"2020年Edward Elgar组织复原力研究手册"

102 浏览量更新于2024-01-10 收藏 3.92MB PDF 举报

《组织复原力研究手册》（Research Handbook on Organizational Resilience）是由Edward Elgar出版社于2020年出版的一本研究手册。该手册由Edward H. Powley、Brianna Barker Caza和Arran Caza共同编辑，涵盖了组织复原力的多个方面及其重要性。本手册的目的是为研究者、学者和从业者提供一个全面的资源，以加深对组织复原力的理解，并为他们提供应对挑战、适应变化和保持持续成功的工具和方法。全书共分为四个部分，每个部分包含若干章节，涵盖了该领域的重要主题。第一部分介绍了组织复原力的概念和理论基础。其中，作者详细讨论了组织复原力的定义、测量和评估方法，以及影响组织复原力的因素及其作用机制。此外，还介绍了在不同领域中应用组织复原力概念的案例研究，包括企业、非营利组织和政府机构等。第二部分聚焦于组织复原力的影响因素。本部分分析了组织内外环境对组织复原力的影响，包括领导力、组织文化、人力资源管理、供应链管理、创新能力等。作者还研究了个体和团队层面上的因素，如心理弹性、应对力和决策能力等，对组织复原力的作用。第三部分关注组织复原力与危机管理的关系。作者在此部分探讨了组织复原力在危机预防、危机响应和危机恢复等阶段的作用。他们还介绍了一些实用的策略和工具，以帮助组织建立危机应对机制，并在危机中保持弹性和适应性。最后一部分探索了组织复原力与组织绩效之间的关系。作者研究了组织复原力对绩效的影响，并提出了一些可行的措施来提高组织复原力和绩效。他们还探讨了组织复原力对组织创新、变革和可持续发展的作用，并提供了一些实证研究和经验案例。总之，《组织复原力研究手册》是一本全面而深入的研究资料，涵盖了该领域的重要理论、方法和实证研究。它为组织领导者、管理学者、战略规划者和危机管理专家提供了宝贵的参考，帮助他们提高组织复原力，应对挑战，并取得持续的成功。该手册不仅对学术研究有重要的价值，也对实践工作有着广泛的应用潜力。

Introduction: framing resilience research 7

demands unlike other work organizations. The chapter describes individual resilience as the

personal process of bouncing back, and argues that if resilience is coupled with organizational

citizenship behaviors, public sector employees are more likely to be efficient and effective.

Powley and Cameron explore resilience in the context of organizational culture using the

Competing Values Framework which provides one way to map competing conceptualizations

of resilience. The competing values represent important factors to produce resilience culture

types; each has value to organizations that face challenges and setbacks. Four key components

of organizational resilience may be operative in each culture type to help activate resilience:

leadership vision, organizational learning, mutual support, and ability to recover from set-

backs. The chapter also highlights mechanisms that support a resilient organizational culture.

Three chapters present cases where resilience is an important factor in solving significant

system challenges. Travadel and Guarnieri present an in-depth analysis of the actions and

cognitions of Masao Yoshida, the plant superintendent of the Fukushima nuclear power plant,

immediately following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Their analysis outlines

touchstone moments where Yoshida managed the delicate balance between what he did and

did not know and critical decisions not only for plant safety but for much of eastern Japan.

Using a phenomenological lens, Travadel and Guarnieri explore how Yoshida negotiated

a disruptive threat, faced death, made sense of the impending danger and, ultimately, pre-

vented a catastrophic situation from unfolding. The pressure and intensity of ‘la situation

extrême’ placed Yoshida in a position where he was forced to give meaning to the flow of

brute experience; such sense-in-the-making is the main driver of resilience.

Chesley and D’Avella describe a framework for large system resilience, what they refer to

as resilience of inter-organizational systems. This chapter contributes to a broader conversa-

tion about resilience at levels of analysis beyond individuals, groups and organizations, and

focuses on resilience of inter-organizational networks. To solve or address intractable prob-

lems such as climate, industrial accidents, or other natural or man-made crises, resilience at

the macro level requires an integrative systems approach. The chapter – a mixed-method study

of three inter-organizational systems working on sustainability and environmental projects –

draws out important considerations for managing critical relationships across organizational

boundaries.

Walker, Malinen, Näswall, Nilakant and Kuntz examine ‘resilience-in-action’ from

a multi-year, extended disaster recovery from a series of earthquakes near Canterbury, New

Zealand. The chapter presents an in-depth qualitative survey that surfaces dynamics of resil-

ience as they unfold, what they refer to as ‘resilience-in-action,’ resilience being the outcome

of months of interventions and recovery efforts. Their grounded account of resilience-in-action

outlines resilience trajectories of organizations and four areas that significantly influence

organizational-level resilience: leadership and situational awareness; an employee-centric

orientation; internal and external collaboration; and informal and organizational learning. The

chapter also details a process model for the development of organizational resilience.

CONCLUSION

The final chapter poses key questions about conceptualizations of resilience. Resilience schol-

arship faces confusion: what do we mean by it, or how do we study it? The chapter discusses

critical issues that aim to identify ways to study organizational resilience and resilience in

8 Research handbook on organizational resilience

organizations. Due to challenges associated with defining or operationalizing resilience, the

authors argue that researchers ought to pay more attention to challenges and key conceptual

and empirical decisions when studying resilience. They suggest that scholars might concretely

address key assumptions and operationalizations of resilience in terms of who, what, when,

where, why and how. As scholars address these key questions, we believe that organizational

resilience scholarship may advance and continue to mature.

We recognize that this volume does not cover the universe of resilience scholarship and

practice, yet our hope is that this Research Handbook will advance our collective conversation

about the meaning, foundations, dimensions, characteristics, attributes and definitions of resil-

ience. We believe the work represented herein will foster greater understanding about how to

conceptualize and study resilience, thus providing needed clarification and rigor to resilience

scholarship.

REFERENCES

Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational

resilience: Airline industry responses to September 11. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

42(3), 300–329.

Guarnieri, F. and Travadel, S. (2018). Un récit de Fukushima. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1985). The aftermath of victimization: Rebuilding shattered assumptions. In

C.R. Figley (ed.), Trauma and its wake: The study and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder

(pp. 15–35). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York:

Free Press.

Maitlis, S. (2012). Posttraumatic growth: A missed opportunity for positive organizational scholarship.

In K.S. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (eds), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Powley, E.H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of

crisis. Human Relations, 62(9), 1289–326.

Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T.J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton and R.E.

Quinn (eds), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Tugade, M.M. and Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back

from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–33.

Westphal, M. and Bonanno, G.A. (2007). Posttraumatic growth and resilience to trauma: Different sides

of the same coin or different coins? Applied Psychology, 56(3), 417–27.

Zolli, A. and Healy, A.M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York: Free Press.

2. Resilience capacity, processes and

demonstration at the employee, team and

organizational levels: a multilevel perspective

Thomas W. Britt and Gargi Sawhney

The study of resilience in organizations has dramatically increased in recent years. However,

this increase in interest has been accompanied by multiple definitions of resilience, as well as

confusion regarding whether resilience is best viewed as an attribute of employees, a process

that occurs when employees are exposed to high levels of adversity at work, or an outcome

that is demonstrated following such adversity (Britt et al., 2016b). Furthermore, researchers

have recognized that resilience can be studied not only at the level of the individual employee,

but also at the team and organization levels (Bowers et al., 2017; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).

This recognition has resulted in a need to adopt a multilevel perspective when studying resil-

ience, understanding both the contextual influences on how factors at one level (e.g. the team)

influence resilience at a lower level (e.g. the employee), as well as the compilation processes

whereby factors at a lower level (e.g. the individual) influence resilience at a higher level (e.g.

the organization).

In an attempt to bring some clarity to the study of resilience among employees, Britt et

al. (2016b) argued for a distinction between an employee’s capacity for resilience versus the

employee’s demonstration of resilience. The capacity for resilience refers to the numerous

factors possessed by employees that increase the probability they will demonstrate resilience

when faced with significant adversity. In contrast, the demonstration of resilience refers to the

documentation that employees have shown positive adaptation in one or more domains (e.g.

performance, well-being, mental health) following adversity. For example, researchers have

studied hardiness as a predictor of employees who report low levels of physical symptoms

when under high levels of stress (Kobasa et al., 1982). In this example, hardiness would repre-

sent a personality variable contributing to the employee’s capacity for resilience, whereas the

finding of decreased physical symptoms in the presence of high levels of work stressors would

constitute the demonstration of resilience on the outcome of physical health. Furthermore,

researchers have been interested in the processes linking variables associated with the capacity

for resilience to the actual demonstration of resilience. In the previous example, Maddi et al.

(1998) have argued that specific coping strategies are part of the process by which hardiness is

related to fewer physical symptoms under high levels of stress.

This chapter first applies the concepts of the capacity for resilience, demonstration of resil-

ience, and processes linking capacity to demonstration of resilience to the employee, team and

organization levels. Most definitions and approaches to resilience at the different levels can

be organized by how they address resilience capacity, resilience demonstration, and resilience

processes. The importance of characterizing the level of adversity required to study resilience

at the employee, team and organization levels is also discussed, as the presence of high levels

of adversity/disruption help distinguish approaches to resilience from approaches to overall

Multilevel perspective 11

functioning following routine adversity/disruption. The chapter will then consider multilevel

issues in the study of resilience, including both the bottom-up processes by which resilience

capacity, demonstration, and processes at lower levels influence higher-level resilience, as

well as the top-down contextual processes regarding how higher-level components influence

resilience processes at lower levels. The overall goal of the present chapter is to highlight the

theoretical distinctions and multilevel implications of resilience capacity, demonstration and

processes at the employee, team and organization levels, rather than to exhaustively review

research conducted at the different levels of analysis.

KEY DISTINCTIONS AT EMPLOYEE, TEAM AND

ORGANIZATION LEVELS

Prior researchers have noted the large number of definitions characterizing individual

(Meredith et al., 2011), team (Chapman et al., 2020), and organization (Bruneau et al., 2003)

resilience. Importantly, Masten and Narayan (2012) argued that the same core elements of

resilience can be applied to systems at multiple levels of analysis. These authors argued that

“resilience can be defined as the capacity of a dynamic system to withstand or recover from

significant challenges that threaten its stability, viability, or development” (p. 231). We believe

that the diversity in definitions at the employee, team and organization levels of analysis can

be explained in part as a function of whether they address a system’s capacity for resilience,

demonstration of resilience on outcomes, or processes occurring during an episode of a system

responding to significant adversity.

Before addressing the distinctions in these definitions, it is first worth emphasizing that

one of the distinguishing factors in the study of resilience as a construct is that the system

under examination is exposed to a level of adversity that has the potential to severely disrupt

its functioning or development (Masten and Narayan, 2012). Alliger et al. (2015) emphasized

the importance of characterizing the nature of the adversity encountered when studying team

resilience, including an analysis of whether the adversity is acute and time-limited or chronic

and persistent throughout the team’s response to the adversity.

The presence of high levels of adversity has implications not only for distinguishing defini-

tions of resilience from related constructs (e.g. resilience versus coping at the individual level,

team resilience vs team adaptation), but also for the identification of factors hypothesized to

promote resilience in the face of such adversity (Gucciardi et al., 2018). For example, avoid-

ance coping is typically a maladaptive coping strategy for employees (Britt et al., 2016a),

but can be effective in the initial aftermath of exposure to a traumatic event (Bonanno et al.,

2011). At the organizational level, psychological safety may be especially important when an

organization is going through a significant challenge (Edmondson, 1999; Lengnick-Hall et

al., 2011). Although researchers agree with the importance of studying resilience within the

context of significant adversity, such adversity is often not documented or operationalized in

most research (Britt et al., 2016b).

Distinctions at the Employee Level

Definitions and approaches to resilience can be categorized according to whether they address

a capacity for resilience, the demonstration of resilience in different domains, or the pro-

剩余373页未读，继续阅读

上山砍菜

粉丝: 0
资源: 225

"2020年Edward Elgar组织复原力研究手册"

Handbook of Biometric Anti-Spoofing: Presentation Attack Detection

handbook-on-array-processing-and-sensor-networks-2010

engineering design handbook on design for reliability-下载

the handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis pdf

typescript教程

学习游戏设计分析应该看哪些书籍

怎么在ubuntu上安装realsense

dsp handbook algorithm, application

MSPM0G3507的参考书籍

最新资源