Resilience Exam 2

Aggregation of individual resilience

Individual resilience does not automatically add up to team or organizational resilience

Bottom-up resilience

Resilience considered from the individual level upward

Top-down resilience

Resilience considered from the system level downward

Levels of resilience

Resilience can be a characteristic of objects, individuals, teams, organizations, and systems

System

Interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole

Systems thinking

Considering how system parts and levels influence one another

Emergent property

Characteristic that develops through interactions among parts of a system

Closed system

Goal-oriented organization with formal structure, hierarchy, written rules, and little attention to environment

Closed-system metaphor

People are parts of a machine managed through authority and control

Natural system

Organization whose members share an interest in its survival; formal and informal relationships matter

Natural-system metaphor

Organization as a family; people have needs and goals beyond money

Open system

Organization viewed as a living system that depends on its environment for resources and survival

Nested systems

Systems and subsystems within other systems; a team is part of an organization and contains individuals

Equifinality

Different starting points can lead to the same outcome

Multifinality

Same starting point can lead to different outcomes

Open-system process

Inputs enter the system, undergo transformation, and become outputs

Emergent state

State that develops through team member interactions and is not present initially

Team adversity

Negative event significant enough to disrupt or alter team functioning or outcomes

Team resilience

Team capacity to withstand or recover from adversity, shown through persistence, recovery, or growth in functioning

Conservation of Resource Theory

People are motivated to protect resources from loss and promote resource gains

Conservation of Resource Theory and team resilience

Teams use available resources to respond to adversity; investing resources can support recovery

Resilient teams and resources

Have more resources, use better team processes, and invest resources during adversity

Non-resilient teams and resources

Do not invest resources and may struggle to bounce back

Team resilience research context

Most research focuses on work teams, including medical, management, high-stress, and safety-critical teams

Dynamic nature of team resilience

Resilience can change over time because of team processes, external forces, and previous actions

Resilience trajectory

Team performance over a specific period of adversity; depends on context

Possible team recovery routes

Little change in functioning, quick return to previous functioning, longer recovery, or sustained team viability

Individual resilience

One person identifies and responds to adversity, independently or with support

Team resilience vs. individual resilience

Team resilience depends on interdependent members coordinating and responding together

Organizational resilience vs. team resilience

Organizational resilience involves the wider organization and its components, including individuals and teams

Similarity across resilience levels

Individuals, teams, and organizations respond to adversity and sustain performance through persistence or adaptation

IPMO model

Framework organizing team resilience into inputs, processes, mediating states, and outcomes

IPMO inputs

Factors that set the scene and help teams be resilient; individual, team, or contextual

IPMO input examples

Individual expertise and adaptability; team resources and norms; leadership and organizational support

IPMO processes

Actions teams take to prepare for, manage, and recover from adversity

IPMO process examples

Communication, coordination, planning, monitoring, adapting, debriefing, and learning

IPMO mediating states

Shared team conditions through which inputs and processes relate to resilience

IPMO state examples

Cohesion, collective efficacy, psychological safety, shared mental models, team trust, and team potency

IPMO outcomes

Results observed in team health, performance, and functioning

IPMO example

Skilled members and leadership support team planning and communication; team states and processes relate to health, performance, and functioning

Team adaptability

Behaviors that help a team identify and respond to challenges; mainly task-focused

Team resilience vs. adaptability

Resilience is broader and includes managing and recovering from adversity and team well-being; adaptability can contribute to resilience

Before adversity: team strategies

Assess training needs, practice skills, conduct prebriefs, anticipate challenges, and build psychological safety

During adversity: team strategies

Speak up, ask for backup, hold check-ins, make sense of the situation, and adjust the response

After adversity: team strategies

Debrief, give feedback, check team needs, make an improvement plan, and follow up

Psychological safety

Team condition that supports members speaking up about challenges, mistakes, or needed help

Debrief

Discussion after performance or adversity about what happened, what went well, and what could improve

Organizational resilience

Ability to continue meeting objectives during challenges and to learn, adapt, and recover

Organizational resilience as an emergent property

Resilience involves interactions between individuals and the broader organizational system

Organizational adversity examples

Economic crashes, policy changes, globalization, internal conflict, and turnover

Growth in organizational resilience

Building resilience capacity involves change

Timing of organizational resilience assessment

Can assess before, during, and after an adverse event

Older view of organizational resilience

Resilience as a byproduct of individual behavior; goal was to withstand stress

Older view of organizations

Emphasized bureaucracy, hierarchy, written rules, and division of labor

Older organizational view and resilience

Structure-focused view gave too little attention to adaptation

Planned resilience

Anticipating and preparing for challenges before they occur

Adaptive resilience

Responding to emerging needs; can develop through responding to challenges

Survival perspective on resilience

Preserving organizational qualities, functions, or identity

Innovation perspective on resilience

Anticipating and adapting to trends that could affect the organization

Organizational resilience measurement challenges

Acute shocks can overshadow long-term components; catastrophic events can overshadow everyday resilience

Everyday organizational resilience

Responding to daily stresses and disruptions that may help prepare for larger challenges

Organizational culture

Shared pattern of attitudes, beliefs, and values; changes slowly

Organizational learning and resilience

Learn continuously from experience, failures, debriefs, and other organizations

Unlearning

Letting go of practices or ways of thinking that no longer work

Learning organization components

Personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking

Planning and organizational resilience

Emergency and risk-management plans provide multiple options; redundancy can support survival

Information management and resilience

Communication and monitoring provide information needed to respond; reduced communication can limit responses

Decentralized structure and resilience

Can bring in more voices and support systems thinking, especially during large disasters

Leadership and organizational resilience

Build shared vision, include others, see the system, support growth, and care for employee well-being

Community

Constituent population such as a neighborhood, town, or city

Community resilience

Community capacity related to responding to adversity; capacity varies across communities

Community resilience research

Focuses mostly on disasters; also encompasses experiences related to war and terrorism

Community resilience research challenges

Broad, multilevel, difficult to define and measure, and difficult to establish causality

Community resilience associations

Social support and resources; reduced risks and miscommunication; lower individual trauma

Local knowledge

Understanding existing community vulnerabilities

Factual knowledge base

Disaster-related information, education, and experience

Training and education

Preparing community members with relevant knowledge and skills

Efficacy and empowerment

Helping people believe they can handle hardship and have a voice in decisions

Community networks and relationships

Strong, cohesive social networks that support community members

Community communication

Shared understanding and effective structures for communicating

Community health

Health-service vulnerabilities and community mental health after disaster

Community governance and leadership

Leadership and infrastructure able to respond, with community voice in decisions

Community resources

Supplies, human capital, and social networks that can be accessed and allocated

Economic investment

Financial resources, recovery planning, and potential economic diversification

Community preparedness

Preparation across individuals, families, and government

Mental outlook

How people view and feel about uncertainty before or during a disaster

Most common community resilience elements

The PowerPoint lists elements but does not rank their frequency