Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T17:41:31.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Exploring Theoretical Foundations for Understanding Employee Resilience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Kate M. Conley ,
Malissa A. Clark ,
Olivia H. Vande Griek  and
Jay A. Mancini
Kate M. Conley*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Malissa A. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Olivia H. Vande Griek
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Jay A. Mancini
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Georgia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kate M. Conley, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: kmc81050@uga.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) provide a summary of the conceptual confusion surrounding the construct of resilience as well as several key recommendations for spurring future organizational research on resilience. However, we feel that two key points were not adequately addressed in the focal article. First, we argue that we cannot fully understand the concept of resilience or apply it in our field of organizational studies without first understanding its fundamental theoretical groundings. Many of these underlying theoretical foundations on resilience were founded in and advanced through 50+ years of theory and research on family resilience literature; however, many of these perspectives were not addressed in the focal article. In this commentary, we outline and provide contextualized examples of how to apply one of the most widely used and empirically supported theoretical models of resilience—the ABC-X model (Hill, 1958)—to the work domain. Using the ABC-X model as a starting framework, we then highlight several additional theoretical perspectives that can inform research on employee resilience: Masten's (2001) ordinary magic, Antonovsky's (1979) sense of coherence, and Walsh's (2003) focus on strengths.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 491 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (Reference Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman and Klieger2016) provide a summary of the conceptual confusion surrounding the construct of resilience as well as several key recommendations for spurring future organizational research on resilience. However, we feel that two key points were not adequately addressed in the focal article. First, we argue that we cannot fully understand the concept of resilience or apply it in our field of organizational studies without first understanding its fundamental theoretical groundings. Many of these underlying theoretical foundations on resilience were founded in and advanced through 50+ years of theory and research on family resilience literature; however, many of these perspectives were not addressed in the focal article. In this commentary, we outline and provide contextualized examples of how to apply one of the most widely used and empirically supported theoretical models of resilience—the ABC-X model (Hill, Reference Hill1958)—to the work domain. Using the ABC-X model as a starting framework, we then highlight several additional theoretical perspectives that can inform research on employee resilience: Masten's (Reference Masten2001) ordinary magic, Antonovsky's (Reference Antonovsky1979) sense of coherence, and Walsh's (Reference Walsh and Walsh2003) focus on strengths.

Second, Britt et al. placed a great deal of focus on the distinction between the “capacity for” and “demonstration of” resilience. However, we feel that it is equally (or perhaps more) important to focus on resilience as a process. In fact, despite the numerous studies exploring resilience as a trait or individual capacity (i.e., “resiliency” as deriving from “ego resiliency”; Masten, Reference Masten2004), researchers have urged against this conceptualization (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000). Sutcliffe and Vogus (Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus, Cameron and Dutton2003) rationalize this clearly: “Scientifically representing resilience as a personal attribute is risky because it paves the way for perceptions that some individuals simply do not ‘have what it takes’ to overcome adversity, curtails our understanding of the underlying processes, and may even repress possible interventions” (p. 96). The examination of resilience as a process is not only in line with the classic theories of resilience (e.g., ABC-X model) but also in line with current conceptualizations in positive organizational scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, Reference Cameron, Dutton, Quinn, Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003). Further, a process approach is compatible with prevention and intervention efforts that target “leverage points” for change.

A Contextualized ABC-X Model of Employee Resilience

In his discussion of resilience in the aftermath of war, Reuben Hill (Reference Hill1949) developed a theoretical framework that still shapes theory and models of our modern interpretation of resilience (see Nichols, Reference Nichols and Becvar2013, for a review). Hill (Reference Hill1958) depicted this framework in the ABC-X model of family stress to illustrate the processes in which individuals and families experience stressor events. We adapt the original ABC-X model of stress to illustrate how this model can be applied to employee resilience (see Figure 1). Through this framework, we understand resilience as a dynamic process in which one experiences and perceives stressful or traumatic life events, the coping mechanisms and resources they do or do not make use of, and the short- and long-term trajectory postevent (Luthar et al., Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000).

Figure 1. Contextualized ABC-X model of stress to inform the processes involved in the study of employee resilience. This figure has been adapted from graphics presented by researchers at the University of Akron (http://www3.uakron.edu/witt/fc/fcnote7.htm) and applied to organizational research.

We believe the model informs future research on employee resilience in two ways. First, the ABC-X framework directs our methodology. As noted by Britt and colleagues, longitudinal designs are needed to accurately measure resilient processes, but we also call for better experimental manipulations. Three time points of data are recommended: (a) a baseline measure prior to the adversity, (b) a measure during and immediately following the event, and (c) a postcrisis measure of the resulting trajectory (Bowen, Martin, & Mancini, Reference Bowen, Martin, Mancini, Fine and Fincham2013). Although relatively uncommon in industrial and organizational (I-O) research, there are efforts to increase the use of experimental designs (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, Reference Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood and Lambert2007). Second, the ABC-X model allows for others to theorize a number of relationships between organizational and employee variables from a variety of preexisting I-O subject areas (i.e., the work–family interface, employee stress and emotions, workplace relationships, and extreme work conditions).

We briefly describe each component in the adapted ABC-X model and provide examples specific to the study of employees. The event (A) represents the stressor, trauma, or other form of adversity that individuals experience. For employees, this could be a work or nonwork stressor that interferes with overall well-being and performance outcomes. Possible research questions could build off myriad events that affect employees in many occupations, such as life turning points (e.g., transition to parenthood, the death of a family member, or even unemployment itself) or organizational changes (e.g., massive layoffs, merger, or acquisitions). The employee resources (B) component represents the available internal and external resources. These can be personal capacities, social support, work and community programs, financial resources, and more. For employees, crucial resources include differentiating skillsets and characteristics, family-friendly organizational policies, family and coworker support, job security, or even after-school programs.

The employee perceptions (C) component represents a process of meaning making in which individuals or groups perceive the event or stressor (A). A major component of job and life satisfaction is finding meaning in one's life work. Life-changing events and chronic stress can result in a feeling of learned helplessness or burnout if the employee does not feel capable or hopeful in recovering from the stressor. Positive meaning making can be facilitated through positive employee interventions. The crisis or resulting stress (X) represents the negative impact of the event on the individual or unit. The X can also simply represent the negative outcomes or consequences of the event (A). For employees, this could be measured as burnout, increased work–family conflict, disengagement from work, decreased well-being, job or life satisfaction, or a combination of the above.

The resulting trajectory informs the multiple potential postcrisis pathways individuals can take as they experience periods of reorganization. This includes a reorganization of roles, responsibilities, or resources. Employees can experience resilient outcomes by returning to baseline functioning or excel and grow as result of overcoming stressors (bonadaptation; McCubbin & Patterson, Reference McCubbin and Patterson1983). Individuals can also incur a pile up of chronic stressors (maladaption; McCubbin & Patterson, Reference McCubbin and Patterson1983). This variation in individual trajectories is described by processes of multifinality (individuals on parallel trajectories experiencing different outcomes) and equifinality (individuals on varying trajectories experiencing similar outcomes) in which the perceptions, resources, and contextual factors all play a role in determining the resulting trajectory (Cicchetti & Rogosch, Reference Cicchetti and Rogosch1996). The organizational context refers to the internal (structural, psychological, philosophical) and external (culture, history, economy, development, heredity) organizational factors that influence the process of resilience (Boss, Bryant, & Mancini, in press). For employees, we need to consider the immediate family context as well as the community and broader contexts that affect organizational factors (i.e., governmental policies such as Family and Medical Leave Act and parental leave).

Incorporating Additional Theoretical Perspectives

Using this contextualized ABC-X model as a starting framework, we would like to emphasize three additional points that were not discussed by Britt and colleagues: (a) Stressors are relative and inclusive, (b) meaning making is a powerful tool for fostering resilience, and (c) organizational protective factors can help facilitate employee resilience.

Stressors Are Relative and Inclusive

First, we posit that the event (A) described in our model does not have to be classified as a trauma for individuals to be significantly affected by it. Put differently, all stressors are in part relative to the perspective of the individual and/or group of people experiencing them. In fact, everyone has the potential to adapt and grow from stressful events. Masten (Reference Masten2001) attributes this commonality to the ordinary developmental processes innate to human nature, what she calls “ordinary magic.” Research on resilience aims to better understand the factors and processes that contribute to positive outcomes despite adversity. Masten asserts that resilience is derived not from special or rare qualities, but from normative internal and external resources. We, as organizational researchers, should be directing our attention not toward determining who is the ideal resilient employee but rather toward what can we do to help all employees thrive at work, even in the face of adversity, trauma, and stressors—chronic and acute. Understanding that resilience “is made of ordinary rather than extraordinary processes” provides a positive outlook for building more resilient workplaces (Masten, Reference Masten2001, p. 227).

Meaning Making Is a Powerful Tool

One powerful tool in building resources for the experience of adverse events is meaning making. As discussed, the perceived meaning one makes of the stressor (C) and the ability to overcome it plays a crucial role in reaching resilient outcomes. Antonovsky (Reference Antonovsky1979) embodies this idea in his term sense of coherence, or an individual's perception of life events as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful. Those with the ability to think clearly and confidently in the face of life's challenges are more likely to adapt and better respond to adversity. The most compelling evidence for the power of meaning making comes from Victor Frankl's work on finding meaning in life following his own significant loss and horrific experience in a Nazi concentration camp as well as his work with traumatized patients (Frankl, Reference Frankl1984). Frankl identifies a “will-to-meaning” as the common thread tying together individuals experiencing stressors both big and small (p. 10). For employees, work has the potential to provide great meaning and purpose in life (Baumeister & Vohs, Reference Baumeister, Vohs, Snyder and Lopez2002). Organizations not only can provide individuals with an outlet for their calling but also can contribute to fostering meaningfulness by giving employees a sense of belonging and membership (Pratt & Ashford, Reference Pratt, Ashford, Cameron and Dutton2003). Our work lives also enrich meaning in other nonwork areas by providing financial means for supporting a family, creating connections, helping those in the community, or even fulfilling goals such as travel.

Organizational Protective Factors Can Make a Significant Difference

We often cannot predict and eliminate risk factors associated with stressors, but there are actionable ways to identify and capitalize on available protective factors. As with much of psychological history, the literature on trauma and stress has been dominated by a deficit approach. Researchers in family resilience have moved toward a strengths-based perspective with the intent to facilitate more adaptive trajectories following adverse events. Resources and protective factors discussed in strengths-based perspectives include flexibility, connectedness, social and economic resources, and communication and spiritual processes (Walsh, Reference Walsh and Walsh2003). Employers have the potential to equip all employees with resources to manage and bounce back from stressors, including managerial and coworker support, health and wellness programs, and family-friendly policies (e.g., flextime, dependent care, extended parental leave, and telecommuting). Further, teachings of positive psychology place a heavy focus on strengths built from the simple nature of positive emotions such as love, gratitude, and humor (Hu & Kaplan, Reference Hu and Kaplan2015). The emotions literature is continuing to examine the process of activating positive emotions at work to broaden individual capacities and build resilience resources (Fredrickson, Reference Fredrickson2001).

Conclusion

Britt and colleagues claim employee resilience lacks conceptual clarity and fear it is becoming a “quicksand term” (p. 379). We agree with this sentiment and address a call to attend to theoretical foundations of resilience literatures (Sutcliffe & Vogus, Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus, Cameron and Dutton2003). As seen in the case of resilience, interdisciplinary concepts should not be adapted into new fields by name only and used without considering preexisting theoretical foundations. Resilience research from the family science domain adds to our understanding of employee well-being by directing our attention to resources, viewpoints, and contextual factors that individuals draw from in facing work and life challenges. By incorporating an advanced heuristic model (ABC-X) and key theoretical perspectives, we enhance the focus on positive dimensions of organizations and how individuals within them succeed. Thus, we strengthen the approach taken by I-O and positive organizational scholars in investigating employee resilience.

References

Antonovsky, K. H. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boss, P., Bryant, C., & Mancini, J. A. (in press). Family stress management: A contextual approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bowen, G. L., Martin, J. A., & Mancini, J. A. (2013). The resilience of military families: Theoretical perspectives. In Fine, M. A. & Fincham, F. D. (Eds.), Handbook of family theories: A content-based approach (pp. 417–436). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 378–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). An introduction to positive organizational scholarship. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3–13). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 596–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to the crisis of war separation and reunion. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Hill, R. (1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 39, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, X. X., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Is “feeling good” good enough? Differentiating discrete positive emotions at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). Research on resilience: Response to commentaries. Child Development, 71, 573–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masten, A. S. (2004). Regulatory processes, risk, and resilience in adolescent development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 310–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage & Family Review, 6, 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, W. C. (2013). Roads to understanding family resilience: 1920s to the twenty-first century. In Becvar, D. S. (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Ashford, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In Cameron, K. S. & Dutton, J. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 309–327). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In Cameron, K. S. & Dutton, J. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: Strengths forded through adversity. In Walsh, F. (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 399–423). New York, NY: Guilford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Contextualized ABC-X model of stress to inform the processes involved in the study of employee resilience. This figure has been adapted from graphics presented by researchers at the University of Akron (http://www3.uakron.edu/witt/fc/fcnote7.htm) and applied to organizational research.