................................5
Appendix (optional)............................................................Errore. Il segnalibro non è definito.
Declaration of Authorship........................................................................................................6
Declaration of Confidentiality (as applicable).................Errore. Il segnalibro non è definito.
List of Abbreviations (optional)
VUCA Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity

List of Figures (optional)

List of Tables (optional)

1 Heading 1

1.1 Heading 2
1.1.1 Heading 3
1.1.1.1 Heading 4

1
2 Heading 1

2.1 Heading 2
2.1.1 Heading 3
2.1.1.1 Heading 4

1
 3 Resilience in Organizations
I started my presentation with a question : “Did anyone ever miss a flight?”. The goal is clear… I don’t want
to be soporific, I want to engage the audience, I want to grab the public’s attention straight away.

The question I asked is simply describing a month to month/ year to year realistic situation. The situation is
often associated with panic and the escalation of emotions. What I did was comparing this situation
with another one, when the victim of the crisis can stay calm, simply following a plan.

My goal was to contrast the reaction you would have with and without a plan of when a crisis arises. So, just
like travelers face moments of crisis, organisations too with supply chain disruptions, cyber attacks,
climate disasters…

If I had to associate my presentation with a research question, I would probably create : How do
organizations survive, adapt, and grow in the face of the unexpected?

Therefore I introduced the definition of crisis (a significant disruption that threatens the stability and
functioning of an individual, organization, or society) and solutions that can help be more resilient
for a company. Therefore, I started by describing the two articles that are useful for defining
organisational resilience. I started with Stephanie Duchek’s three step plan before moving to
Darkow’s three step plan. The ultimate part of my presentation was about the difference between
the two scholar’s plans.

3.1 Duchek’s Model

I started Duchek’s presentation part by defining Organisational Resilience from Duchek’s perspective.
Stephanie Duchek describes resilience as more than just a simple skill; she presents it as a meta-
capability. This means that resilience is a capability in itself and requires a set of abilities or sub-
capabilities that allows organizations to handle difficult and unexpected situations. Important note
here, it is not something fixed or static. It can be developed and improved over time. It's basically
like a muscle, and it can grow with exercise. It can also grow with a good underlying architecture
that supports other tools, like a software platform. Many people get wrong about resilience
because it is not reactive. It comes from a strategy, called “strategic capacity” and it should be
something natural for the company, embedded in its DNA. Resilience also depends on how
different parts of the organization work together, making it a dynamic capacity. Overall, for
Duchek, resilience is about how companies prepare for, respond to, and learn from challenges that
they did not see coming.

To explain this, Duchek introduces three phases of resilience. Each phase relies on sub-capabilities. The first
phase is anticipation. This is when organizations try to foresee problems before they occur. They
stay alert, look out for weak signals that might indicate a future problem, and prepare themselves
so they are not caught by surprise. They try to anticipate some risks. As an example, in
cybersecurity, companies can run simulations for potential breaches. Other example, Airlines can
anticipate strikes and pandemics. The most common practices are scenario planning (the strategic
department of companies usually develop four scenarios from best to worse taking into
consideration the forwards), warning systems, or risk registers.

The second phase is coping, which comes into play when something bad happens. At this stage,
organizations need to quickly make sense of the situation, coordinate their actions efficiently, and
use the resources they have on hand to respond effectively to the crisis.

A great example of the coping phase in action is how Johnson & Johnson responded to the Tylenol crisis in
1982. At the time, seven people died after taking Tylenol capsules that had been tampered with
cyanide. This was a major national crisis and could have destroyed the company’s reputation.

2
But Johnson & Johnson reacted very quickly. They decided to pull 31 million bottles of Tylenol off the
shelves, even though this cost them over $100 million. They also stopped all advertising and
communicated openly and honestly with the public and the media. This response showed strong
emotional intelligence — they acknowledged people’s fear, showed empathy, and put public safety
first.

From a cognitive point of view, the company showed strong sense-making: they quickly understood the
seriousness of the situation, made fast decisions, and stayed focused on their values. Their leaders
acted with decision agility, meaning they were able to move fast while staying consistent with the
company’s identity and mission.

This example shows that coping is not about improvising randomly. It's not just reacting without thinking.
On the contrary, Johnson & Johnson’s response was possible because of prior preparation— a
strong company culture, clear values, and leadership that was ready to act. This supports Duchek’s
idea that coping depends on resources already in place, such as coordination, communication skills,
and trust within the organization.

Finally, the third phase is adaptation. After the crisis has passed, organizations are expected to reflect on
what happened, learn from the experience, and make the necessary changes to be better prepared
for future challenges. We call this a learning-loop or after-action review. A great example of this is
Toyota’s Kaizen philosophy, which means “continuous improvement” in Japanese. In Toyota’s
culture, every employee is encouraged to reflect on what went wrong, suggest improvements, and
help prevent similar problems in the future. This mindset is exactly what Duchek describes in her
adaptation phase: a process of reflection, learning, and change. It shows that resilience doesn’t just
mean surviving a crisis, but using it as a chance to grow and get better.

Crises can also be powerful drivers of innovation. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many
companies were forced to adopt remote work very quickly. At first, this was just a way to cope. But
over time, it led to big changes in how we work — from new technologies for communication, to
more flexible work policies, to a shift in employee expectations. In this way, the crisis didn’t just
create problems — it also pushed transformation.

3.2 Darkow’s Model

Philipp Darkow also presents resilience as three steps, but he approaches the topic with a slightly different
focus. His first phase is called Plan to Resist, which takes place before the crisis. This stage is all
about preparing in advance by identifying possible risks, putting strong systems in place, and
ensuring there are backup options in case things go wrong. Compared to Duchek’s idea of
“anticipation,” which focuses more on sensing and scanning for uncertainty, Darkow’s approach is
more structured and system-based. It’s about building a strong foundation so things like
decentralization, diversification, and redundant systems. For example, Amazon has multiple data
centers around the world so that if one goes down, the others can keep operations running. This
kind of preparation creates robustness so basically the ability to keep functioning even when part of
the system is hit.

The second phase, Containing Crisis, happens during the crisis itself. Here, the focus shifts to acting fast,
spotting errors early, and trusting the people who are closest to the problem. Darkow emphasizes
the importance of improvisation and decentralization in this phase. He believes that resilience
depends on empowering frontline employees to make quick, autonomous decisions. It is related to
the “knowledge biais” we talked about in class when top management has less visibility and
customer understanding then the low hierarchical employee. Continuing crisis can be seen in real-
life situations like firefighters or emergency room teams, where quick thinking and local
knowledge save lives. A recent example is during COVID-19, when hospital staff had to
reconfigure spaces into ICUs in a matter of hours. These were not top-down decisions so basically,

1
 they were made in real-time by the people on the ground. For Darkow, this ability to respond on
the spot is a core part of resilience.

The third and final phase is Recovery, which occurs once the crisis is under control. At this point,
organizations need to repair any damage, return to a stable state of operation, and most importantly,
rebuild in a better way. It’s not just about going back to how things were, it’s about learning from
what happened and redesigning systems to be stronger for the future. We will see later that it’s
called the “new normal” For example, many companies that were forced into remote work during
COVID didn’t just return to office life afterward. Instead, they took the chance to adopt more
flexible work models, which improved work-life balance for employees and reduced costs. This
shows that true recovery involves not only fixing the damage but also adapting and evolving.

3.3 Comparing the Two Approaches

Both Duchek and Darkow talk about resilience as something organizations build over time, not just a fixed
skill. They agree that resilience happens in three phases: before, during, and after a crisis. They
also both say that organizations shouldn’t just bounce back to how things were but should learn
and become stronger (“new normal”).

But they look at resilience a bit differently. Duchek sees resilience as a set of three main abilities:
anticipating problems, coping with them, and adapting afterwards. Her focus is more on what
happens inside the organization, like how people think and make decisions. This makes her model
good for organizations that want to get stronger step-by-step and plan ahead.

Darkow’s model also has three phases but calls them Plan to Resist, Contain Crisis, and Recovery. He
looks more at systems and how the organization as a whole manages a crisis. His approach fits
well with industries like healthcare or emergency services, where people need to make fast
decisions during unpredictable events.

One big difference is how they think about uncertainty and risk. Duchek focuses more on risks that can be
predicted and planned for. Darkow emphasizes uncertainty so things that can’t be predicted , and
says resilience means being able to improvise and adapt quickly when things get chaotic.

Improvisation is important for both, but Darkow gives it a bigger role. He says that during a crisis, frontline
workers should have the power to make quick decisions because they know the situation best.
Duchek agrees that sharing power helps, but she sees it as just one part of coping.

When it comes to learning, Duchek thinks organizations should keep learning all the time, even outside of
crises. Darkow sees learning as something that mostly happens after the crisis, during recovery,
when the organization can rethink how it works.

These differences come from their backgrounds. Duchek’s ideas come from organizational psychology —
she focuses on people and how they handle challenges. Darkow’s ideas come from systems
thinking and complexity — he looks at the bigger picture and how different parts of an
organization interact.

Both models are useful, but for different situations. Duchek’s model works well for big organizations that
want to grow stronger over time. Darkow’s model fits better in high-risk, fast-moving fields
where quick action and frontline decision-making are crucial.

3.4 Conclusion

4
To finish, both Duchek and Darkow don’t think resilience is just about bouncing back to how things were
before. Instead, they say it’s about learning from the crisis, getting better, and becoming stronger.
This is really important today because we face lots of big challenges, like COVID-19, the war in
Ukraine, problems in supply chains, and fast changes with technology.

The MSC ELSA 3 sinking near Kerala on May 25, 2025, shows why resilience is crucial. The crew’s quick
actions reflect Darkow’s idea of empowering frontline teams during a crisis. The company’s
insurance and preparation show strong planning to resist risks. The coordinated response with
Indian authorities fits Duchek’s view of resilience as learning and adapting after a crisis.

This example proves resilience isn’t just about surviving but planning ahead, acting fast, and improving
afterward. In today’s uncertain world, resilience is a must to stay competitive.

1
4 Heading 1

4.1 Heading 2
4.1.1 Heading 3
4.1.1.1 Heading 4

3
5 Heading 1

5.1 Heading 2
5.1.1 Heading 3
5.1.1.1 Heading 4

4
 References
The sources listed in the references must be formatted using the “Sources” style sheet. You can use a
reference management program (like EndNote, Zotero or Citavi) to automatically create a
bibliography in the appropriate format (preferably APA7). Below you will find an example of
a bibliography.

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,

35(4), 373– 395.

Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). 1 Constitutional Amendments: “Materiali-
zing” Organizational Communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64.

Bencherki, N., Matte, F., & Cooren, F. (Eds.). (2019). Authority and power in social
interaction (1st ed.). Routledge.

Cristea, I. C., & Leonardi, P. M. (2019). Get Noticed and Die Trying: Signals, Sacrifice, and
the Production of Face Time in Distributed Work. Organization Science, 30(3), 552–572.

Leonardi, P. M., & Treem, J. W. (2020). Behavioral Visibility: A new paradigm for
organiza- tion studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication.
Organization Studies, 41(12), 1601–1625.

Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie (17. Auflage).
Suhrkamp.

Zorina, A., Bélanger, F., Kumar, N., & Clegg, S. (2021). Watchers, Watched, and Watching
in the Digital Age: Reconceptualization of Information Technology Monitoring as
Complex Action Nets. Organization Science, orsc.2021.1435.

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Ci-
vilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.

5
Directory of Auxiliary Aids

Aid Usage Affected Parts

Grammatical corrections and Rephrasing and academic
Chat GPT rewording of sentences vocabulary corrections
/Writing Assistant throughout the text

Grammarly Grammatical errors Throughout the text

DeepL Grammatical translations Throughout the text

6
Declaration of Authorship
“I hereby declare,
• that I have written this thesis independently,
• that I have written the thesis using only the aids specified in the index;
• that all parts of the thesis produced with the help of aids have been declared;
• that I have handled both input and output responsibly when using AI. I confirm that I
have therefore only read in public data or data released with consent and that I have
checked, declared and comprehensibly referenced all results and/or other forms of AI
assistance in the required form and that I am aware that I am responsible if incorrect
content, violations of data
protection law, copyright law or scientific misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) have also oc-
curred un-
intentionally;
• that I have mentioned all sources used and cited them correctly according to estab-
lished aca-
demic citation rules;
• that I have acquired all immaterial rights to any materials I may have used, such as
images or graphics, or that these materials were created by me;
• that the topic, the thesis or parts of it have not already been the object of any work or
examination of another course, unless this has been expressly agreed with the faculty
member in advance and is stated as such in the thesis;
• that I am aware of the legal provisions regarding the publication and dissemination of
parts or the entire thesis and that I comply with them accordingly;
• that I am aware that my thesis can be electronically checked for plagiarism and for
third-party authorship of human or technical origin and that I hereby grant the Univer-
sity of St.Gallen the copyright according to the Examination Regulations as far as it is
necessary for the administrative actions;
• that I am aware that the University will prosecute a violation of this Declaration of
Authorship and that disciplinary as well as criminal consequences may result, which
may lead to expulsion from the University or to the withdrawal of my title.”
By submitting this thesis, I confirm through my conclusive action that I am submitting the
Declaration of Authorship, that I have read and understood it, and that it is true.

St. Gallen, --/05/2025

Sofia Victor Giovanni P. Giovanni T. Davide

Characters: