Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between Sponge and Titanium: Designing Micro and Macro Features for the Resilient Organization

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations

Abstract

Many contemporary organization s must deal with high levels of environmental uncertainty, complexity and equivocality , struggling with not only strong competitive pressures but also increasing uncertainty related to sociopolitical and economic trends within the frame of a risk society. The centrality of resilience in contemporary managerial discourse is mostly related to the social, political, environmental and economic turmoil and jolts, to which organizations have been exposed during the past decades. Organizational survival is therefore increasingly challenged, and to survive and prosper, organizations must transform jolts and shocks into new and resilient solutions. Organizational resilience refers to the ability of an organization to continue to meet its core functions by finding and implementing in a fast and timely manner organizational micro and microstructure able to transform uncertainty into new solutions. While the progressive turbulence of the external environment requires organizations to be more resilient, the design of organizational resilience appears to be still limited to its adaptability to the external environment. Within this context, this chapter draws an original proposal on the design of resilient organizations considering both micro/individual-level and macro/design-level features.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Developing the human resource system structure: A levels-based framework for strategic HRM research. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, C. K. (1994). Organizational learning and continuous quality improvement in an automotive manufacturing organization. Ph.D. dissertation, University Microfilms, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, C. K., & Pratt, M. G. (2000). From threat-rigidity to flexibility-toward a learning model of autogenic crisis in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. E., & Gerhart, B. (1996). Human resources and organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal (Special Issue: Human Resources and Organizational Performance), 39(4), 779–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. A. (2002). The five principles of organizational resilience. Gartner Research. [online] http://www.gartner.com/id=351410. Accessed March 18, 2015.

  • Brown, J., Mulhern, G., & Joseph, S. (2002). Incident-related stressors, locus of control, coping, and psychological distress among firefighters in Northern Ireland. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1988). Opportunism, incentives, and the M-form hypothesis: A laboratory study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 10(1), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2004). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2002). Return on assets loss from situational and contingency misfits. Management Science, 48(11), 1461–1485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. C. (2008). Elements of metallurgy and engineering alloys. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, T. (2012). Designing organizations for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Organization Design, 1(2), 64–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, W. F. (2012). Methodological issues in international HR management research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(12), 2532–2545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. S., & Wartofsky, M. W. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela, Autopoiesis (Vol. 42, pp. v–vi). The Netherlands: Reidel, Dortrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last. Successful habits of visionary companies. Harper Collins Pub. Inc: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T. (1987). Stress, coping and problem solving. Work & Stress, 1(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M. P., & Cunha, J. V. (2006). Towards a complexity theory of strategy. Management Decision, 44(7), 839–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: What, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1, 299–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., & Joffe, G. (2014). Fit-the key to organizational design. Journal of Organization Design, 3(3), 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. (1965). Causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S. F., Hirschhorn, L., & Maltz, M. (2004). The power of moral purpose: Sandler O’Neill & Partners in the aftermath of september 11th, 2001. Organization Development Journal, 22(4), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunz, H., & Mayrhofer, W. (2011). Re-conceptualizing career success: A contextual approach. Journal for Labour Market Research, 43(3), 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkonsson, D. D., Klaas, P., & Carroll, T. N. (2013). The structural properties of sustainable, continuous change: Achieving reliability through flexibility. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2), 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. J., & Saias, M. A. (1980). Strategy follows structure! Strategic Management Journal, 1(2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2004). CEOs who have COOs: Contingency analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 959–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, B. L. T. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design (Vol. 1, pp. 3–27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Samina, K. (2014). Fit between organization design and organizational routines. Journal of Organization Design, 3(2), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 401–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Mikes, A. (2012). Managing risks: A new framework. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the world trade center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s emergency operations center. Disasters, 27(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2003). Beyond bouncing back: The concept of organizational resilience. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2005). Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: How organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management, 31(5), 738–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepak, D. P., Marrone, J. A., & Takeuchi, R. (2004). The relativity of human HR systems: Conceptualising the impact of desired employee contributions and HR philosophy. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(6/7), 639–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1953). Studies in group decision. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics. New York: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallak, L. A. (1998). Putting organizational resilience to work. Industrial Management, 40(6), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (No. 42) (pp. 1–58). (1980). The Netherlands: Reidel, Dortrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1973). Autopoiesis: The organization of living. In H. R Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.). (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (No. 42) (pp. 59–143). The Netherlands: Reidel, Dortrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayrhofer, W., Meyer, M., & Steyrer, J. (2007). Contextual issues in the study of careers. In H. P. Gunz & M. A. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 215–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Miles, G., & Snow, C. C. (2006). Collaborative entrepreneurship: A business model for continuous innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy formation: Schools of thought. In J. F. Fredrickson (Ed.), Perspectives on strategic management. Philadelphia, PA: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H., & Schaefer, J. A. 1993. Coping resources and processes: Current concepts and measures. In L Goldberger & S Breznits (Eds), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects (2nd ed.) (pp. 234–257). The Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F. (1992). The alchemist of contingency theory: Review essay on Stinchcombe. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1462–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrewé, P. L., et al. (2002). Are work stress relationships universal? A nine-region examination of role stressors, general self-efficacy, and burnout. Journal of International Management, 8(2), 163–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. (1990). Editorial: Human resource management in an international perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranam, P. (2012). A future for the science of organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 18–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinmoeller, P., & van Baardwijk, N. (2005). The link between diversity and resilience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 61–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, R. S. (1992). Strategic human resources management: Linking the people with the strategic needs of the business. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, P. R. (1993). The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Admin Soc, 25, 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scullion, H. (2005). International HRM: An introduction. In H. Scullion & M. Linehan (Eds.), International human resource management: A critical text (pp. 3–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25, 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu, T., Mizoue, T., Kubota, S., Mishima, N., & Nagata, S. (2003). Relationship between burnout and communication skill training among Japanese hospital nurses: A pilot study. Journal of Occupational Health, 45(3), 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for Resilience. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Chapter 7 (pp. 94–110). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Välikangas, L., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013). How to design for strategic resilience. Journal of Organization Design, 2(2), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Vegt, G. S., Essens, P., Wahlström, M., & George, G. (2015). Managing risk and resilience. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 971–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007, October). Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and a research agenda. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Montreal, Canada, 2007. ISIC. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3418–3422).

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950a). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111(2872), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950b). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1, 134–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. D. (2006). Essential characteristics of resilience. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 21–34). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Management and LUISS Business School, LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy

    Luca Giustiniano

  2. Università Cattolica Del Sacro Cuore, Milan (Piacenza campus), Italy

    Franca Cantoni

Authors
  1. Luca Giustiniano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franca Cantoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Giustiniano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Management and LUISS Business School, LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Boccardelli

  2. Department of Social Sciences and Management Studies, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Maria Carmela Annosi

  3. Department of Business and Management and LUISS Business School, LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy

    Federica Brunetta

  4. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Mats Magnusson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Giustiniano, L., Cantoni, F. (2018). Between Sponge and Titanium: Designing Micro and Macro Features for the Resilient Organization. In: Boccardelli, P., Annosi, M., Brunetta, F., Magnusson, M. (eds) Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62467-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation