See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263351194

Employee resilience in organizations: Development of a new scale

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
10 2,376

2 authors:

Muhammad Taufiq Amir Peter Standen

Universitas Bakrie Edith Cowan University
22 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   791 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Management History View project

Teleworking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Taufiq Amir on 11 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Page 1 of 16 ANZAM 2012

Employee Resilience in Organizations: Development of a New Scale

ABSTRACT

Resilience as a psychological capacity of employees has recently come into focus with the rise

of Positive Psychology. A critical element of a positive view of resilience involves viewing adverse

events as an opportunity to develop and become a better person. A review of previous measures and

theories of resilience shows this perspective is largely missing and suggests possible dimensions of it.

A new measurement scale was developed and tested on 178 participants from large organizations in

Indonesia. Exploratory factor analysis of the underlying structure revealed two main dimensions:

Developmental Persistency, a combination of perseverance and commitment to growth, and Positive

Emotion. Implications of this improved construct for future research and the practical development of

employees’ resilience are discussed.

Keywords: resilience, developmental persistency, positive emotion

Research on resilience was originally focused on clinical and child development applications

but has now expanded rapidly into new domains including organizational studies (Youssef, 2004). The

focus has correspondingly shifted from emphasizing pathology and developmental problems to health

promotion and well-being (Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, & Li, 2008), particularly self-developmental

strategies that build on existing personal capabilities. In this view, resilience is seen less as a relatively

static personality trait than a capacity that can be developed (Bonanno, 2004; Masten & Reed, 2002).

These expansions of the concept of resilience have required extended definitions, dimensions

and indicators (Ahern, Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006; Luthar, Cichetti, & Becker, 2000). Survival, high

tolerance, adaptation and “bounce back” are amongst the synonyms for resilience adopted in recent

psychological and organizational studies (Youssef, 2004; Yu & Zhang, 2007). New scales for

measuring resilience have been proposed in which adaptability, agility, perseverance, morale and

optimism are important qualities underlying resilient attitudes and behaviours (Yu & Zhang, 2007).
 ANZAM 2012 Page 2 of 16

Recently resilience has become a central theme of Positive Organizational Behavior (POB)

and Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS), two major strands of Positive Psychology which focus

on building employee strength, fostering high performance and establishing a thriving working

environment (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Luthans, 2002; Nelson & Cooper, 2007; Wright,

2003). For example, resilience is seen to improve performance in the face of significant change and

transformation (Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005). Resilience in leaders has been shown to

affect subordinates’ and the organization’s performance (Youssef, 2004).

A limitation in most previous research, including the POB/POS studies, lies in the stated or

implied view of resilience as the capacity to regain “normality” after experiencing an adverse event. A

less-recognised perspective is that adversity helps individuals grow beyond their previous condition,

becoming strengthened and more resourceful (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). When individuals effectively

manage adverse situations they transform themselves into even more resilient persons, growing rather

than preserving their self. Studies of positive emotion as a primary component of resilience support

this view in predicting an upward spiraling effect of people’s positive reaction to difficulties

(Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). The intention to become an improved person is therefore worth

examining as a fundamental dimension of resilience. It appears especially relevant in large

organizations, where the complexity and uncertainty of organizational life are likely to increase the

possibility that individuals will meet adversity (Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006).

Although resilience is theoretically and practically a very promising concept for organizational

studies, constructs and scales developed for this context are limited by their assumptions of a

homeostatic rather than growth basis to personality, as well as some specific problems discussed

below. The range of organizational measures is narrow compared to the variety in clinical and child

development domains (Ahern et al., 2006). This paper therefore aims to enrich understanding of

resilience in organizations by examining a growth-based construct and measure.

Below we review existing perspectives and identify criteria for the new construct. We then

evaluate measures previously used in organizational studies and propose a new definition and

dimensional structure. Finally, scale development and validation procedures are summarized and

lessons for future research identified.

Page 3 of 16 ANZAM 2012

RESEARCH ON RESILIENCE IN ORGANIZATIONS

Organizational and individual-level concepts

Organizational researchers have conceptualized resilience in various ways. The systems-

level approach describes resilience as performance free from accumulation of frequent, routine or

novel difficulties in organizational systems (Rudolph & Repenning, 2002). Similarly, Denhart &

Denhart (2010) view organizational resilience as an issue of systems functioning and capacity rather

than merely the collective use of individual capabilities.

The present construct has the more common individual-level focus. While most authors

take a “recovery” perspective a few emphasize individual growth. Waterman and Collard’s view of

“career-resilience” in employees “who are not only dedicated to the idea of continuous learning, but

also stand ready to reinvent themselves to keep pace with change, take responsibility for their own

career management and commit to the company’s success” (1994, p. 88), is an example. In POS

leadership theory authentic leaders emphasize the growth of their staff (Avolio, Walumbwa, Gardner,

Luthans & May 2004) while trying to develop their resilience and other positive qualities. However

resilience is not often connected to growth in POS and POB studies.

Resilience in the POB/POS framework

POB and POS grew from the Positive Psychology movement, described by Seligman and

colleagues as the science of positive subjective experience (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

They suggest psychology focus less on fixing what is wrong, weak or bad and more on identifying and

nurturing what is right, strong and good. In line with this, POS and POB aim to enhance organizational

effectiveness by emphasizing positive human strengths (Luthans, 2002; Nelson & Cooper, 2007).

POS/POB studies have examined resilience at both organizational and individual levels. An

organizational-level example is Luthans et al.’s (2007b) adoption of Masten and Reed’s (2002)

concepts of “assets” and “risk”. Assets refers to resources contributing to a unit’s capacity to absorb

strain, such as knowledge, skill, trust, heedfulness, positive emotion and commitment. Risk refers to

negative future outcomes, which can be managed through organizational practices such as downsizing,

re-engineering, restructuring, outsourcing, and discriminating. When assets are managed as a buffer

against potential adversities or risks, the organisation becomes resilient.

 ANZAM 2012 Page 4 of 16

At the individual level, Vogus (2003, p. 96) views resilience as the ability to absorb strain and

preserve or improve functioning during adversities such a leadership crisis, major change, production

pressures or external demands by stakeholders. POS/POB studies view resilience as both “statelike”

and developable in individuals (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007a). Luthans,(Luthans, Avey, Avolio,

Norman, & Combs, 2006) found individual resilience significantly increased in experimental groups

after a training program, while a control group showed no increase. Viewing resilience as a capacity

that develops in response to adversity presents a different picture from studies where it is merely

adaptability or recovery (Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007a): individuals build their internal and external

resources to increase their potential to meet future challenges (Richardson, 2002).

Measures of Resilience in Organizational Studies

A systematic search of organizational studies using “resilience” as a key word in the last 12

years identified fifteen papers using two scales: Ego-Resilience (ER-89) developed by Block and

Kremen (1996, p. 167), and PsyCap (resilience subscale) developed by Luthans et al (2007) primarily

using items from Wagnild and Young’s (1993) non-organizational Resilience Scale (WYRS).

ER-89 draws on Block and Block’s (1980) construct of a personality trait found in resourceful

and adaptive persons, involving “the capacity of the individuals to effectively modulate and monitor

an ever-changing complex of desires and reality constraints” (1996, p. 359). Resilient individuals have

psychological resources of adaptability or flexibility that help deal with adversity and persist over

time. Sample items are: “I quickly get over and recover from being startled” and “I enjoy dealing with

new and unusual situations”.

Wagnild & Young’s Resilience Scale also measures a positive personality characteristic

underlying adaptation (Wagnild & Young, 1990, 1993, p. 167). Their review of the psychological

literature and qualitative study of older women suggested five dimensions:

• Equanimity, a balanced perspective of one’s life and experiences, the ability to consider a

broader perspective and to “sit loose” and take what comes;

• Perseverance, persistence despite adversity or discouragement, a willingness to continue the

struggle of one’s life purpose and to remain being involved, to practice self-discipline
Page 5 of 16 ANZAM 2012

• Self-Reliance, believing on one’s inherent capabilities, the ability to depend on oneself and to

recognize personal strengths but also one’s limitations;

• Meaningfulness, the belief that life has a purpose and one’s contributions have value

• Existentiality, a feeling of freedom and a sense of uniqueness as a human being.

However exploratory factor analysis suggested these dimensions may comprise only two

distinct factors, Personal Competence and Acceptance of Self and Life (Wagnild & Young, 1993).

Resilience is part of Luthans’ (2002) construct of Psychological Capital, along with self-

efficacy, hope and optimism. Resilience is defined as “the positive psychological capacity to rebound,

to ‘bounce-back’ from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change, progress and

increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002, p. 702). Luthans adapted items from the WYRS dimensions

of Perseverance and Self-Reliance to the work context, for example “I usually manage difficulties one

way or another” had “at work” appended.

The definitions and dimensions in these scales cover broad aspects of resilience in adults but

overlook the ability to grow or improve as a person. Therefore we define resilience as an individual’s

capacity to respond to adversities at work in ways that strengthen and develop himself or herself as a

better person. Four potential dimensions relevant to this perspective from the three scales above were

selected: Perseverance, Commitment to Growth, Positive Emotion, and Meaning Making.

Perseverance describes the quality of not giving up when facing difficulties. It implies self-

reliance, a belief that by keeping going one’s goals will eventually be reached and one’s self will

benefit. Therefore, perseverance involves beliefs, thoughts, attitudes and behavioral persistence.

Persevering individuals tend to endure in the face of adversity (Markman, Baron, & Balkin, 2005).

They exert a high level of effort and endurance in the face of setbacks and failures, and always look

for a solution. They have a strong belief in their ability to overcome challenges. Perseverance is

defined here as willingness to face adversity by continual struggle and self-discipline.

Commitment to growth recognizes that resilience is not so much reactive as proactive.

Resilient individuals see difficulties as challenges or opportunities to strengthen and improve

themselves (Richardson, 2002; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) by growing and increasing their capabilities

(Reivich & Shatte, 2003). They face difficulties with the intention to learn more about themselves
 ANZAM 2012 Page 6 of 16

(Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003), and are resourceful and determined (Blatt (2009). Commitment to growth

differentiates this construct from concepts of resilience based on self-preservation. Commitment to

growth is defined here as facing adversity by becoming a stronger person.

Positive emotion has a critical role in difficult situations (Fredrickson, 2001, 2003;

Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). In general, positive emotion arises from experiencing desirable

outcomes. It includes joy, happiness, elation or pleasure, courage, hope, love and interest (Lucas,

Diener, & Larsen, 2002). In adversity positive emotions help individuals broaden the scope of their

cognition and attention (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005) and become more creative, viewing problems

or difficulties from a wider perspective and generating better solutions without panic or stress

(Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Luthans, Youssef, & Rawski, 2011).

Baron (2008) observed these effects in a study of entrepreneurs interpreting situations and

making decisions. Where others see a threat or danger, an entrepreneur with positive emotion

perceives a manageable situation and maintains a realistic view of it. Greater creativity, problem-

solving skill and recall of mental “shortcuts” and past knowledge were also found (Baron, 2006,

2008). Positive emotion is therefore expected to be an important element of resilience, bringing

calmness, creativity and quick decision-making to a difficult situation. Positive emotion is defined

here as maintaining a positive outlook when facing adversity.

In meaning making employees actively seek to understand the nature and value of work in

their lives through continuous sense-making. In Huevel et al’s (2009) model, meaning making

involves integrating challenging or ambiguous situations into a framework of personal meaning using

conscious, value-based reflection (Heuvel et al., 2009, p. 509). When work is seen as meaningful and

valuable, an individual will approach it with more energy (Wrzesniewski, 2003).

Meaning making is differentiated here from elements of resilience that in others studies

involve automatic processes of sense-making or finding meaning (Connor & Davidson, 2003;

Wagnild & Young, 1993) In active meaning making individuals consciously reflect on ambiguous or

challenging events to determine their personal meanings, values and goals, helping them face setbacks

with a growth focus. Instead of giving up they see difficulties as a personal calling, in which they are

deeply involved and which is consequently in some sense enjoyable (Wagnild & Young, 1993;
Page 7 of 16 ANZAM 2012

Wrzesniewski, 2003). Meaning making is therefore defined here as actively reflecting on and

affirming personal values when facing problems.

METHOD

Thirty-eight items reflecting attitudes and behaviours underlying the proposed dimensions

were selected from studies of adult samples conceptualizing resilience as a developable capacity (Blatt

(2009) Friborg et al (2003) Connor & Davidson (2003); Heuvel et al (2009); Wagnild & Young (1993)

Marsick & Watkins (2003). Some adjustment to the wording was necessary. Sample items are “I am

not easily discourage by failure” (perseverance), “I actively look for ways to overcome the challenges

I encounter” (commitment to growth), “I am interested in facing and solving the problems” (positive

emotion) and “I actively take the time to reflect on events that happen in my life” (meaning making).

Content validity was then assessed by a panel (Davis, 1992; DeVellis, 2003; Hardesty &

Bearden, 2004) of five academics with expertise in resilience and scale construction. Nine items were

deleted, leaving twenty-seven which were translated into Indonesian and back-translated in English

using certified translators.

To assess construct validity three additional variables were included: proactive coping

(Greenglass & Schwarzer, 1998), self-esteem (Reynolds, 1982) and psychological vulnerability

(Sinclair & Wallston, 1999). Resilience is hypothesized to correlate positively with proactive coping

and self-esteem and negatively correlated with psychological vulnerability.

Participants were managerial employees of twelve large organizations in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Managerial level was defined as any position with two or more direct reports. The organizations came

from a variety of industry sectors but fifty percent of respondents worked in mining and infrastructure

industries. Seventy-six percent were male. A total of 275 questionnaires were hand delivered to

organizations and collected by a research assistant on a return visit. 178 were returned, a response rate

of 64%. Of these, 11 contained invalid data leaving 167 cases for analysis, a sample size considered

sufficient for factor analysis (Hinkin, 1998; MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999).
 ANZAM 2012 Page 8 of 16

RESULTS

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using PASW 18 to examine the dimensions

of the latent construct of resilience (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, &

Strahan, 1999; Field, 2009). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.855,

above the generally recommended value of 0.6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant

(p<0.005) indicating sufficient “factorability” and no multicollinearity. Over six runs of the EFA Nine

items were eliminated because they did not contribute to a simple factor structure or failed to reach a

primary factor loading 0.4 or cross-loading of 0.3. This included all Meaning Making items. It appears

this dimension does not adequately fit the present construct of resilience, as explained below.

Principle axis factoring with oblimin rotation revealed three factors with eigenvalues

exceeding 1, explaining 36.2%, 14.1% and 8.4% of the variance (Appendix, Table 1). A scree plot

also showed a clear break after the third factor. These factors explained 58% of the variance, close to

the 60% often recommended (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

The pattern matrix suggested Factor 1 represented both the hypothesized Perseverance

dimension (with 6 items) and the Commitment to Growth dimensions (4 items). Factor 2 was quite

easily interpreted. as all 6 items reflected the Positive Emotion dimension. Factor 3 with only 4 items

was considered unusable following Costello and Osborne’s (2005, p. 5) view that a factor with fewer

than three items is weak and unstable.

Factor 1 was labeled “Developmental Persistency” to represent the theoretical emphasis on

both individual perseverance and commitment to growth in facing hardship. This factor reflects the

theoretical view of resilience proposed above, having the traditional focus on maintaining effort amid

difficulties but also conveying a view of adversity as an opportunity strengthen one’s psychological

capability and grow as a person.

The correlation between Developmental Persistency and Positive Emotion was moderate

(r=.41), suggesting resilience comprises related but separable factors and justifying the use of oblique

rotation. A moderate relationship is theoretically predicted since high levels of positive emotion would

help individuals persist and grow in facing challenges.

Page 9 of 16 ANZAM 2012

Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87 for Developmental Persistency and 0.86 for Positive Emotion.

Dropping any item lowered these values. The item-to-total correlations were greater than 0.5 for both

factors, and the inter-item correlations were both greater than 0.3. The scale is therefore considered

reliable and consistent with its theoretically-predicted structure. Construct validity was suggested by

positive correlations between Resilience and both Proactive Coping (.67) and Self-Esteem (.74), and a

negative correlation with Psychological Vulnerability (-.64) (see Appendix Table 2).

DISCUSSION

Previous studies of resilience in organizations have generally used variables that reflect the

notion of recovery but not the role of adversity in fostering growth. To capture this critical theoretical

element we selected items from a wide range of previous studies and added new ones, addressing four

dimensions: Commitment to Growth, Perseverance, Positive Emotion, and Meaning Making. The

results show resilience comprises only two dimensions, Developmental Persistency and Positive

Emotion. The former is consistent with the prediction that a growth orientation is central, suggesting

an effortful or persistent attempt to not merely recover but to thrive through transcending setbacks.

The latter suggests resilience has a fundamental emotional quality, similar to hope or optimism but

more general, and does not just involve cognitive efforts to overcome adversity such as strategizing or

goal-setting. Advantages of this structure over previous constructs of resilience are now addressed.

Developmental persistency is a philosophy of facing adversity with the intention to grow.

Minimising or avoiding difficulties, blaming one’s lot on “fate” or others, and merely aiming for self-

preservation are essentially negative goals that do not necessarily improve one’s capacity for living in

an uncertain world. While POB and POS studies consider resilience valuable in facing difficulties, so

far they stop short of embracing them as opportunities to grow as a person, unlike their humanistic

antecedents who saw growth as a central human motivation (e.g., Rogers 1958; (Maslow, 1970). For

example, Luthans et al (2006) suggests resilience can be developed by risk-focused and process-

focused strategies. Risk focused strategies emphasise management rather than avoidance of risk factors

arising in adverse events. From the present perspective this also involves viewing them as a challenge

or developmental opportunity. A process focus involves one’s psychological inventory of self-

regulatory and self-awareness capabilities for managing difficulties. These help the individual bounce
 ANZAM 2012 Page 10 of 16

10

back and in the short term (Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007a), but do not address long-term development

– thriving rather than surviving.

Developmental persistency is related to Maddy and Khosabha’s (2005) notion of positive

attitude towards challenges, or looking to what one can learn from adverse situations helps retain

motivation. However Developmental Persistency goes beyond this in emphasizing the discovery of

one’s capabilities and purpose in life.

Recently Luthans et al. (2011) have come close to implying growth by incorporating Mueller

& Dweck’s (1998) construct of mastery orientation in the Psycap construct, which includes a

resilience dimension. A mastery orientation gives individuals additional motivation when facing

challenges. However, where Luthans et al. focus on learning goals related to the specific problems

involved, Developmental Persistency has a broader focus on growth as a person: a higher-level

process of integrating one’s capabilities and enlarging one’s sense of self.

Positive emotion is implied by some elements of previous studies. The Equanimity scale of the

WYRS involves accepting difficulties without excessive regret (Wagnild & Young, 1993). Klohnen

(1996) found resilience, as measured by ER-89, correlated with a measure of Positive Emotionality

encompassing behavioral and temperamental characteristics conducive to joy, excitement, and vigor.

However, these studies have not given positive emotion the centrality suggested by the present results.

The present construct also invites consideration of how positive emotion contributes to long-

term growth and self-development. For example Frederickson’s (2003) “build and broaden” theory

predicts several benefits of positive emotion in adverse situations. It broadens one’s outlook, helping

to understand one’s challenges and call on more inner resources, including growth-related skills.

Positive emotion helps recall previous experiences as resources for survival and long-term learning.

By reducing negative emotion it helps avoid long-term mental and physical health consequences.

Finally, PE helps individuals gain self-control and confidence. It therefore offers not just a short-term,

reactive advantage but contributes to developmental persistency by increasing inner resources and

promoting healthy functioning. As this mix of emotional positivity and growth focus, resilience

“inoculates” individuals against future problems. By facilitating each other these two qualities may

combine to bring an interactive effect greater than the sum of their individual contributions.
Page 11 of 16 ANZAM 2012

11

The Meaning Making dimension was deleted in the EFA due to poor factor loadings. Aside

from statistical explanations or incorrect theoretical formulation, two possible item-wording

explanations are suggested. First, participants may have interpreted items as referring broadly to life

rather than just work, a possibility less likely on other dimensions due to the wording of items

modeled on prior scales. Three of the six items referred to “my life”, which might cause respondents

to rate aspects of life not relevant to other dimensions.

Second participants may have related “meaning” or “meaningful” only to significantly adverse

events, a less likely consequence of the wordings in other dimensions. Luthans et al. (2000), amongst

others, suggest resilience is only invoked in significantly adverse events: perhaps difficulties faced in

participants’ working life were not significant enough to require meaning making. Respondents were

middle or lower level managers and may also have had less general need for meaning making than

higher level managers (Heuvel et al., 2009; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003). It is also, of

course, possible that meaning making is a psychological phenomenon distinct from resilience. The

status of this dimension should be examined in future studies.

Construct validity of the new measure is shown in positive correlations between both new

dimensions and measures of proactive coping and self-esteem, addressing calls in the POB/POS

literature for constructs that influence employees’ performance and well-being. Proactive coping

involves psychological resources for improving well-being such as personal control and self-

regulation capabilities (Greenglass, 2002). These are future-oriented - directed towards challenging

goals and personal growth rather than merely coping with current stresses. Developmental persistency

and positive emotion are hypothesized as central components of proactive coping, but go beyond

merely coping. They may better relate the concept of resilience to self-esteem, as predicted by

POB/POS studies (Dutton & Brown, 1997; Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & DiMatteo, 2006), as growth is a

central condition of self-esteem (Rogers 1958; (Maslow, 1970).

Negative correlations between these dimensions and psychological vulnerability are consistent

with results showing a negative correlation with measure of positive coping resources such as self-

efficacy and dispositional optimism and positive correlation with negative affect (Sinclair & Wallston

(1999). The belief set underlying developmental persistency and positive emotion is expected to
 ANZAM 2012 Page 12 of 16

12

reduce vulnerability in facing challenges. Finally, composite scores on the Marlowe and Crowne

(Reynolds, 1982) Social Desirability scale (M=6, SD=1.08) showed a negligible correlation (Kendal’s

Tao=-.13) with resilience, suggesting responses were not strongly influenced by desirability.

These results are qualified by certain methodological limitations. First, the sample is limited to

six industries, which may not appropriately represent general characteristics of large established

companies. Second, the resilience scale must be considered preliminary: further study of its reliability

and validity in other contexts should be considered. Third, applicability of the Indonesian sample to

other countries and cultures is presently unknown. Finally, translation of the questionnaire is a

potential limitation although back translation should have minimized distortion of items.

CONCLUSION

In today’s rapidly-changing environment employees’ resilience is a critical resource for

organizations. To develop resilience, researchers and organizational development professionals need a

construct valid for the demands of this environment. We suggest a growth focus is central to this.

Cognitive, emotional and behavioral interventions have been suggested (Luthans, Avey et al., 2006),

but so far developmental persistency or growth has not been intrinsic to constructs of resilience. A

second dimension reflecting positive emotionality is suggested by connecting specific emotions to

resilience, but has so far not been central. The present results suggest these are primary dimensions of

resilience.

Prior studies suggest developing resilience by focusing on individuals’ knowledge and

adaptability (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003), self-enhancement skills and attachment style (Bonanno, Field,

Kovacevic, & Kaltman, 2002). These strategies mostly involve short-term reactions to adverse events

rather that than broader development of one’s inner resources. The present construct extends previous

perspectives by emphasizing proactivity and viewing adversity as an opportunity to grow and become

a better person. Maintaining a positive outlook appears fundamental to this. With these perspectives

we predict individuals will develop resilience without excessive concern with short-term losses. While

replication of our results is needed, it appears interventions focused on developmental persistency and

positive emotion have a better chance of improving employees’ resilience and organizational

performance under adversity.

Page 13 of 16 ANZAM 2012

13

REFERENCES

Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments measuring resilience.
Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29, 103-125.
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: Expanding entrepreneurship's
array of conceptual tools. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(169-172).
Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing,
18(1), 41-60.
Blatt, R. (2009). Resilience in entrepreneurial teams: Developing the capacity to pull through. Frontier
of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(11).
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and Ego-Resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and
separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349-361.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego in the organizational behavior. In W.
Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and socio-cognition (p.48). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience; Have we underestimated the human
capacity to thrive after extremely adversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20-28.
Bonanno, G. A., Field, N. P., Kovacevic, A., & Kaltman, S. (2002). Self-enhancement as a buffer against
extreme adversity: Civil war in Bosnia and traumatic loss in the United States. Personality and
Social. Psychological Bulettin, 28, 184-196.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). An introduction to Positive Organizational
Scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational
Scholarship. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-
Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practice in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research &
evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing
Research, 5(4), 194-197.
Denhart, J., & Denhart, R. (2010). Building organizational resilience and adaptive management. In J.
W. Reich, A. J. Zautra & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 333-374). New York:
The Guilford Press.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dutton, K. A., & Brown, J. D. (1997). Global self esteem and specific self-views as determinants of
people’s reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
139-148.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.): Sage Publication Ltd.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.
Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. San Fransisco: Berret-
Koehler.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotion broaden the scope of attention and
thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 15(3), 313-332.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional
well-being. Psychological Science, 13(172-175).
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult
resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment?
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65-76.
 ANZAM 2012 Page 14 of 16

14

Greenglass, E. (2002). Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, vision,
and challenges (pp. 37-62). London: Oxford University Press.
Greenglass, E., & Schwarzer, R. (1998). The Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI). In R. Scwarzer (Ed.),
Advances in health psychology research (CD). Berlin: Free University of Berlin. Institut for
Arbeits, Organizations-und Gesudheitspsycologie.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. F., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.):
Prentice Hall.
Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development:
Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of
Business Research, 57, 98-107.
Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Schreurs, B. H. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Does meaning-
making help during organizational change: Development and validation of a new scale.
Career Development International, 14(6), 508-533.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in questionnaires.
Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Klohnen, E. A. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego resiliency.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067-1079.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (2002). Measuring positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 201-218): Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 659 - 706.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital
development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, 387-
393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese
workers' psychological capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(5), 818-827.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychology capital;
Measurement and relationship with performance satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3),
541-572.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese
workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization
Review, 1(2), 249-271.
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological capital of
resiliency. Human Resources Development Review, Vol.5(1), 25 - 44.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007a). Psychological Capital; Developing the human
competitive edge. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (2007b). Psychological capital: Investing and
developing positive organizational behavior: Sage Publication.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Rawski, S. L. (2011). A Tale of two paradigms: The Impact of
psychological capital and reinforcing feedback on problem solving and Innovation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 31(4), 333-350.
Luthar, S. S., Cichetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and
guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71 (3), 543-562.
Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between happiness
and self-esteem? . Social Indicators Research, 78, 363-404.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.
Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.
Maddi, S. R., & Khosabha, D. M. (2005). Resilience at work: How to succeed no matter what life
throws at you. New York: AMACOM.
Markman, G. D., Baron, R. A., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless?
Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 1-19.
Page 15 of 16 ANZAM 2012

15

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture:
The dimension of the learning organization questionnaire Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 5(2), 132-151.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. In (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resiliency in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology: Oxford University Press.
Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.
Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2007). Positive organizational behavior: An inclusive view. In D. L.
Nelson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior: Sage Publication.
Reivich, K., & Shatte, A. (2003). The resilience factor. New York: Broadways Books.
Reynolds, W. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social
desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38, 119-125.
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinincal Psychology,
58(3), 307-321.
Rudolph, J. W., & Repenning, N. P. (2002). Disaster dynamics: Understanding the role of quantity in
organizational collapse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 1-30.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 5 - 14.
Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation of the Psychological
Vulnerability Scale. Cognitive therapy & research, 23(2), 119-129.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San
Fransisco: Berret-Koehler Publisher, Inc.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1990). Resilience among older women. Image: Journal of nursing
sholarship, 22, 252-255.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience
scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2).
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, R. E. Quinn & J. E.
Dutton (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 296-308). San Fransisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of
work. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 25(93-135).
Youssef, C. M. (2004). Resiliency development of organizations, leaders and employees: Multi-level
theory building and individual-level, path-analytical empirical testing. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Nebraska.
Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Social behavior and personality, 35(1), 19-30.
 ANZAM 2012 Page 16 of 16

16

APPENDIX

Table 1 : Pattern Matrix

Factors
Variables
Communality
1 2 3
Grow5 (I actively look for ways to overcome the .577 .579
challenges I encounter)
Per2 (I look for creative ways to alter difficult situation) .648 .619

Per3 (I tend to bounce back after illness or hardship) .731 .536

Grow4 (I can grow in positive ways by dealing with .541 .418

difficult situation)
Grow1 (I see difficult as challenges and opportunities to .554 .363
learn)
Per1 (I am able to adapt to change) .606 .440
Grow7 (I often seek feedback on my work from others) .571 .453

Per7(I am not easily discouraged by failure) .668 .554

Pos4(I am usually confident in doing whatever I choose) .787 .596

Pos6(I am enthusiastic in facing problems rather than .789 .674

avoiding them)

Pos5 (I am usually optimistic and hopeful) .790 .639

Pos3 (I am interested in facing and solving problems) .711 .483

Pos7(I can see the humorous side of a problem) .687 .444

Pos2 (I can get through difficult times at work because .623 .473
I've experienced difficulty before)
Grow2 (I think about my mistakes and learn from them) .666 .414

Grow3 (I think how I could have prevented unforeseen .660 .440

problems when they occur)
Per4 (I don’t give up when things look helpless) .834 .545
Per5 (I tend to recover quickly from stressful events) .669 .410

Note: Factor loadings <.4 are suppressed

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix between variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Resilience 67.6 7.5 (0.88)
2 Dev.Persistency 42.7 5.1 0.88 (.87)
3 Positive emotion 24.8 3.9 0.78 0.41 (0.86)
4 Proactive coping 43.7 4.5 0.67 0.6 0.51
5 Self-esteem 21.7 2 0.74 0.59 0.67 0.59
Psychological
6 Vulnerability 0.92 0.14 -0.64* -0.56* -0.47* -0.45* -0.47*
Note: n=167, Reliabilities of each measure displayed on the diagonal of the matrix (in parentheses), p<.01 (two-
tailed). *Kendals-Tau correlation, P<.01

View publication stats