Sustainability 13 02517 v2

sustainability
Article
Defining, Conceptualizing, and Measuring Organizational
Resilience: A Multiple Case Study
Ruijun Chen 1, *, Yaping Xie 2 and Yingqi Liu 1, *
1 School of Economics and Management, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
2 School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 100044, China; 200720120@fzu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: 18113079@bjtu.edu.cn (R.C.); liuyq@bjtu.edu.cn (Y.L.)
Abstract: Organizational resilience is an important means of coping with crises. This concept has
received much attention within both academia and industry. However, research on the definition
and measurement of organizational resilience is still in the exploratory stage. To date, studies on
organizational resilience have yielded mixed conclusions, which makes it difficult to provide specific
recommendations for coping with crises. This paper uses an exploratory case study approach to
explore the process of organizational resilience among six highly resilient companies: Southwest
Airlines, Apple, Microsoft, Starbucks, Kyocera, and Lego. We employed grounded theory to distill
the main characteristics of organizational resilience, to explore and validate its structural dimen-
sions, and to develop a measurement scale for organizational resilience. Further, we conducted
reliability and validity analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and validation factor analysis on the
526 valid data collected. Results show that organizational resilience includes five dimensions: capital
resilience, strategic resilience, cultural resilience, relationship resilience, and learning resilience. The
measurement scale has good reliability and validity, which better reflects the notion of organizational

resilience. This study bridges the gaps in the existing literature on organizational resilience and its
Citation: Chen, R.; Xie, Y.; Liu, Y.
measurement scales, and provides a foundation for future research.
Defining, Conceptualizing, and
Measuring Organizational Resilience:
Keywords: organizational resilience; dimensions; multiple case study; scale development
A Multiple Case Study. Sustainability
2021, 13, 2517. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13052517
Academic Editor: Víctor

1. Introduction
Jesús García-Morales Today’s business environment is increasingly complex and volatile [1]. With the
globalization and the internationalization of business activities, crises seem to have become
Received: 30 January 2021 regular events in the development of organizations [2,3]. These “black swans” (small
Accepted: 22 February 2021 probability but high impact events) or “gray rhinos” (large probability and high impact
Published: 26 February 2021 potential crises) include the September 11 attacks, the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011 tsunami
in Japan, the 2013 Ebola virus in Africa, and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. These events
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral pose increasing challenges to the survival and development of organizations [4]. Therefore,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in how companies can manage risk and continue to grow during crises has become a key issue
published maps and institutional affil- that must be addressed by decision makers. Why are some organizations better able to cope
iations. with adverse environmental conditions and survive in the face of a crisis? What kinds of
processes lead to the adoption of new operation procedures? In essence, these are issues of
organizational resilience [4–7]. Empirical and theoretical studies show that organizational
resilience is the most direct factor explaining why companies can successfully overcome
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. crises. This is because highly resilient companies have strong organizational resilience
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and they are able to overcome existential crises. There is growing evidence that resilient
This article is an open access article organizations have the ability to adapt to market changes and are more likely to remain
distributed under the terms and relevant and responsive to market changes [8,9]. Some scholars have even linked resilience
conditions of the Creative Commons to the long-term development of companies [10]. For instance, Somers (2009) [11] defined
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
organizational resilience as the ability of a firm to take measures in advance to cope with
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
a crisis. Thus, the study of organizational resilience is of great importance, not only in
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052517 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2517 2 of 25
terms of providing new theoretical perspectives on crisis management, but also in terms of
helping companies to grow through crises in practice.
After reviewing the research on organizational resilience, we found that this topic has
received increasing attention in academic circles over the past 30 years [12–20]. Organiza-
tional resilience has been addressed in the fields of positive psychology [21], ecosystemat-
ics [22], engineering [23,24], and management [8,13]. Existing studies on organizational
resilience have mainly focused on its definition and measurement, the factors influencing
it, its mechanisms of operation, and its effects. Scholars have also looked at organizational
resilience from the perspective of stakeholders [25–27], self-esteem [28,29], and leadership
behavior [30–33]. However, most studies lack both a systematic theoretical exploration
and a clear definition of organizational resilience [10,34]. Some scholars have conducted
exploratory research on organizational resilience as an independent concept and proposed
a measurement scale for organizational resilience [35–40]. However, scholars still do not
have a unified opinion for the study of organizational resilience, and there are few in-depth
evaluations of the dimensions of organizational resilience, which limits the scope of the
research [39].
To address these limitations, this study provides an in-depth analysis of the concept
of organizational resilience. We then conduct an exploratory multiple case study of six
highly resilient companies, namely Southwest Airlines, Apple Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks,
Kyocera, and Lego. We explore the dimensions of organizational resilience using grounded
theory, develop measurement scales, and conduct empirical tests by combining theories
and research results related to organizational resilience. Our study seeks to answer the
following questions: What is organizational resilience? What are the processes involved
in organizational resilience? How can companies in crisis achieve sustainable growth in
spite of the crisis? We aim to help scholars better understand the meaning of organiza-
tional resilience and provide a reliable measurement basis for the empirical analysis of
organizational resilience.
This paper contributes to the literature on organizational resilience in three ways. First,
by reviewing existing research on organizational resilience, we found that it is a complex
concept that is cross-level and multidimensional [39]. We clarify what organizational
resilience is, providing an overarching definition and outlining how the specific process
unfolds. In doing so, our study provides a systematic interpretation of the definition of
organizational resilience in existing studies.
Second, scholars generally agree that organizational resilience is a multidimensional
construct [27,41,42]. So far, scholars have built on the definition provided by McManus
et al., (2008) [35] and they have added other aspects to the concept of organizational
resilience. Based on organizational resilience theory, this study explores the structure
of organizational resilience through qualitative research, selecting six highly resilient
companies as research subjects. Using grounded theory to code our qualitative data, we
divide organizational resilience into subcomponents, namely capital resilience, strategic
resilience, cultural resilience, relational resilience, and learning resilience. This study makes
creative use of qualitative research methods to make up for the shortcomings of existing
studies on organizational resilience structures.
Third, we have developed a scale for measuring organizational resilience based on
the studies of McManus et al., (2008) [35], Linnenluecke et al., (2012) [43], Godwin and
Amah (2013) [44], and others. Thus far, scholars have constructed a measurement scale for
organizational resilience from different perspectives and viewpoints based on the works of
McManus et al., (2008) [35] and others [36,39,45]. However, fewer have used qualitative
research methods to explore the structure of organizational resilience through the grounded
theory research approach or developed a scale for measuring organizational resilience
that has been accepted by other scholars. This study aims to provide a better measure
organizational resilience and lays the foundation for further empirical studies.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature
on organizational resilience, summarizes its various definitions, and defines the meaning
of organizational resilience. Section 3 presents the research design and case analysis,
describing the criteria for case selection, data collection, and analysis strategy. Section 4
presents the organizational resilience scale, including the initial measurement questions.
Section 5 conducts the validity test for the scale, including the data collection, sample
characteristics, and data analysis. Section 6 discusses the results obtained in this study,
presents directions for future research, and concludes.
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The concept of resilience emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the field of
physics. It refers to the ability of a system to cope with change [46]. Beginning in the
mid-1880s, the concept of resilience began to penetrate into the field of ecology, where it
was first introduced by Holling (1973) [47] in the article entitled “Resilience and stability of
ecological systems.” In this article, the concept of resilience was introduced into the study
of ecological environments, which refers to the ability of an ecosystem to recover to its
previous state after being damaged. Later, Wildavsky (1988) [48] analyzed resilience in
the context of organizational research. However, it was not until the late 1990s that the
study of resilience within organizations gained popularity among scholars, who began
to focus on post-disaster resilience research [44,49]. This includes research into events
such as Hurricane Katrina, the September 11 attacks, as well as corporate resilience [50,51].
Moreover, there is a broader discussion on resilience in information systems [52], healthcare
systems [13], and supply chains [53]. In recent years, organizational resilience has been well
explored in the field of psychology. Researchers have studied psychologically well-adjusted
children in high-risk environments, arguing that organizational resilience is the positive
adaptive capacity that individuals show when experiencing adverse conditions [39].
In the organizational theory literature, resilience has been studied in the areas of
disaster management, crisis management, and high-reliability organizations [54–57]. Nev-
ertheless, scholars have not yet reached a unified conclusion regarding what constitutes
organizational resilience [10]. As shown in Table 1, most existing studies interpret organiza-
tional resilience from the capability perspective, process perspective, functional perspective,
and outcome perspective. We found that scholars with a dynamic view advocate exploring
organizational resilience from a capability and process perspective, while scholars with a
static view advocate exploring organizational resilience from an outcome and functional
perspective. Scholars adopting a process perspective consider organizational resilience
as a dynamic and progressive process exhibited by firms in response to crisis or adverse
situations. Firms may adopt behaviors such as identity management, reintegration, impro-
visational coping, and emotional labor [6,58]. Scholars adopting the capability perspective
consider organizational resilience as a dynamic and flexible organizational capability
synthesized from predictive capability, survival capability, adaptive capability, coping
capability, and learning capability that organizations exhibit in response to crises [1,20,59].
Scholars from an outcome perspective consider organizational resilience as the ability of or-
ganizations to remain in a positive adaptive state in the face of crises [60,61]. Scholars from
a functional perspective view organizational resilience as a function of an organization’s
ability to adapt to dynamic and complex environments [35,62].
Table 1. Concept of organizational resilience.
Perspectives Representative Scholars Concept Definition Views

Organizational resilience is the ability to anticipate
potential threats, to respond effectively to unexpected
Duchek et al. (2020) events, and to learn from these events, resulting in a
dynamic capability designed to facilitate organizational
change [1].
Organizational resilience is an organization’s capability
that enables organizations to survive, adapt, recover, and
Ma et al. (2018)
even thrive in the face of unexpected and catastrophic
events as well as turbulent environments [59].
Organizational resilience can be viewed not only as the
ability to absorb or adapt to disturbances and changes, but
Koronis and Ponis (2018)
also as the ability to recognize and adapt to unexpected
changes [63].
Organizational resilience is the ability of an organization to
Annarelli and Nonino
face disruptions and unexpected events in advance due to
(2016)
Capability Perspective shocks, both internal and external to the organization [4].
Kim et al. (2016) maintain its operations, and to adapt and recover from
disasters [64].
Ortiz-de-Mandojana and
be aware of disruptions and to respond proactively to
Bansal (2016)
unexpected events [65].
Mafabi et al. (2015) cope with change and to adjust its structure to prevent Dynamic View
disruptions [66].
Lengnick-Hall et al.
effectively absorb, develop context-specific responses to,
(2011)
and engage in change activities [20].
Organizational resilience is a dynamic structure of
organizations that encompasses both typological and
quantitative dimensions and covers processes such as
Ishak and Williams (2018)
reintegration, identity management, communication
network building, emotional labor, and improvisational
coping [58].
Organizational resilience is an evolutionary process in
McCarty et al. (2017) which organizations respond to changes in the external
environment by deploying resources [6].
Process Perspective
Organizational resilience competence is a process that
develops from a combination of cognitive and behavioral
Lengnick-Hall and Beck
competencies at the organizational level as well as
(2009)
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors at the
individual level in contextual conditions [67].
Organizational resilience refers to the process of tissue
Allen and Toder (2004)
recovery from the damage caused by traumatic events [68].
Organizational resilience has been conceptualized as
Wicker et al. (2013)
robust, redundant, adequate, and rapid functioning [62].
Organizational resilience is a function of an organization’s
Functional Perspective awareness of the overall situation, its management of
Mcmanus et al. (2008)
critical weaknesses, and its ability to adapt in a complex,
dynamic, and interdependent environment [35].
Organizational resilience relates to how organizations
survive and recover from unexpected events and chaotic
Sincorá et al. (2008)
changes. It includes the three dimensions of adaptation, Static View
anticipation, and recovery, which are closely linked [61].
Organizational resilience is the result of both relational and
Results Perspective
Gittell et al. (2006) financial reserves that enable organizations to maintain
their relational reserves [69].
Organizational resilience is the result of designing
Weick (1996) structures that are a source of resilience for collective
perceived power [70].
Our systematic review of the research on organizational resilience shows that the
concept is applied in a number of fields such as ecology, psychology, and economics.
In summary, organizational resilience contains three main essential elements. First, the
organization operates in a dynamic environment. Second, the organization responds to the
crisis by reconfiguring organizational resources, reshaping organizational relationships,
and optimizing organizational processes in an adverse situation. Third, the organization
reaches recovery and achieves growth. Therefore, we regard organizational resilience as the
ability of an organization to reconfigure organizational resources, optimize organizational
processes, reshape organizational relationships in a crisis, recover quickly from the crisis,
and use the crisis to achieve counter-trend growth. Organizational resilience emphasizes
the ability of companies to not only get out of a difficult situation, but also to drive growth
in a crisis.
Although scholars have interpreted the concept of organizational resilience from dif-
ferent perspectives, there is no universally accepted standard for the study of the structure
and its measurement. As shown in Table 2, most of the existing studies can be divided into
two-factor, three-factor, and four-factor structures. McManus et al. (2008) [35] proposed
that organizational resilience encompasses planning capacity and adaptive capacity. Based
on an analysis of 10 firms in the New Zealand region, the authors developed 13 resilience
indicators to measure organizational resilience. Later, scholars such as Godwin and Amah
(2013) [44] and Umoh et al. (2014) [41] incorporated organizational learning into organiza-
tional resilience. Godwin and Amah (2013) developed separate 15-item scales measuring
organizational resilience using 128 employees from 34 manufacturing firms in Nigeria.
Borekci et al. (2014) [71] focused on organizational structure and organizational capacity.
The authors conducted an analysis of 109 service firms in Turkey. They developed a 15-item
measurement scale and suggested that organizational resilience encompasses structural
dependence, organizational capacity, and process continuity. Kantur and Say (2015) [39]
argued that organizational resilience includes robustness, agility, and integrity, and de-
veloped a 10-item scale for measuring organizational resilience. In recent years, scholars
have generally considered organizational resilience as a four-dimensional construct, with
some arguing that it includes robustness, redundancy, adequacy, and rapidity [62,72–74].
According to Richtnér and Löfsten (2014) [75], organizational resilience includes struc-
tural, cognitive, relational, and emotional competencies. They came to their conclusions
through an analysis of 329 technology-based companies in Sweden, and developed a
14-item measurement scale.
Overall, the study of organizational resilience has been widely discussed in the fields
of organizational behavior and strategic management. While qualitative and quantitative
research continues to evolve, quantitative research on organizational resilience has devel-
oped more slowly. This is mainly due to the fact that scholars have different perceptions of
organizational resilience, and there is still a lack of a uniform scale for measuring organi-
zational resilience [39,40]. This study seeks to address this gap by constructing a unified
definition of organizational resilience through an exploratory case study approach and
then develop a scale to measure organizational resilience.
Table 2. Dimensional components and related measures of organizational resilience.
Dimensional Composition (Number Source of Representative

Structure Type Research Sample
of Items) Measurement Items Literature
10 companies in New Planning ability (5)
[35] [76]
Zealand Adaptability (8)
84 tourism companies in Adaptability (7)
Two factors [36] [77]
New Zealand Planning (6)
Organizational awareness (5)
—— [36,78] [79]
Adaptability (6)
Table 2. Cont.
Dimensional Composition (Number Source of Representative

Structure Type Research Sample
of Items) Measurement Items Literature
128 employees in 34 Organizational Adaptation (5)
manufacturing companies in Organizational resources (5) [37,80] [44]
Nigeria Organizational learning (5)
Organizational learning ability (5)
31 manufacturing industries
Adaptability (5) [38,81,82] [41]
in Nigeria
Dynamic ability (5)
Structural dependence (3)
Three factors 109 service companies in
Organizational capacity (3) [83] [71]
Turkey
Process continuity (3)
Robustness (4)
188 companies in Turkey Agility (3) [55] [39]
Integrity (3)
Situational Awareness (5)
10 organizations in New
Critical vulnerability management (5) [84] [85]
Zealand
Adaptability (5)
Robustness (5)
739 community clubs in Redundancy (5)
[40,72] [62]
Australia Adequacy (6)
Speediness (5)
Structural ability (4)
Four factors 329 technology-based Cognitive ability (3)
[40] [75]
companies in Sweden Relational ability (3)
Emotional ability (4)
Expected competencies (5)
Adaptive culture (4)
7 organizations in Turkey [86–88] [89]
Network competency (6)
Organizational learning (4)
3. Research Design and Case Study Analysis

3.1. Case Selection
This study utilized an exploratory case study method. We selected six highly resilient
companies, based on their typicality and the ease of access to information: Southwest
Airlines, Apple, Microsoft, Starbucks, Kyocera, and Lego (see Table 3). First, two criteria
were set for case selection. We selected companies that have been in existence for more
than 40 years, and that had suffered a major crisis but emerged successfully and achieved
sustained growth. These are highly resilient companies from Japan, the United States, and
Denmark, respectively. These six companies have been in existence for more than 40 years.
The oldest company is Lego, which was founded in 1932 and has 88 years of history. The
youngest company is Apple, which was founded in 1976, with 44 years of history. There is
no doubt that these six companies have experienced many crises over the past few decades,
and they have all managed to survive and they have experienced growth against all odds.
Although these six companies encountered different types of crises (some arising from the
external environment and some from the lack of internal strategy), the resilience of these
companies is worth studying.
Second, we selected the cases based on the ease of access to information. The annual
reports of highly resilient companies contain important analytical material in the form of
letters from the CEO or Chairman to investors. Each letter details the issues faced by the
company in a respective year and the major initiatives the company has taken. In times
of crisis, the annual report analyzes the reasons why the company survived the crisis. We
also analyzed media reports and management commentaries on the six companies that
were published in the Harvard Business Review, the Wall Street Journal, Business Week,
and The Economist. We also studied books that were published about the six companies.
In the process of screening the textual data, we adopted a problem-oriented approach to
record and organize the events related to these six companies and the crises they faced. The
database contained over 200 key events that occurred in these six companies in response to
a crisis, which provides a strong basis for this study.
Table 3. Information on the companies selected.
Company Country Founding Date Case Type Case Features

Southwest Airlines has experienced four major
crises: the first was from 1979–1985, the second
Southwest from 1990–1997, the third was from 2001–2007, and
United States 1971 Core Case
Airlines the fourth was from 2008–2015. From 1973–2019,
the company has been consistently profitable for 47
years.
Apple was on the verge of collapse in 1996, then
Steve Jobs stepped in and reinvented the
Apple United States 1976 Comparative case company’s business model in 1997. Apple became
the first high-tech company to reach $1 trillion in
market capitalization.
Kyocera has weathered several crises over the past
60 years, including the financial crisis, the Internet
Kyocera Japan 1959 Comparative case bubble, and the Great Earthquake. To date, Kazuo
Inamori has led the company, which has achieved
sustained growth for 59 years.
When Starbucks was on the verge of bankruptcy in
2008, Howard Schultz became CEO and led the
Starbucks United States 1971 Comparative case
company out of the crisis by reinventing the
business model and achieving sustained growth.
Beginning in 1997, Lego faced an eight-year
financial crisis and was on the verge of bankruptcy.
In 2004, Jørgen Wiig-Knustop took over as CEO,
Lego Denmark 1932 Comparative case
leading the company out of the crisis and
reinventing Lego’s business model to achieve
growth.
In 2014, Microsoft was in a “strategic crisis” in the
mobile Internet space and consumer hardware
industry. Satya Nadella became Microsoft’s CEO,
Microsoft United States 1975 Comparative case
leading Microsoft out of the crisis by reinventing its
business model to reach a market capitalization of
$1 trillion.
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

We collected textual data with information on the six companies from company
annual reports, published books, industry information, and the Harvard Business Report.
To ensure the validity and completeness of the data, this study triangulated the information
from different data sources. Specifically, the information collected was verified through
multiple channels and in different ways. For example, we verified the authenticity of the
information by communicating with the relevant managers of the companies, in order to
enhance the robustness of the conclusions. To ensure the accuracy of data analysis, we also
invited teachers and Ph.D. students with experience in conducting case studies to assist as
we conducted our research.
3.3. Data Analysis

This study follows the research procedure outlined in procedural rooting theory to
sort and code the obtained data. Rooting theory is a top-down research method that
constructs theories in an inductive form [90]. Compared to constructive rooting theory and
classical rooting theory, the procedural rooting method is clearly structured and simple
to operate. This not only provides rigorous guidelines for researchers, but also offers
concise operational steps. For example, the research procedure for programmed grounded
theory includes three processes: open coding, spindle coding, and selective coding [91].
In order to ensure the accuracy and rigor of the coding, a coding team consisting of three
doctoral students, two master’s students, and one professor was established. Each member
independently coded the textual information and subsequently compared and adjusted
the codebook to improve the reliability of the study.
3.3.1. Open Coding

Open coding is the process of interpreting the collected data, exploring the meaning
behind the data, and using conceptualization and categorization to condense the intrinsic
essence of the data, with the ultimate goal of achieving data aggregation. The open coding
process requires the researcher to approach the data with a critical perspective and to be
problem-oriented so that the information can be captured accurately. Table 4 shows the
open coding process.
Table 4. Open coding results.
Collated Information Conceptualization Categorization

Our goal is to design a capital structure that leverages all capital to maximize returns
for shareholders over the long term.
Capital Structure Design
Lego’s problems are rooted in a disconnect between internal strategic upgrading and Capital Structure
Capital Structure Matching
operational capabilities, and, furthermore, in a mismatch between strategic
objectives and capital structure.
Throughout the oil crisis, Southwest maintained a solid cash flow, thus, ensuring its
own sustainable growth in the face of adversity.
From 1980 to 1983, Southwest Airlines issued 3.6 million shares of common stock on Stable Cash Flow
the open market for four consecutive years, greatly enhancing the company’s cash Balanced Equity Financing Cash Storage
flow. Cash Sufficient
At the onset of the crisis caused by the 9-11 crisis, the company had $1 billion in cash
on hand, which enabled it to respond to a crisis that depleted their cash flow.
The cash flow was first used to pay off the company’s debt, which rapidly fell from
$72 million in 1979 to $15 million in 1980. Priority Debt Service
Debt Service
The losses continued to accumulate in 2004, reaching DKK 1.931 billion, and Lego Debt Crisis
was in a serious existential crisis and on the verge of bankruptcy.
Southwest Airlines continued to improve the company’s solvency.
Solvency Debt service
Even in 1979, 1980, and 1981, the most difficult years of the crisis, Southwest’s
Higher Current Ratio Capacity
current ratio reached 1.64:1, 1.53:1, and 1.23:1
Why does Southwest Airlines stand out from the competition? The answer is simple
and clear: the price of their product. They believe that in the market for short-haul
flights of 500 miles or less, the private car is the primary competitor to the airplane. Identify Competitors
... This requires them to continuously optimize the cost structure of their product Optimize Cost Structure Product Features
and lower the price of their product so that passengers feel that flying is more Reduce Product Prices
punctual and cheaper than using a private car. In short, the only way to win is to
offer an attractive product at a competitive price.
Continue to improve aircraft utilization efficiency (over 10 h per day) and accelerate
aircraft return times (10 min for ground boarding).
High Efficiency
Continue to use standardized and uniform aircraft types, primarily Boeing 737s. No Operation
Simple Operations
cost-increasing catering services, which is unnecessary on short-haul routes. Strategy
Focus on Passengers
Focus on serving passengers (no cargo or mail service) and carrying smaller baggage
that is more profitable and less expensive to handle.
Pan Am reduced tickets for business flights from Dallas to Houston to $13,
compared to Southwest’s cost of about $13. Low Price
Price Conflict
Pan Am’s pricing strategy took advantage of the first-mover advantage and drove Price First
Southwest to unprofitability.
Iranian oil exports were completely halted from December 1978 to March 1979 due
to dramatic domestic political changes. Oil crisis
Survival Crisis
The U.S. economy was severely affected and its domestic gasoline prices rose from Economic recession
$0.65 in 1978 to $1.35 in 1981, leading to a recession in the U.S. economy.
Table 4. Cont.

“I have been writing to praise the dedication, enthusiasm, and outstanding
achievements of Southwest Airlines employees.
Commending Employees
With tears in my eyes, I thank all employees from the bottom of my heart for their Emotional
Appreciate Employees
support and care for the company. Connection
Retaining Employees
There were many opportunities to lay off employees and make the company more
profitable, but I always thought that was short-sighted.”
This year, Southwest launched the “Fuel from the heart” program, voluntarily
reducing wages to allow the company to purchase fuel.
Helping Companies
This reaffirms that Southwest is not just a business company, we are a family that Reciprocal
Caring for Each Other
cares about each other. Relationship
Safeguarding Stakeholders
They are committed to being a low-cost leader, to achieving superior financial
performance and to protecting the safety of our employees and shareholders.
Southwest’s primary goal is to provide safe, compassionate, caring and courteous
service to its passengers.
Southwest has made “service excellence” a core monitoring indicator of its Providing Quality Services
operations and has not compromised its service standards, even in the most difficult Excellent Service Customer Service
of times. Warm Service
Southwest Airlines provides a happy, welcoming service on its flights, allowing
passengers to enjoy a relaxing journey.
Southwest Airlines increases customer stickiness through more personal and
Customer Stickiness Relationship
warmer service.
Employee Loyalty Enhancement
Not laying off employees fosters loyalty and a sense of security and trust.
“Our employees were immersed in great grief, but they buried their grief deep in
their hearts, and with tears in their eyes, they quickly returned to their respective
posts, and they re-planned their flights as quickly as possible to ensure the normal
operation of the route. Work Commitment
Employee
Always follow the right path, which gives us endless strength in the crisis and Road Commitment
Commitment
makes us insist on the right path and the right thing to do when we encounter any Organizational Loyalty
difficulties.
This is because our employees have the spirit of hard work and dedication, as well
as a good sense of humor and loyalty to the organization.”
The company likes to hire people with diverse backgrounds and places great
emphasis on examining the positive and optimistic spirit of the candidates. Optimism
Southwest emphasizes cultural diversity and teamwork. Team spirit Spiritual Shaping
Due to Southwest’s innovation in reducing the cost of short-haul flights, its miles Innovative spirit
flown are now positively correlated with seat-mile costs.
Herb Kelleher and his team fought so hard that not only were they not beaten down,
but they grew stronger and stronger and achieved continued growth in the face of
adversity. The more you fight, the stronger you
The employees were made to realize that the airline industry is in a highly are Rigid and
competitive, dynamic, and risky environment and that to survive, one must have the Passion for Struggle Flexible
spirit of struggle and love to fight to win. Care and Happiness
The spirit of caring and joy has continued from the beginning of Southwest Airlines’
business to today.
Through the profit sharing program, Southwest Airlines and all employees form a
community of interest, and when the company’s profits increase, employees can
receive a share of the profits.
Community of Interest Community
Kyocera’s culture of supreme goodness also promotes care among people. By caring
Community of Fate Sense
for others and extending kindness to them, such kindness will reincarnate and
eventually benefit oneself, thus, forming a community of destiny that helps each
other.
Southwest Airlines’ spirit of joy and caring, coupled with the warrior spirit, acts as
an emotional catalyst, mobilizing positive energy and positive emotions among
employees.
For any organization, morale is an important expression of individual emotions.
Mobilize emotions
High morale is a positive and positive emotion that increases the likelihood and Emotional
Raise morale
speed of an organization overcoming a crisis. Regulation
Perception of the meaning of work
A culture of excellence makes employees realize that they can contribute to people
by realizing the dream of “letting customers fly free,” which enhances the
individual’s perception of the meaning of life and the sense of accomplishment that
comes from work.
Table 4. Cont.

“Southwest Airlines is an exact copy of PSA, literally a copy of PSA, so to speak.”
Lamar Muse, in an interview, never hid Southwest’s early copying of PSA.
Model Awareness
Kyle embarked on a radical transformation, upgrading the company’s positioning Positive
Positioning Awareness
from building toys to creative and inspiring quality toys. Awareness
Situational awareness
Southwest’s leaders were acutely aware that as a business organization, the
company must prosper with its employees.
If we trust only when we are not let down, love only when we have something to
give in return, and learn only when we have something to learn, then we have
abandoned the essential characteristics of being human. Intrinsic Characteristics Behavioral
When learning from the experience of others, companies should set a safety Operating Characteristics Characteristics
standard for gearing based on their own operational characteristics and consider it
as a strict financial discipline to be adhered to for a long time.
Herb Kelleher, the founder of Southwest Airlines, decided to replicate the PSA
model exactly, and he systematically studied and learned PSA’s operating model
and service model.
When the country and the company were in an emergency situation, they had no
Systematic Learning
complaints and quickly learned the new safety regulations and operating Learning
Fast Learning
procedures established by the federal government. Capabilities
Deep Learning
Many leaders who have copied the Southwest model have made a fundamental
mistake in their strategic thinking by failing to understand the essence of the
Southwest model in a systematic and balanced way, learning only superficial
management techniques or marketing strategies.
It is important to note that different sample profiles may respond to different aspects,
which means that a category or concept may come from one sample, while others play a
complementary and supportive role. The main goal of this study is to find the concepts
and categories that best describe, categorize, and compare the data. A total of 107 concepts
and 20 categories were obtained in this study.
3.3.2. Axial Coding

Axial coding is the process of further sorting and generalizing the categories estab-
lished through open coding in order to discover the relationships between the categories.
We used the process referred to as main axis coding, which is mainly based on the following
model: “causal condition—phenomenon—action strategy—outcome” [92]. We clarified the
relationships between the categories obtained in the open coding and form larger classes,
thus, forming the master category [92]. After generalization and refinement, we finally
obtained five categories, namely capital resilience, strategic resilience, cultural resilience,
relationship resilience, and learning resilience (see Table 5).
Table 5. Axial coding.
Logic Main Line

Causal Main Category
Phenomenon Action Strategy Results
Conditions
Capital Structure Cash Reserve Debt Service Debt Service Capital Resilience
Survival Crisis Price Conflict Operation Strategy Product Features Strategic Resilience
Employee
Spiritual Shaping Rigid and Flexible Community Sense Cultural Resilience
Commitment
Emotional Reciprocal Relationship Relationship
Customer Service
Connection Relationship Enhancement Resilience
Emotional Behavioral Positive Learning
Learning Ability
Regulation Characteristics Awareness Resilience
3.3.3. Selective Coding

Selective coding is based on the axial coding, and a more complete structure emerges
by analyzing around the core categories so as to discover the core categories that can unify
the other categories. Based on the interaction of resilience theory and data, the four main
categories of capital resilience, strategic resilience, cultural resilience, relationship resilience,
and learning resilience were extracted. Moreover, the core category of organizational
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
resilience was further specified, which can unify all the categories of this study.11The of 24
selective coding process is shown in Figure 1.
Figure1.1.Selective
Figure Selectivecoding
codingprocess.
process.
AA main
main finding
findingof of this
this study
study isis that
that strategic
strategic resilience
resilience helped
helped companies
companies consistently
consistently
identifyand
identify andeliminate
eliminateadverse
adversefactors
factorsthat thatcould
couldweaken
weaken a company’s
a company’s core
core business
business ca-
capa-
pabilities.
bilities. Capital
Capital resilience
resilience helps
helps companies
companies balancetheir
balance theirorganizations’
organizations’capital
capitalstructure
structure
and
and prepare
preparefor forcrises
crisesbefore
beforethey
theyoccur.
occur.Relationship
Relationshipresilience
resiliencehelped
helpedcompanies
companiesbuild build
mutually
mutuallybeneficial
beneficialrelationships
relationships between
between employers
employersandandemployees, employees
employees, and com-
employees and
panies, and companies
companies, and companies and customers
and customers to help themthem
to help withstand crises.
withstand Cultural
crises. resilience
Cultural resili-
was
encethe
wasshaping of employees
the shaping of employeesthroughthroughcorporate culture,
corporate encouraging
culture, encouraging themthemto have
to havea
long-term
a long-term commitment
commitment toward
toward thetheorganization.
organization.Learning
Learningresilience
resilienceisisthetheability
abilityofofan
an
organization
organizationto tocope
copewith
withthe thestresses
stressesititfaces
facesininthe
thelearning
learningprocess,
process,andandthetheability
abilityofofan
an
organization to learn various lessons for in response to a crisis. Together, these
organization to learn various lessons for in response to a crisis. Together, these five factors five factors
formed
formed thethe organizational
organizational resilience
resilience that
that helped
helpedcompanies
companiesnavigate
navigatethrough
throughcrises
crisesand
and
achieve
achieve sustained
sustainedgrowth.
growth.
4.
4. Developing
Developing the the Organizational
Organizational Resilience
Resilience Scale
Scale
4.1. Scale Development Process
4.1. Scale Development Process
First, following existing studies, we used programmed root theory to conduct multiple
First, following existing studies, we used programmed root theory to conduct multi-
case studies. We obtained five dimensions of organizational resilience: capital resilience,
ple case resilience,
strategic studies. We obtained
cultural five dimensions
resilience, relationshipof organizational resilience:
resilience, and learning capital resili-
resilience. Sec-
ence, strategic resilience, cultural resilience, relationship resilience, and
ond, we developed measurement items that are consistent with organizational resilience learning resili-
ence.
by Second,
drawing onwe developed
existing measurement
measurement scales.items
Third,that are consistent
in order to analyze with organizational
organizational re-
resilience by drawing on existing measurement scales. Third, in order to
silience more clearly and to modify the measurement items, we conducted semi-structured analyze organi-
zational resilience
interviews with themore
headsclearly andcompanies
of the six to modifywho the had
measurement
experienced items, weDuring
crises. conducted
the
semi-structured
interviews, interviews
we asked them with
whatthe headscould
factors of thehelp
six companies
companieswho had experienced
survive crises, or whatcri-
ses. During the interviews, we asked them what factors could help companies
organizational actions could help companies resist crises. Finally, we conducted a pre- survive
crises,of
study orthe
what organizational
developed actions
scale and could
further help companies
revised the scale toresist
formcrises. Finally,
a formal we con-
measure of
ducted a pre-study of
organizational resilience. the developed scale and further revised the scale to form a formal
measure of organizational resilience.
4.2. Preparation of Initial Measurement Scale

In this study, the initial measurement scale was developed based on semi-structured
interviews and combined with existing scales. Our measure of capital resilience was de-
signed based on the studies of Valikangas (2010) [37] and Marsick et al. (2002) [80]. We
4.2. Preparation of Initial Measurement Scale

In this study, the initial measurement scale was developed based on semi-structured
interviews and combined with existing scales. Our measure of capital resilience was
designed based on the studies of Valikangas (2010) [37] and Marsick et al. (2002) [80]. We
created a total of seven questions in Likert-scale format, including “Our company has good
cash flow”, “We reserve cash according to our corporate strategy and competitive model”,
and “We have a sound capital structure”.
The measure of strategic resilience was designed based on the study by Davenport
and Cronin (2000) [93]. We created a total of six questions, including “Our company is
able to focus on its core business”, “Our company is able to identify adverse factors in its
development in a timely manner”, and “We pursue a robust strategic growth model”.
The measure of cultural resilience was designed based on the studies by Meen and
Keough (1992) [94] as well as Denison and Mishra (1995) [95]. It comprised a total of six
questions, such as “Our corporate culture aims to develop a sense of community among
employees”, “Our corporate culture fosters a sense of cooperation among employees”, and
“Our corporate culture stimulates morale and spirit among employees”.
The measurement for relational resilience was mainly designed based on the studies
by Shore et al. (1990) [96] and by Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007) [40]. We created a total of six
questions, such as “We are able to create unique value for our customers”, “We aim for
mutual prosperity between the company and our stakeholders”, and “We have a good
reciprocal relationship with our employees”.
The measurement for cultural resilience was mainly designed based on the studies
by Costanza et al. (2016) [87] and Ramón and Koller (2016) [88]. We created a total of six
questions, such as “We will choose learning objects according to the characteristics of our
own enterprise “, “We will choose the better enterprises to learn from”, and “We will have
a deep knowledge of our own situation in time”. The questions are shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Initial measurement scale of organizational resilience.
Dimension Related Concepts Scale Items Source

Our business has good cash flow
We will base our cash reserves on our corporate strategy and competitive
model
The ability of a business to
operate normally and to We have a solid capital structure
Capital Resilience [37,80]
recapitalize against risk in a
We have multiple sources of financing
crisis.
We have low capital leverage
We will make profit maximization the ultimate goal of our business
We have high capital utilization efficiency
Our company is able to focus on its core business
Companies are able to Our company is able to identify unfavorable factors in development in a
maintain strategic consistency timely manner
over time, helping them to We pursue a robust strategic growth model
Strategic Resilience identify and eliminate [93]
disadvantages and to be able We were able to clarify our strategic positioning
to choose the right growth
We are able to balance endogenous and exogenous growth patterns
model.
We are able to match strategic objectives and operational capabilities very well
Our corporate culture is designed to foster a sense of community among our
employees
Corporate culture shapes the
Our corporate culture fosters a sense of cooperation among our employees
entrepreneurial spirit of
Cultural Resilience employees and their Our corporate culture inspires employee morale and spirit [94,95]
commitment to the
Our corporate culture inspires employees to strive for excellence
organization.
Our corporate culture reflects the care and love for our employees
Our corporate culture fosters a sense of organizational commitment
Table 6. Cont.
Dimension Related Concepts Scale Items Source

We can create unique value for our customers
We are able to think about our customers
Reciprocal relationship We aim for shared prosperity between companies and stakeholders
Relationship [40,96]
between business and
Resilience
stakeholders. We have a good reciprocal relationship with our employees
We have a good relationship with our investors
We are able to fully listen to the advice of our investors
We will choose the learning target according to the characteristics of our own
company
We will choose the better companies to study
The ability of companies to We will have a deep awareness of our situation in time
Learning Resilience cope with the pressures and [87,88]
We will make timely adjustments to our positioning
challenges in learning.
We will be interested in adjusting our emotions to get into the study state
more quickly
We will learn more about other experiences to help companies cope with the
crisis
Source: Based on relevant literature and interviews with relevant business leaders.
5. Validity Test for the Scale

5.1. Data Collection and Sample Characteristics
5.1.1. Data Collection
This study was conducted over a total of five months, from July 2020 to the end
of November 2020. The questionnaire was administered in Beijing, Fujian, Zhejiang,
and Shanghai, where there are clusters of small- and medium-sized enterprises. The
questionnaire included questions about participant demographics and about organizational
resilience. The latter set of questions were designed using a 7-point Likert scale, with “1”
representing complete disagreement and “7” representing strong agreement. We selected
small- and medium-sized enterprises that operated in clusters for several reasons. First,
these enterprises are considered resilient family businesses. Second, these enterprises
better reflect the characteristics of resilience. Third, given the difficulties involved in
collecting data on enterprises nationwide, the regions selected for this study comprise more
enterprises than in other areas of China. Fourth, considering that the Chinese economy is
dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises, it made more sense to select small and
medium-sized enterprises, as this represents the situation in China more accurately.
We obtained data for this study through three main methods. First, we relied on the
resources of the local Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development to conduct
questionnaire surveys in Beijing, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Shanghai, and data were collected
through mail and electronic questionnaires. Second, we conducted research on eligible
companies in the four regions of Beijing, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Shanghai, collecting data
mainly through on-site questionnaires.
5.1.2. Sample Characteristics

In this study, 900 questionnaires were distributed in four regions, and a total of 723
questionnaires were collected. By eliminating invalid questionnaires that were incomplete
and that were filled out randomly, 526 valid questionnaires were finally obtained. The
sample characteristics of this study are shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Sample characteristics.
Options Frequency Percentage Options Frequency Percentage

Male 275 52.3% Less than 1 year 69 13.1%
Sex
Female 251 47.7% 1–5 years 158 30.0%
25 years old and below 125 23.8% 6–10 years 93 17.7%
Years of work
26–35 years old 238 45.2% 11–15 years 87 16.5%
Age 36–45 years old 138 26.2% 15–20 years 78 14.8%
46–55 years old 18 3.4% Over 20 years 41 7.8%
55 years old and above 7 1.3% General staff 197 37.5%
Junior high school and
14 2.7% Basic manager/junior 93 17.7%
below
Middle
High school/junior high
62 11.8% management/Middle 146 27.8%
school
Education level
Position Level
level Senior
College/Bachelor’s 324 61.6% management/Senior 83 15.8%
level
Master’s 106 20.2%
Other 7 1.3%
Ph.D. 20 3.8%
5.2. Data Analysis

Based on the scale development process, we first conducted an internal consistency
analysis of the scale, i.e., the degree of consistency of multiple measures measuring the same
concept; secondly, this study examined the structural validity, content validity, criterion
validity, and face validity of the scale to ensure the validity of the scale; thirdly, we con-
ducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the obtained scale to determine the optimal
structure of the measurement scale and to judge the conformity of the measurement items
contained in the scale with the corresponding concepts; finally, we conducted validation
factor analysis (CFA) on the basis of exploratory factors to explore the relationship between
theoretically delineated factors and the designed measurement items.
5.2.1. Internal Consistency Analysis

Drawing on Landers’ (2015) [97] requirements for internal consistency testing, this
study applied the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) measure to test the internal
consistency of the scale of organizational resilience, as shown in Table 8 below, which
shows that the internal consistency of the scale was 0.911, indicating that the scale has good
internal consistency.
Table 8. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for Inter-Rater Assessment.
95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0

Intraclass
Correlation b Lower Upper
Value df1 df2 Sig
Bound Bound
Single
0.222 a 0.180 0.266 6.955 525 7190 0.000
Measures
Average
0.911 0.867 0.945 6.955 525 7190 0.000
Measures
Note: a The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. b Type A intraclass correlation
coefficients using an absolute agreement definition.
5.2.2. Validity Analysis

Structural validity can demonstrate the reliability of the scale structure, but reliability
tests do not represent validity. Chan and Idris (2017) [98] suggested that factor analysis
would be an appropriate statistical measurement technique for structural validity, with

measures of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Therefore, Table 9
below explains the structural validity of the scale.
Table 9. KMO and Bartlett’s test for validity.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.881

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 6862.277
df 190
Sig. 0.000
Table 9 explained that the KMO value is 0.881, which can be conclude by meritorious,
and this indicator is greater than the minimum standard 0.6. Thus, it indicates that the em-
pirical measurement effectively tests the true meaning of the concept under consideration.
Moreover, the approximate chi-square of Bartlett’s sphere test is 6862.277 with 190 degrees
of freedom. p-value is 0.000, which is less than 0.01. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence
to conclude that the questionnaire is valid at the 99% significance level.
Content validity analysis was conducted using a 4-point expert scale, with scores
from 1 to 4 representing “not relevant”, “weakly relevant”, “strongly relevant”, and “very
relevant”. In this study, the content validity index (I-CVI: the number of experts who rated
each entry as 3 or 4 divided by the total number) was calculated based on expert ratings,
and the average content validity (S-CVI/Ave) was the mean of the I-CVI of all entries. An
I-CVI value greater than 0.78 and an S-CVI value greater than 0.9 indicated good internal
homogeneity [99]. In this study, six experts in the field were invited to rate the entries of
the scale, and the results of both I-CVI and S-CVI were 1. Therefore, the content validity of
this scale is good.
To evaluate criterion validity, it could calculate the correlation between the results
of the measurement and the results of the criterion measurement. This study generates
the new variable for Total to represent the sum of value for the whole question and if
there is a high correlation among the questions, it gives a good indication that the test
is measuring what it intends to measure. For this indicator, the obtained value needs to
compare with the critical value for Pearson correlation coefficient and the rule is that the
obtained value should be greater than the critical value. For instance, the obtained value
for the first item is 0.486. The sample size is n = 526, so the number of degrees of freedom is
df = n − 2 = 526 − 2 = 524. Then the corresponding critical correlation value r_c for a
significance level of α = 0.05, for a two-tailed test is 0.085. Thus, the obtained value is
greater than the critical value and this would generate the significant result for criterion
validity. It can be seen that the scale has good criterion validity, as shown in Table 10 below.
Table 10. Test the validity using Pearson correlation coefficient.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-Tailed)

Our business has good cash flow 0.486 ** 0
We have multiple sources of financing 0.750 ** 0
We have low capital leverage 0.701 ** 0
We will make profit maximization the ultimate goal of our business 0.757 ** 0
Our company is able to focus on its core business 0.783 ** 0
We pursue a robust strategic growth model 0.647 ** 0
We were able to clarify our strategic positioning 0.607 ** 0
We are able to balance endogenous and exogenous growth patterns 0.634 ** 0
Our corporate culture is designed to foster a sense of community among our employees 0.607 ** 0
Table 10. Cont.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-Tailed)

Our corporate culture inspires employee morale and spirit 0.582 ** 0
Our corporate culture reflects the care and love for our employees 0.573 ** 0
Our corporate culture fosters a sense of organizational commitment 0.502 ** 0
We can create unique value for our customers 0.458 ** 0
We aim for shared prosperity between companies and stakeholders 0.456 ** 0
We have a good reciprocal relationship with our employees 0.424 ** 0
We have a good relationship with our investors 0.534 ** 0
We will choose the learning target according to the characteristics of our own company 0.621 ** 0
We will have a deep awareness of our situation in time 0.674 ** 0
We will be interested in adjusting our emotions to get into the study state more quickly 0.601 ** 0
We will learn more about other experiences to help companies cope with the crisis 0.650 ** 0
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Face validity refers to whether the questionnaire, in its surface form and content, is
perceived as a valid questionnaire in the hands of the subjects [100], and Harrison and Wills
(1983) [100] states that the only way to know the surface validity is through questionnaires
or informal questioning of teachers and students. Therefore, in this study, two professors
and five doctoral students in the field were invited to evaluate the face validity of this scale
based on the preliminary research, and finally the experts agreed that this scale has good
face validity.
5.2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

This study used SPSS 26.0 to conduct exploratory factor analysis on the 31 mea-
surement items of the organizational resilience scale, and then to determine the optimal
structure of the scale. We found that the KMO coefficient of the organizational resilience
measurement scale was 0.881, which was within the valid range. The factor significance
level of Bartlett’s sphericity test was less than 0.001, which rejected the hypothesis that the
correlation matrix was a unitary array, and, thus, the samples collected by this question-
naire were eligible for doing factor analysis. Next, we conducted an exploratory factor
analysis using principal component analysis and found that a total of five factors were
extracted. In addition, the questions with factor loadings of less than 0.4 were eliminated.
These included “We reserve cash based on our corporate strategy and competitive model”
and “We have a sound capital structure”.
The final measurement scale was obtained by optimizing the scale and removing the
unqualified measurement questions. As shown in Table 11, the factor loadings of all five
factors were above 0.6, and the cumulative variance contribution rate reached 81.059%,
indicating that the organizational resilience scale has a good factor structure. Based on
programmed rooting theory and on the literature on organizational resilience, this study
corresponds these five factors to the five dimensions of organizational resilience. These are:
(1) capital resilience (four measured items), which refers to the ability of a firm to operate
normally and to recapitalize against risk in a crisis; (2) strategic resilience (four items),
which refers to a company’s ability to maintain strategic consistency over time, helping it to
identify and eliminate adverse factors and to be able to choose the right growth model; (3)
relationship resilience (four items), which refers to the reciprocal relationships established
between the company and its stakeholders; (4) cultural resilience (four items) refers to
the way in which the corporate culture shapes the entrepreneurial spirit of employees
and the commitment of employees to the organization; (5) learning resilience (four items),
which refers to the ability of the company to cope with the pressures and challenges of
learning. Through exploratory factor analysis, the non-conforming measurement items
were eliminated, and the items measuring strategic resilience (SR), capital resilience (CR),
relationship resilience (RR), cultural resilience (WR), and learning resilience (LR) were
obtained. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient test revealed that the coefficient of each factor
of organizational resilience was above 0.8, indicating that this scale has good reliability.
Table 11. Exploratory factor analysis.
Measurement Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Our business has good cash flow 0.790 0.035 0.081 0.084 0.187
We have multiple sources of financing 0.896 0.067 0.073 0.097 0.198
We have low capital leverage 0.894 0.092 0.084 0.086 0.170
We will make profit maximization the ultimate goal of our
0.848 0.043 0.082 0.103 0.149
business
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.905
Common factor contribution 21.884
Our company is able to focus on its core business 0.044 0.816 0.005 0.014 0.201
We pursue a robust strategic growth model 0.023 0.850 0.144 0.046 0.122
We were able to clarify our strategic positioning 0.080 0.804 0.091 0.042 0.155
We are able to balance endogenous and exogenous
0.064 0.796 0.124 0.001 0.198
growth patterns
Our corporate culture is designed to foster a sense of
0.073 0.244 0.876 0.020 0.060
community among our employees
Our corporate culture inspires employee morale and spirit 0.044 0.236 0.904 0.020 0.067
Our corporate culture reflects the care and love for our
0.063 0.329 0.812 0.066 0.092
employees
Our corporate culture fosters a sense of organizational
0.070 0.325 0.786 0.009 0.110
commitment
We can create unique value for our customers 0.301 0.075 0.007 0.771 0.096
We aim for shared prosperity between companies and
0.294 0.118 0.022 0.836 0.107
stakeholders
We have a good reciprocal relationship with our
0.253 0.069 0.041 0.847 0.090
employees
We have a good relationship with our investors 0.247 0.083 0.041 0.838 0.084
We will choose the learning target according to the
0.057 0.097 0.091 0.292 0.614
characteristics of our own company
We will have a deep awareness of our situation in time .079 0.242 0.104 0.194 0.785
We will be interested in adjusting our emotions to get into
0.088 0.192 0.091 0.145 0.801
the study state more quickly
We will learn more about other experiences to help
0.087 0.209 0.081 0.143 0.826
companies cope with the crisis
5.2.4. Validation Factor Analysis

In this study, after refining the measurement items of the organizational resilience
scale based on exploratory factor analysis, the obtained scale was subjected to validated
factor analysis using the LISREL 8.7 software. As seen in Table 12, the latent variable
measurement models were χ2 /df = 2.01 < 5, CFI = 0.99 > 0.9, NNFI = 0.98 > 0.9, and
RMSEA = 0.044 < 0.1, all of which reached the desired range. Therefore, the model fit of
this study is good.
Table 12. Validated factor analysis of for the organizational resilience scale.
Indicators χ2 /df CFI GFI AGFI NNFI NFI PGFI PNFI RMR RMSEA
Effective range 2~5 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.5 >0.5 <0.08 <0.08
Measured value 2.01 0.99 0.94 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.72 0.82 0.034 0.044
Meanwhile, as shown in Figure 2, the path coefficients of the latent variables corre-
sponding to all the prior variables were above 0.7, and there were significant correlation
coefficients among the five latent variables (as shown in Table 13). Thus, the measurement
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24
items for organizational resilience developed in this study responded well to the five latent
variables and have high reliability and validity.
Figure
Figure 2.2. Organizational
Organizationalresilience
resiliencevalidated
validatedby byfactor
factoranalysis
analysis(CFA).
(CFA).Note:
Note:CR
CRstands forfor
stands capital re-
capital
resilience;
silience; SRSR stands
stands for for strategic
strategic resilience;
resilience; WRWR stands
stands for cultural
for cultural resilience;
resilience; RR stands
RR stands for rela-
for relationship
tionship resilience;
resilience; and LR
and LR stands forstands for resilience.
learning learning resilience.
Table 13. Correlation coefficient of each variable in descriptive statistics.
Average Value Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5

Capital Resilience 4.72 0.903 1
Strategic Resilience 5.08 0.922 0.243 ** 1
Cultural Resilience 3.41 0.950 0.180 ** 0.274 ** 1
Table 13. Correlation coefficient of each variable in descriptive statistics.
Average Standard
1 2 3 4 5
Value Deviation
Capital
4.72 0.903 1
Resilience
Strategic
5.08 0.922 0.243 ** 1
Resilience
Cultural
3.41 0.950 0.180 ** 0.274 ** 1
Resilience
Relationship
3.52 0.904 0.23 ** 0.254 ** 0.604 ** 1
Resilience
Learning
5.17 0.858 0.446 ** 0.444 ** 0.233 ** 0.259 ** 1
Resilience
Note: ** indicates p < 0.01.
6. Conclusions and Discussion

6.1. Conclusions
With the development of the digital economy, the environment in which organizations
operate is increasingly volatile. Survival and growth in a dynamic environment are central
goals for organizations. Therefore, the importance of organizational resilience is recognized
by both scholars and practitioners. This study analyzed six highly resilient companies,
namely Southwest Airlines, Apple, Microsoft, Starbucks, Kyocera, and Lego. We provided
an in-depth study of the dimensions and measurement components of organizational
resilience. We have also clarified the process of organizational response to crises (as shown
in Figure 3). First, this study clarified the concept of organizational resilience. Specifically,
organizational resilience refers to the ability of an organization to reconfigure organiza-
tional resources, optimize organizational processes, reshape organizational relationships in
a crisis, recover quickly from the crisis, and use the crisis to achieve counter-trend growth.
Second, we specified five dimensions of organizational resilience: capital resilience, strate-
gic resilience, relationship resilience, cultural resilience, and relationship resilience. Capital
resilience refers to a company’s ability to operate normally and to recapitalize against risk
in a crisis. Strategic resilience refers to a company’s ability to maintain strategic consistency
over time, helping it to identify and eliminate adverse factors and to be able to choose
an appropriate growth model. Relational resilience refers to the reciprocal relationships
established between a company and its stakeholders. Cultural resilience refers to the way
in which the corporate culture shapes the entrepreneurial spirit of employees and the com-
mitment of the employees to the organization. Learning resilience refers to a company’s
ability to cope with the stresses and challenges of learning. Finally, this study underwent a
process of exploratory factor analysis and validation factor analysis to develop a 20-item
scale for measuring organizational resilience.
tors and to be able to choose an appropriate growth model. Relational resilience refers to
the reciprocal relationships established between a company and its stakeholders. Cultural
resilience refers to the way in which the corporate culture shapes the entrepreneurial spirit
of employees and the commitment of the employees to the organization. Learning resili-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2517 ence refers to a company’s ability to cope with the stresses and challenges of learning.
20 of 25
Finally, this study underwent a process of exploratory factor analysis and validation fac-
tor analysis to develop a 20-item scale for measuring organizational resilience.
Figure 3. The
Figure 3. The organizational resilience process.
organizational resilience process.
6.2. Discussion and Practical Implications

Compared to previous studies that measured organizational resilience, this study
pioneered the use of a multi-case analysis approach. We drew on procedural rooting theory
to obtain five dimensions of organizational resilience, which both complement and build
on existing research. Previous studies found that organizational resilience is a multidi-
mensional construct [27,41,42], which our study also validated. Scholars have argued
that organizational resilience contains organizational learning and organizational resource
dimensions [37,38,44]. Our study found that organizational resilience contains learning re-
silience and capital resilience. Learning plays an important role in organizations’ response
to crises by enhancing their organizational capabilities [101]. Moreover, organizational
resources can reduce organizational vulnerability and increase organizational resistance to
the effects of crises [43]. It has also been noted that the idle resources that organizations
have play an important role in providing flexibility and enhancing the organization’s ability
to cope with crises [102–104]. Thus, learning resilience and capital resilience are important
components of organizational resilience. Scholars have focused on the important role of
relationships in organizational resilience [40,86,87]. Our study found that organizational
resilience encompasses relationship resilience, which corroborates these studies’ findings.
We also found that organizational resilience also includes strategic resilience and cultural
resilience by conducting case studies of companies such as Southwest Airlines, which is a

useful supplement to existing organizational resilience research.
A practical implication of this study is that building organizational resilience and
accumulating corporate resilience assets does not happen overnight, but requires both time
and a long-term strategic design, detailed planning, and effective measures. First, we need
to implement a lean strategy to build strategic resilience. On the one hand, it is important for
companies to have an ambitious vision and mission. The vision and mission of a company
play an important role in its strategy and goals, and a common vision facilitates the growth
of the company and paves the way for its future development. On the other hand, it is
important for companies to set clear development goals and shape core competencies to
match them. An ambitious vision and corporate mission help guide employees to focus
on long-term development, while clear development goals help motivate organizational
members and promote efficient synergy and mutual support within the organization. The
matching of organizational members’ competencies with organizational goals helps to
discover the impact of organizational members’ competencies on organizational goals.
Second, companies need to practice sound capital to shape capital resilience. Companies
need to maintain adequate cash flow. Crises are unpredictable, so companies must be prepared
before they arrive, and they need to determine the appropriate cash reserves based on the use
of working capital. It is also necessary to control the level of capital leverage of the company.
In the event of a crisis, companies with high capital leverage often find it difficult to cope with
crises. It is necessary for them to adopt a sound financial strategy in the development process
and keep their capital leverage within a reasonable range.
Third, it is important to practice reciprocal relationships to build relationship resilience.
Higher relational resilience helps companies form strong cohesion with employees, cus-
tomers, and investors when a crisis hits, thus, helping companies emerge from the crisis.
Moreover, we want to take employees as the main body, so that employees and enterprises
constitute a community of interests. Employees are one of the most important resources
of the enterprise and the main body of enterprise value creation. Therefore, cultivating
the organizational loyalty of employees and retaining them helps the enterprise enhance
the dedication and cohesion of employees. As customers are the cornerstone of enterprise
development, establishing a strong relationship between enterprises and customers can
help enterprises overcome crises.
Fourth, we need to implement a culture of excellence to build cultural resilience.
A resilient organizational culture is conducive to shaping a sense of community among
organizational members, which can help organizations survive crises. At the same time, a
relaxed organizational climate is more conducive to good organizational performance [105].
On the one hand, we should focus on caring and happiness. Caring for employees is good
for employees to experience the feeling of home, which will motivate them to work harder
to help the company cope with crises. Happy experiences can make the organization
members have passion and can enhance the efficiency of the organization members. On the
other hand, it is important to shape the commitment of organization members. Committed
employees are conducive to the harmonious and stable development of the company.
However, as an exploratory study, this study still has some shortcomings. First, or-
ganizational resilience is a multidimensional structure, and the differences in industries
may give different characteristics to organizational resilience. The samples selected for
this study are mainly from the fields of technology, service, and manufacturing. Therefore,
the structure of organizational resilience in other industries still needs to be further ex-
plored. Second, although Chinese scholars have measured organizational resilience, their
research results have been integrated on the basis of existing studies. Fewer studies have
explored the structure of organizational resilience from the perspective of multiple case
studies. Although this current study has developed a scale for measuring organizational
resilience, the crises faced by companies are constantly changing with the changes in the
business environment and with the development of digital technology. The structure and
measurement of organizational resilience may become more enriched and mature in the
future as the external environment changes.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.C. and Y.X.; methodology, Y.L.; validation, Y.L. and
R.C.; formal analysis, Y.X.; investigation, R.C.; resources, R.C. and Y.X.; data curation, R.C.; writing—
Original draft preparation, R.C.; writing—Review and editing, Y.L.; visualization, Y.X.; supervision,
Y.L. and R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China, grant number
16AGL004; 2019 Youth Project of Fujian Province Social Science Planning, grant number FJ2019C031.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their reviews
and comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Duchek, S.; Raetze, S.; Scheuch, I. The role of diversity in organizational resilience: A theoretical framework. Bus. Res. 2020, 13,
387–423. [CrossRef]
2. Riddell, P. Crisis Management. Political Insight 2012, 3, 20–22. [CrossRef]
3. Ouedraogo, A.; Boyer, M. Firm governance and organizational resiliency in a crisis context: A case study of a small research-based
venture enterprise. Int. Bus. Res. 2012, 5, 119–121. [CrossRef]
4. Annarelli, A.; Nonino, F. Strategic and operational management of organizational resilience: Current state of research and future
directions. Omega 2016, 62, 1–18. [CrossRef]
5. Ge, L.; Anten, N.P.; van Dixhoorn, I.D.; Feindt, P.H.; Kramer, K.; Leemans, R.; Sukkel, W. Why we need resilience thinking to meet
societal challenges in bio-based production systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 23, 17–27. [CrossRef]
6. McCarthy, I.P.; Collard, M.; Johnson, M. Adaptive organizational resilience: An evolutionary perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
2017, 28, 33–40. [CrossRef]
7. Blanco, J.M.M.; Sustains, O.R.H.L. Organizational Resilience. How Learning Sustains Organizations in Crisis, Disaster, and
Breakdown by D. Christopher Kayes Juan Manuel Menéndez Blanco. Learn. Organ. 2018, 25, 143–146. [CrossRef]
8. Hamel, G.; Valikangas, L. The quest for resilience. Icade Rev. Fac. Derecho Cienc. Económicas Empresariales 2004, 62, 355–358.
9. Clarke, D.M. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, 2nd ed.; Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Eds.;
Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007; 194p, ISBN 978-0-7879-9649-9.
10. Sawalha, I.H.S. Managing adversity: Understanding some dimensions of organizational resilience. Manag. Res. Rev. 2015, 38,
11. Somers, S. Measuring resilience potential: An adaptive strategy for organizational crisis planning. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag.
2009, 17, 12–23. [CrossRef]
12. Deevy, E. Creating the Resilient Organization: A Rapid Response Management Program; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA,
1995.
13. Mallak, L. Putting organizational resilience to work. Ind. Manag. 1998, 40, 8–13.
14. Balu, R. How to bounce back from setbacks. Fast Co. 2001, 45, 148.
15. Coutu, D.L. How resilience works. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 46–56.
16. Sutcliffe, K.M.; Vogus, T.J. Organizing for resilience. In Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline;
Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 94–110.
17. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E. Beyond bouncing back: The concept of organizational resilience. In Proceedings of the National
Academy of Management Meetings, Seattle, WA, USA, 3–6 August 2003.
18. Freeman, S.F.; Hirschhorn, L.; Maltz, M. Organization resilience and moral purpose: Sandler O’Neill and partners in the aftermath
of 9/11/01. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Management Meetings, New Orleans, LA, USA, 23–26 October 2004;
pp. 17–26.
19. Jamrog, J.J.; McCann, J.E.I.; Lee, J.M.; Morrison, C.L.; Selsky, J.W.; Vickers, M. Agility and Resilience in the Face of Continuous Change;
American Management Association: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
20. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E.; Lengnick-Hall, M.L. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human
resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 243–255. [CrossRef]
21. Luthans, F.; Vogelgesang, G.R.; Lester, P.B. Developing the psychological capital of resiliency. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2006, 5,
25–44. [CrossRef]
22. Linnenluecke, M.; Griffiths, A. Beyond adaptation: Resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes.
Bus. Soc. 2010, 49, 477–511. [CrossRef]
23. Riolli, L.; Savicki, V. Information system organizational resilience. Omega 2003, 31, 227–233. [CrossRef]
24. Acquaah, M.; Amoako-Gyampah, K.; Jayaram, J. Resilience in family and nonfamily firms: An examination of the relationships
between manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy and firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 5527–5544. [CrossRef]
25. Lv, W.; Wei, Y.; Li, X.; Lin, L. What Dimension of CSR Matters to Organizational Resilience? Evidence from China. Sustainability
2019, 11, 1561. [CrossRef]
26. Doerfel, M.L.; Lai, C.H.; Chewning, L.V. The evolutionary role of interorganizational communication: Modeling social capital in
disaster contexts. Hum. Commun. Res. 2010, 36, 125–162. [CrossRef]
27. Chewning, L.V.; Lai, C.H.; Doerfel, M.L. Organizational resilience and using information and communication technologies to
rebuild communication structures. Manag. Commun. Q. 2013, 27, 237–263. [CrossRef]
28. Hoffi-Hofstetter, H.; Mannheim, B. Managers’ coping resources, perceived organizational patterns, and responses during
organizational recovery from decline. J. Organ. Behav. 1999, 20, 665–685. [CrossRef]
29. Gardner, D.G. The importance of being resilient: Psychological well-being, job autonomy, and self-esteem of organization
managers. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 155, 1–6. [CrossRef]
30. Teo, W.L.; Lee, M.; Lim, W.S. The relational activation of resilience model: How leadership activates resilience in an organizational
crisis. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2017, 25, 136–147. [CrossRef]
31. Harland, L.; Harrison, W.; Jones, J.R.; Reiter-Palmon, R. Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud.
2005, 11, 2–14. [CrossRef]
32. Burke, C.S.; Stagl, K.C.; Salas, E.; Pierce, L.; Kendall, D. Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model.
J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1189–1207. [CrossRef]
33. Moynihan, D.P. A theory of culture-switching: Leadership and red-tape during hurricane Katrina. Public Adm. 2012, 90, 851–868.
[CrossRef]
34. Boin, A.; Van Eeten, M.J. The resilient organization. Public Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 429–445. [CrossRef]
35. McManus, S.; Seville, E.; Vargo, J.; Brunsdon, D. Facilitated process for improving organizational resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev.
2008, 9, 81–90. [CrossRef]
36. Lee, A.V.; Vargo, J.; Seville, E. Developing a tool to measure and compare organizations’ resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013, 14,
29–41. [CrossRef]
37. Välikangas, L. The Resilient Organization: How Adaptive Cultures Thrive even when Strategy Fails; McGraw Hill Professional: New
York, NY, USA, 2010.
38. Marsick, V.J.; Watkins, K.E. From the Learning Organization to Learning Communities toward a Learning Society; ERIC Clearinghouse
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, The Ohio
State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2000; pp. 5–19.
39. Kantur, D.; Say, A.I. Measuring organizational resilience: A scale development. J. Bus. Econ. Financ. 2015, 4, 456–472. [CrossRef]
40. Vogus, T.J.; Sutcliffe, K.M. Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–10 October 2007; pp. 3418–3422.
41. Umoh, G.I.; Amah, E.; Wokocha, H.I. Management development and organizational resilience: A case study of some selected
manufacturing firms in Rivers State, Nigeria. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 16, 7–16. [CrossRef]
42. Burnard, K.; Bhamra, R.; Tsinopoulos, C. Building organizational resilience: Four configurations. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2018,
65, 351–362. [CrossRef]
43. Linnenluecke, M.K.; Griffiths, A.; Winn, M. Extreme weather events and the critical importance of anticipatory adaptation and
organizational resilience in responding to impacts. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 17–32. [CrossRef]
44. Godwin, I.; Amah, E. Knowledge management and organizational resilience in Nigerian manufacturing organizations.
Dev. Ctry. Stud. 2013, 3, 104–120.
45. Patriarca, R.; Bergström, J.; Di Gravio, G.; Costantino, F. Resilience engineering: Current status of the research and future
challenges. Saf. Sci. 2018, 102, 79–100. [CrossRef]
46. Petak, Z. Political Economy of the Croatian Devolution. In Proceedings of the Institutional Analysis and Development Mini-
Conference, Bloomington, Indiana, 13–16 December 2002.
47. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [CrossRef]
48. Wildavsky, A.B. Searching for Safety; Transaction Publishers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1988; Volume 10.
49. Andersson, T.; Cäker, M.; Tengblad, S.; Wickelgren, M. Building traits for organizational resilience through balancing organiza-
tional structures. Scand. J. Manag. 2019, 35, 36–45. [CrossRef]
50. Campanella, T.J. Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 141–146. [CrossRef]
51. Kendra, J.M.; Wachtendorf, T. Elements of resilience after the world trade center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s
Emergency Operations Centre. Disasters 2003, 27, 37–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Comfort, L.K.; Sungu, Y.; Johnson, D.; Dunn, M. Complex systems in crisis: Anticipation and resilience in dynamic environments.
J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2001, 9, 144–158. [CrossRef]
53. Christopher, M.; Peck, H. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2004, 15, 1–14. [CrossRef]
54. Weick, K.E. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Adm. Sci. Q. 1993, 38, 628–652. [CrossRef]
55. Tierney, K.J. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and community resilience: Lessons from the emergency response
following the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. In Proceedings of the Third Comparative Workshop on
Urban Earthquake Disaster Management, Kobe, Japan, 18–20 January 2003.
56. Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Obstfeld, D. Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 2005, 16, 409–421. [CrossRef]
57. Paton, D.; Johnston, D. Disasters and communities: Vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2001, 10,
58. Ishak, A.W.; Williams, E.A. A dynamic model of organizational resilience: Adaptive and anchored approaches. Editor. Advis. Board
2018, 23, 180–196. [CrossRef]
59. Ma, Z.; Xiao, L.; Yin, J. Toward a dynamic model of organizational resilience. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2018, 9, 246–263. [CrossRef]
60. Sahebjamnia, N.; Torabi, S.A.; Mansouri, S.A. Building organizational resilience in the face of multiple disruptions.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 197, 63–83. [CrossRef]
61. Sincorá, L.A.; Oliveira, M.P.V.D.; Zanquetto-Filho, H.; Ladeira, M.B. Business analytics leveraging resilience in organizational
processes. RAUSP Manag. J. 2018, 53, 385–403. [CrossRef]
62. Wicker, P.; Filo, K.; Cuskelly, G. Organizational resilience of community sport clubs impacted by natural disasters. J. Sport Manag.
2013, 27, 510–525. [CrossRef]
63. Koronis, E.; Ponis, S. Better than before: The resilient organization in crisis mode. J. Bus. Strategy 2018, 39, 32–42. [CrossRef]
64. Kim, K.; Jung, K.; Chilton, K. Strategies of social media use in disaster management. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2016, 5, 110–125.
[CrossRef]
65. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N.; Bansal, P. The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices.
Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1615–1631. [CrossRef]
66. Mafabi, S.; Munene, J.C.; Ahiauzu, A. Creative climate and organisational resilience: The mediating role of innovation.
Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2015, 23, 564–587. [CrossRef]
67. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E. Resilience Capacity and Strategic Agility: Prerequisites for Thriving in a Dynamic Environment; UTSA,
College of Business: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2009; pp. 39–69.
68. Allen, R.; Toder, F. A model of organizational recovery. J. Emerg. Manag. 2004, 2, 41–45. [CrossRef]
69. Gittell, J.H.; Cameron, K.; Lim, S.; Rivas, V. Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: Airline industry responses to
September 11. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2006, 42, 300–329. [CrossRef]
70. Weick, K. Prepare your organization to fight fires. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1996, 74, 143–148.
71. Borekci, D.; Rofcanin, Y.; Sahin, M. Effects of organizational culture and organizational resilience over subcontractor riskiness.
Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 2–22. [CrossRef]
72. Bruneau, M.; Chang, S.E.; Eguchi, R.T.; Lee, G.C.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Von Winterfeldt, D. A framework to
quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq. Spectra 2003, 19, 733–752. [CrossRef]
73. Jung, K.; Song, M. Linking emergency management networks to disaster resilience: Bonding and bridging strategy in hierarchical
or horizontal collaboration networks. Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 1465–1483. [CrossRef]
74. Valero, J.N.; Jung, K.; Andrew, S.A. Does transformational leadership build resilient public and nonprofit organizations?
Disaster Prev. Manag. 2015, 24, 4–20. [CrossRef]
75. Richtnér, A.; Löfsten, H. Managing in turbulence: How the capacity for resilience influences creativity. RD Manag. 2014, 44,
76. Jones, B.A. Benchmarking Organizational Resilience: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Research Study; New Jersey City University: Jersey
City, NJ, USA, 2015.
77. Girish, P.; Mesbahuddin, C.; Samuel, S. Organizational resilience and financial performance. Ann. Tour. Res. 2018, 73, 193–196.
78. Stephenson, A. Benchmarking the Resilience of Organizations. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 2010.
79. Rahi, K. Indicators to assess organizational resilience–a review of empirical literature. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2019, 10,
85–98. [CrossRef]
80. Marsick, V.J.; Watkins, K.E.; Wilson, J.A. Informal and incidental learning in the new millennium: The challenge of being rapid
and/or being accurate. In Individual Differences and Development in Organizations; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2002; pp. 249–266.
81. Folke, C.; Colding, J.; Berkes, F. Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems.
Navig. Soc. Ecol. Syst. Build. Resil. Complex. Chang. 2003, 9, 352–387.
82. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [CrossRef]
83. Glassop, L. The three R’s of resilience: Redundancy, requisite variety and resources. In Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Complexity and Organizational Resilience, Pohnpei, Micronesia, 24–25 May 2007; pp. 19–34.
84. McManus, S.; Seville, E.; Brunsden, D.; Vargo, J. Resilience management: A framework for assessing and improving the resilience
of organisations. In A Framework for Assessing and Improving the Resilience of Organisations; University of Canterbury: Christchurch,
New Zealand, 2007.
85. Sonnet, M.T. Employee Behaviors, Beliefs, and Collective Resilience: An Exploratory Study in Organizational Resilience capacity.
Ph.D. Thesis, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2016.
86. Jeong, M.; Kim, B.I.; Gang, K. Competition, product line length, and firm survival: Evidence from the US printer industry.
Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 762–774. [CrossRef]
87. Costanza, D.P.; Blacksmith, N.; Coats, M.R.; Severt, J.B.; DeCostanza, A.H. The effect of adaptive organizational culture on
long-term survival. J. Bus. Psychol. 2016, 31, 361–381. [CrossRef]
88. Ramón, M.; Koller, T. Exploring adaptability in organizations; where adaptive advantage comes from and 450 what it is based
upon. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2016, 29, 837–854.
89. Şengül, H.; Marşan, D.; Gün, T. Survey assessment of organizational resiliency potential of a group of Seveso organizations in
Turkey. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O J. Risk Reliab. 2019, 233, 470–486. [CrossRef]
90. Pinnington, B.D.; Meehan, J.; Scanlon, T. A grounded theory of value dissonance in strategic relationships. J. Purch. Supply Manag.
2016, 22, 278–288. [CrossRef]
91. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Grounded theory methodology. Handb. Qual. Res. 1994, 17, 273–285.
92. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J.M. Grounded Theory in Practice; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997.
93. Davenport, E.; Cronin, B. Knowledge management: Semantic drift or conceptual shift? J. Educ. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2000, 41, 294–306.
[CrossRef]
94. Meen, D.E.; Keough, M. Creating the learning organization. Mckinsey Q. 1992, 1, 58–79.
95. Denison, D.R.; Mishra, A.K. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 1995, 6, 204–223. [CrossRef]
96. Shore, L.M.; Newton, L.A.; Thornton III, G.C. Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions.
J. Organ. Behav. 1990, 11, 57–67. [CrossRef]
97. Landers, R. Computing Intraclass Correlations (ICC) as Estimates of Interrater Reliability in SPSS. Winnower 2015. [CrossRef]
98. Chan L, L.; Idris, N. Validity and reliability of the instrument using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha.
Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2017, 7, 400–410.
99. Shi, L.; Granlund, M.; Zhao, Y.; Hwang, A.; Kang, L.; Huus, K. Transcultural adaptation, content validity and reliability of
the instrument ‘Picture My Participation’for children and youth with and without intellectual disabilities in mainland China.
Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2021, 28, 147–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100. Harrison, H.; Wills, D.R. Product assembly and distribution optimization in an agribusiness cooperative. Interfaces 1983, 13, 1–9.
[CrossRef]
101. Chabot, P.R. An Historical Case Study of Organizational Resiliency within the Arellano-Felix Drug Trafficking Organization.
Ph.D. Thesis, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
102. Chattopadhyay, P.; Glick, W.H.; Huber, G.P. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Acad. Manag. J. 2001,
44, 937–955.
103. Meyer, A.D. Adapting to environmental jolts. Adm. Sci. Q. 1982, 27, 515–537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Nohria, N.; Gulati, R. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 1245–1264. [CrossRef]
105. Bonacci, I.; Mazzitelli, A.; Morea, D. Evaluating Climate between Working Excellence and Organizational Innovation: What
Comes First? Sustainability 2020, 12, 3340. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 13 02517 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 02517 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 02517 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Víctor

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052517 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Table 1. Concept of organizational resilience.

Perspectives Representative Scholars Concept Definition Views

Table 2. Dimensional components and related measures of organizational resilience.

Dimensional Composition (Number Source of Representative

Dimensional Composition (Number Source of Representative

3. Research Design and Case Study Analysis

Table 3. Information on the companies selected.

Company Country Founding Date Case Type Case Features

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

3.3. Data Analysis

3.3.1. Open Coding

Table 4. Open coding results.

Collated Information Conceptualization Categorization

Collated Information Conceptualization Categorization

Collated Information Conceptualization Categorization

3.3.2. Axial Coding

Table 5. Axial coding.

Logic Main Line

3.3.3. Selective Coding

4.2. Preparation of Initial Measurement Scale

4.2. Preparation of Initial Measurement Scale

Table 6. Initial measurement scale of organizational resilience.

Dimension Related Concepts Scale Items Source

Dimension Related Concepts Scale Items Source

5. Validity Test for the Scale

5.1.2. Sample Characteristics

Table 7. Sample characteristics.

Options Frequency Percentage Options Frequency Percentage

5.2. Data Analysis

5.2.1. Internal Consistency Analysis

Table 8. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for Inter-Rater Assessment.

95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0

5.2.2. Validity Analysis

would be an appropriate statistical measurement technique for structural validity, with

Table 9. KMO and Bartlett’s test for validity.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.881

Table 10. Test the validity using Pearson correlation coefficient.

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-Tailed)

Table 10. Cont.

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-Tailed)

5.2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 11. Exploratory factor analysis.

Measurement Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

5.2.4. Validation Factor Analysis

Table 13. Correlation coefficient of each variable in descriptive statistics.

Average Value Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5

Table 13. Correlation coefficient of each variable in descriptive statistics.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

6.2. Discussion and Practical Implications

resilience by conducting case studies of companies such as Southwest Airlines, which is a

You might also like