You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Explain Organizational Resilience on the Firms: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 4 by Beatrix Zheng and Version 3 by Beatrix Zheng.

IResilien the case of emerging economies, organizational innovation seems to be a necessary condition for becoming an organizational resilience to a black swance is a concept used in psychology, ecology, and engineering. Later, it got greater attention in business and management research, but in the context of crisis (finding from both cases). It's also found that labor flexibility and emomanagement or volatile changes. Thus, organizational intelligence for the case of firms from China, andresilience enables an adequate control of the turbulenceadaptation in crisis environment for the cases of Central America, were also necessary conditions for each region. Digitalization depends on access to government support for its success. China reinforces its strategies in an intensification of human resources flexibility. In addition, they are better prepared for the “black swan” crisis, allowing thems to survive, recover, grow, and achieve competitive advantage. In this sense, Duchek argues that organizations need to develop resilience to adapt quickly and generate business model innovation to mitigate the effects of the pandemic in this “new normal.” In contrast, Central America needs rapid organization for organizational resilienceto uncertain events through anticipation, coping, and adaptation. 

  • organizational resilience
  • COVID-19
  • China
  • Central America
  • strategy tripod
  • fsQCA
  • resilience theory

1. Introduction

Due to the pandemic outbreak, affected companies experienced drops in production [1]. Thus, companies adapted to strategic processes to find alternative solutions in this “new normal.” Organizational resilience has been considered a key element in adapting and coping with an uncertain and challenging crisis such as a pandemic [2]. Consequently, in their desire to adapt and survive the pandemic, many companies make strategies to achieve adequate organizational resilience due to their resources and capabilities. Indeed, the definition of resilience is controversial [3] due to its multidimensional and multilevel nature [4][5]. However, an essential aspect of resilience is that organizations adapt to strategic processes to find alternative solutions in this “new normal” [1].
Regarding the factors that influence organizational resilience, studies show that the impact of the pandemic crisis generated in companies’ reductions in sales, supply chains, cash flow [6]. Thus, Ambulkar et al. [7] state that companies need to have capabilities to reconfigure to manage supply chains to minimize risk. Lengnick-Hall et al. [8] argue that proper human resource management and employee creativity promote organizational resilience. Moreover, organizational culture, [9], and flexibility [4] are critical elements for organizational resilience. Also, some strategies used the business model innovation [10], human resources flexibility [11], resource-based vision through dynamic capabilities [12], and technological capabilities [13]. Therefore, our liIterature review 's found that internal and external factors can explain organizational resilience.
So far, few empirical studies explain the factors that explain organizational resilience [14]. Moreover, the studies focus on developed economies [15][16]. OurThis study attempts to fill this gap by comparing two emerging economies- China and Central America countries, because they have different economic, political, and cultural systems, making their comparison attractive. Also, this research offers countries two typologies of classification for emerging economies (traditional and mid-range). Likewise, through a comparative analysis, we seek to know the similarities and differences of emerging economies by providing policymakers and managers knowledge about resilience strategies in companies. OurThis research employs an integrative “strategy tripod” approach to operationalize resilience theory [17] through three theoretical perspectives: the firm, the industry, and the institution [18][19], allowing for a more integrated analysis of influential variables to understand the determinants of high organizational resilience in an emerging economy context.
In the case of China, the results show that: (i) use organization innovation to mitigate the infected numbers of the pandemic; (ii) labor flexibility or elasticity in its adaptation process to the new environment; and (iii) a high emotional intelligence (non-artificial intelligence) achieving a higher commitment and productivity of workers are necessary conditions for Chinese companies to achieve high organizational resilience in this “new normal.” However, in the case of Central America, the results show that: (i) use organization innovation to mitigate the pandemic infected numbers; and (ii) a favorable control of the turbulent environment. These are necessary conditions for Central American companies to achieve high resilience in this “new normal.” Both contexts require rapid internal organization (organizational innovation) and a controlled external environment. China reinforces its strategies in an intensification of flexibility in human resources. In addition, Chinese companies have more capabilities to overcome the “black swan” crisis, which allows them to adapt quickly and generate business model innovation to mitigate the effects of the pandemic in this “new normality.” On the other hand, Central America needs a quick organization and is not as prepared as China.

2. DCurretailed Analysint Insights

The main results of ourthis comparative study, the model’s coverage (China equal 0.24 and Central America to 0.21) and consistency (China equal 0.81 and Central America to 0.95) are acceptable, respectively.

2.1. China

In the case of China, as shown in Table 1 (see Table 1), the results show that: (i) use organization innovation to mitigate the infected numbers of the pandemic; (ii) labor flexibility or elasticity in its adaptation process to the new environment; and (iii) a high emotional intelligence (non-artificial intelligence) achieving a higher commitment and productivity of workers are necessary conditions for Chinese companies to achieve high organizational resilience in this “new normal.” Based on the results of the worker protection, care and stress management, and worker flexibility play an essential role in business adaptation in China. Moreover, ourthese results provide more insights concerning the interactions of variables and propose three configurations that lead to the same result (high organizational resilience).
Table 1. Configurations leading to more firm resilience in China.
  Solution
Configurations First Second Third
Firm-Specific Resources and Capabilities
Use of Digitalization ● ○ ○
Use Organization Innovation ● ● ●
Use Model Business Innovation (MBI): New product to market   ○ ●
Conditions in the solution terms are represented by “●” (presence) and “○” (absence); a blank space indicates a “a do not care” condition.
 
The first configuration states that service companies located in China, to adapt and achieve higher resilience in this “new normal,” need to employ the necessary conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph (ability to risk mitigation during the pandemic, labor flexibility, and emotional intelligence). In addition, this group of resilient companies from the service sector also adopted digitalization as an essential factor to achieve organizational resilience. Digitization allows accelerating decision-making processes, information processes, coordination, improving the capacity of companies, and achieving agility in organizations. Previous studies by Zhang et al. [20] argue that digital transformation improves organizational resilience. OThe aurthors' findings support these claims. However, we also found that the adoption of digitalization is not sufficient by itself. When companies receive government support, digitalization enables companies’ resilience. Therefore, we highlight the role of external support in tandem with digitalization adoption for achieving high organizational resilience.
Proposition 1.
“If a service company in China employs the necessary conditions as a strategy, and allocates resources for digitalization and receives government support, it can be highly resilient in this new normal.”
The second configuration states that manufacturing companies located in China, to adapt and achieve higher resilience in this “new normal,” need to employ the necessary conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph (ability to risk mitigation during the pandemic, labor flexibility, and emotional intelligence). However, unlike the first configuration. This group of manufacturing companies only need, in addition to the necessary conditions as strategy, to receive government support. We believe that the difference between the first and this configuration lies in the fact that the impact of the pandemic on the service sector and manufacturing companies was different, the former being the most impacted.
Proposition 2.
“If a manufacturing company in China employs the necessary condition as a strategy, it can be highly resilient only by receiving governmental support in this new normal.”
The third configuration states that service companies in China, to adapt and achieve high resilience in this “new normal,” need to employ the necessary conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph (ability to risk mitigation during the pandemic, labor flexibility, and emotional intelligence). However, unlike proposition 1 and proposition 2, this group of service companies did not adopt digitalization and did not receive support from the government. As suggested by Apedo-Amah et al. [21], government support is essential in emerging economies such as China, but it is limited because it is difficult to identify which companies require support.
In that sense, to achieve high organizational resilience, firms in this configuration employ innovation in their business model to adapt to this “new normality.” Therefore, this finding contributes to the literature on organizational resilience by identifying that, while digitization and government support are vital strategies for achieving resilience in organizations during the pandemic, companies that are not able to implement or benefit from them can still achieve resilience by changing traditional business models, and regrouping resources (adopting a business model innovation).
Proposition 3.
“If a service company in China employs the necessary conditions as a strategy, do not implement digitalization, neither receives governmental support, but adopts a business model innovation, it can be highly resilient in this new normal.”

2.2. Central America

In the case of Central America, as shown in Table 2 (see Table 2), the results show that: (i) use organization innovation to mitigate the pandemic infected numbers; and (ii) a favorable control of the turbulent environment. These are necessary conditions for Central American companies to achieve high resilience in this “new normal”. Based on the Central America model results, the authors propose that firms act quickly, based on the firm’s resources. The applied fsQCA model provides more insights about the interactions of variables and their impact on the companies’ resilience and proposes three configurations that lead to the same result (high organizational resilience).
Table 2. Configurations leading to more firm resilience in Central America.
  Solution
Configurations First FirstSecond Third
SecondThird
Firm-Specific Resources and Capabilities
Firm-Specific Resources and Capabilities Use of Digitalization ● ● ○
Use of Digitalization●●○ Use Organization Innovation ● ● ●●
Use Organization Innovation●●● Use of Human Resources Flexibility (HRF) ○ ○ ● Use Model Business Innovation (MBI): New product to market ○●Artificial Non-Intelligence: Emotional Intelligence ●
Use of Human Resources Flexibility (HRF) ● ●
○○● Industry-Based Competition       Artificial Non-Intelligence: Emotional Intelligence●●●Uso de Human Resources Flexibility (HRF) ● ●
Industry-Based Competition   ●
Uso de Human Resources Flexibility (HRF)
It belongs to the manufacturing industry ○ ○ ●● ●●
It belongs to the manufacturing industry○○●Industry-Based Competition      
Market turbulence: high demand control Industry-Based Competition●  ●  ●  Belongs to service industry ●
Market turbulence: high demand control● ○ ●
●● Market turbulence: high supply chains control ● Belongs to service industry● ●● ○●
Market turbulence: high supply chains control●●●Market turbulence: impeding operations ○ ○ ○
Business Expectations: positive perceptions Market turbulence: impeding operations● ○  ○○ ○
Business Expectations: positive perceptions● ○Market turbulence: stressing supply chains ○ ○ ○
Institutional Conditions and Transitions       Market turbulence: stressing supply chains○○○
Institutional Conditions and Transitions   Institutional Conditions and Transitions      
Government support ● ● Institutional Conditions and Transitions  ○  Government support ● ● ○
Raw Coverage 0.05 0.08 0.09 Raw Coverage 0.05 0.08
Government support●●○Government support●●○
Raw Coverage0.050.080.090.09
Unique Coverage 0.05 0.08 0.09 Raw Coverage0.050.080.09
Unique Coverage0.05Unique Coverage 0.05 0.08 0.09
Consistency 1 0.99 0.99 Consistency 1 0.99 0.99
Overall solution coverage 0.21Overall solution coverage 0.24
Overall solution consistency 0.95 Overall solution consistency 0.81
Conditions in the solution terms are represented by “●” (presence) and “○” (absence); a blank space indicates a “a do not care” condition.
 
The first and second configurations establish that service companies in Central America, to adapt and achieve high resilience in this “new normality,” need to employ the necessary conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph (internal organization, control of market turbulences). However, this group of companies employs digitalization as a new strategy to adapt. The results show that government support and positive business expectations enable the successful implementation of digitization. The second configuration does not have a favorable perception of the future, does not carry out labor flexibility activities, and needs digitalization and government support to achieve high organizational resilience.
Proposition 4.
“If a service company in Central America employs the necessary conditions as a strategy in this new normal, also resorts to digitization, presents positive business expectations and receives government support, it can be highly resilient in this new normal.”
The third configuration states that manufacturing companies in Central America, to adapt and achieve high resilience in this “new normality,” need to employ the necessary conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph (internal organization, control of market turbulences). However, this group of companies is not intensive in digitization because of their main face-to-face activity; in addition, the implementation of labor flexibility, e.g., rotating schedules, allows substituting the absence of digitalization due to the lack of access to governmental support.
Proposition 5.
“If a manufacturing company in Central America employ the necessary conditions as a strategy in this new normal, although it does not resort to digitalization, nor receives government support, and, present negative business expectations, it can be highly resilient in this new normal when presenting labor flexibility.”

2.3. Similarity and Difference

To analyze a comparative study between China and Central American countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala), the authors seek to find similarities and differences between two different contexts. To do so, we employed standard variables to not bias the results. First, both models (Table 43-China and Table 54-Central America) present similar results. The authors argue that the implementation of digitalization is more intensified in service companies. In addition, the authors propose the role of government support to carry out digitization successfully. Second, in both models (China and Central America), organizational innovation is understood as the ability to organize internally and allows companies to sustain themselves in times of crisis.
Table 3. Configurations leading to more firm resilience in China.
 Solution
ConfigurationsFirstSecondThird
Firm-Specific Resources and Capabilities
Use of Digitalization●○○
Use Organization Innovation●●
0.08
0.09
Unique Coverage
0.050.080.09
Consistency10.990.99Consistency10.990.99
Overall solution coverage0.21Overall solution coverage0.24
Overall solution consistency0.81
Conditions in the solution terms are represented by “●” (presence) and “○” (absence); a blank space indicates a “a do not care” condition.
 
Table 4. Configurations leading to more firm resilience in Central America.
 Solution
Configurations
Overall solution consistency
0.95
Conditions in the solution terms are represented by “●” (presence) and “○” (absence); a blank space indicates a “a do not care” condition.
 
However, despite the similarities mentioned in the previous paragraph, some differences were found. First, firms in China have greater labor flexibility than firms in Central America. Second,  firms in China are more skilled than firms in Central America. Companies in China can innovate in the business model innovation. In addition, previous crises (swine flu) make them more responsive and cautious. On the other hand, Central American companies have a lower reaction capacity.
Based on the resilience modes proposed by Mithani [22]. We propose that Chinese companies employ the resilience learning mode for adaptation and recovery strategies during a life-threatening event such as a pandemic (COVID-19). This mode of organizational resilience is based on the autonomous response, seeking solutions, and modifying organizations to respond to the threat. The authors propose that companies in China seek to return to a previous equilibrium or pre-pandemic status quo. On the other hand, Central American countries during the pandemic employ the rejuvenation mode of resilience in this “new normal.” Thus, this mode has a slow recovery because businesses suffered desolation generating unimaginable losses. However, organizational resilience emerges through reconstruction and reorganization; such companies seek a new equilibrium generating efficiency.

References

  1. Khan, A.; Khan, N.; Shafiq, M. The Economic Impact of COVID-19 from a Global Perspective. Contemp. Econ. 2021, 15, 64–76.
  2. Huang, W.; Chen, S.; Nguyen, L.T. Corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience to COVID-19 crisis: An empirical study of Chinese firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8970.
  3. Williams, T.A.; Gruber, D.A.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Shepherd, D.A.; Zhao, E.Y. Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 733–769.
  4. Kantur, D.; Iseri-Say, A. Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework. J. Manag. Organ. 2012, 18, 762–773.
  5. 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.
  6. Zhu, G.; Chou, M.C.; Tsai, C.W. Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic exposing the shortcomings of current supply chain operations: A long-term prescriptive offering. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5858.
  7. Ambulkar, S.; Blackhurst, J.; Grawe, S. Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 33–34, 111–122.
  8. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E.; Lengnick-Hall, M.L. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 243–255.
  9. Coutu, D.L. How resilience works. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 46–55.
  10. Carraresi, L.; Bröring, S. How does business model redesign foster resilience in emerging circular value chains? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125823.
  11. Settembre-Blundo, D.; González-Sánchez, R.; Medina-Salgado, S.; García-Muiña, F.E. Flexibility and resilience in corporate decision making: A new sustainability-based risk management system in uncertain times. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2021, 22, 107–132.
  12. Peteraf, M.A. Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions. Br. J. Manag. 2013, 20 (Suppl. 1), S1–S8.
  13. Afuah, A. Mapping technological capabilities into product markets and competitive advantage: The case of cholesterol drugs. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 171–179.
  14. Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.; Guinot, J.; Chiva, R.; López-Cabrales, Á. How to emerge stronger: Antecedents and consequences of organizational resilience. J. Manag. Organ. 2021, 27, 442–459.
  15. Cotta, D.; Salvador, F. Exploring the antecedents of organizational resilience practices–A transactive memory systems approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020, 40, 1531–1559.
  16. Kim, Y. Organizational resilience and employee work-role performance after a crisis situation: Exploring the effects of organizational resilience on internal crisis communication. J. Public Relat. Res. 2020, 32, 47–75.
  17. Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; Volume 8.
  18. Dierks, A.; Kuklinski, C.P.J.W.; Moser, R. How institutional change reconfigures successful value chains: The case of Western pharma corporations in China. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2013, 55, 153–171.
  19. Peng, M.; Wang, D.; Jiang, Y. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2008, 39, 920–936.
  20. Zhang, J.; Long, J.; von Schaewen, A.M.E. How Does Digital Transformation Improve Organizational Resilience? —Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11487.
  21. Burki, T. COVID-19 in latin america. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 547–548.
  22. Mithani, M.A. Adaptation in the face of the new normal. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 508–530.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback