Resilience Capabilities of Managers in Crisis Management - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering
Master’s Thesis, 30 credits | MSc Business Administration - Strategy and Management in International Organizations
Spring 2021 | ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--21/03631--SE
Resilience Capabilities of
Managers in Crisis
Management
The study of Swedish Sit-in Restaurants
Keziah Adadzewa Otu
Christine Netsai Makichi
Supervisor: Andrea Fried
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 13-28 10 00, www.liu.seEnglish title:
Resilience Capabilities of Managers in Crisis Management - The Study of Swedish Sit-
in Restaurants
Authors:
Keziah Adadzewa Otu and Christine Netsai Makichi
Advisor:
Andrea Fried
Publication type:
Master’s Thesis in Business Administration
Strategy and Management in International Organizations
Advanced level, 30 credits
Spring semester 2021
ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--21/03631--SE
Linköping University
Department of Management and Engineering (IEI)
www.liu.seACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to everyone who made a contribution towards our
thesis. Without support from people, there could have been no thesis to talk about. Firstly, our
supervisor Prof. Andrea Fried from the department of Management and Engineering Department,
Linköping University. Her unwavering support, inspiration and guidance is overwhelmingly
appreciated.
Our profound gratitude is also extended to fellow students from our tutorial group for their insightful
feedback, inspiration and generous viewpoints.
To six sit-in restaurants managers, we would like to express our gratitude for your exclusive
viewpoints. They were very patient with us as we interrogated and solicited for research data. Their
willingness to give further clarifications as we transcribed our research data was amazing. We felt at
ease each time we contacted them. Your dedication to the success of this thesis is very much
appreciated.
Last but not least, we would like to thank our friends and families at large, for their unwavering
support during our studies over the years. Without your support, there could have been no journey.
We thank you all!
May 2021, Linköping University
Christine and Keziah
iABSTRACT
Background: the impetus for this study emanated from Covid-19 crisis in the context of Sweden's
business environment in which numerous disruptions in business operations have been experienced.
Organizational resilience has been selected as a positive strategic response by which resilience
capabilities of sit-in restaurant managers in handling disasters and crises play an integral role so as to
achieve future organizational success and continuity.
Purpose: To apply resilience theory and develop some underlying themes from effective application
of resilience strategies in sit-in restaurants during Covid-19 crisis. This thesis sought to identify
similarities and differences in the application of organizational resilience strategies during crises.
Resilience strategies categorized into four by Hillmann and Guenther (2020), that is, organizational
flexibility, organizational adaptive capacity, organizational change capacity and organizational
buffering capacity were tested and laid the foundation for development of new theoretical
framework.
Methodology: A qualitative study that involved six sit-in restaurants were randomly selected and the
underlying themes of their resilience capabilities were analyzed. Semi-structured interviews and
questionnaires were used to gather empirical data. Six interviews were conducted in which sit-in
restaurant managers in Sweden were the interview participants.
Findings: Research findings revealed that some sit-in restaurant managers were more resilient than
others thereby contributing to survival of restaurants that they managed during crisis. Some managers
only applied a selection of resilience strategies leading to declined resilience capabilities in managing
crises contributing to business failure whereas an integrated approach in application of all resilience
strategies contributed to effective crisis management. These findings laid the foundation for the
development of new theory in organizational resilience.
Keywords: Crisis management; Organizational resilience; organizational resilience strategies;
integrated resilience approach, resilience capabilities.
iiTable of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................... vi
CHARTS ................................................................................................................................................................ vi
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Gap ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Problem statement ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research Question .................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Thesis structure ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Crisis Management ................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Organizational Resilience Definition ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Levels of Organizational Resilience ................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Approaches to Organizational Resilience ........................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Categories of Organizational Resilience Strategies ............................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Organizational Flexibility................................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Organizational Adaptive Capacity ................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Organizational Change Capacity ...................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.4 Organizational Buffering Capacity .................................................................................................................. 15
3. METHODOLOGY INCLUDING RESEARCH DESIGN ...............................................................................18
3.1. Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Research Approach ................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.3 Research Process..................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Research philosophy ............................................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Research Strategy .................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Research Selection & Research Scope ................................................................................................................... 20
3.7 Sampling .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
3.8 Preparation of Semi-structured Interview.............................................................................................................. 21
iii3.9 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
3.10 Data Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.11 Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................................ 25
3.12 Validity & Reliability of Research ........................................................................................................................ 25
3.13 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................................................... 26
4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS .................................................................................................................................28
4.1 Brief Summary of Crisis Situation in Six (6) Interviewed Sit-in Restaurants ...................................................... 28
4.2. Similarities and Differences in Application of Resilience Strategies .................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Flexibility Strategies as Resilience Measures in Crisis Management ........................................................... 30
4.2.1.1 Cost Reduction in Operations......................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1.2 Adjustments to Restaurant Structures ........................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1.3 Enhanced Flexibility through Fast Decision Making ...................................................................................... 31
4.2.1.4 Effective Communication with All Restaurant Stakeholders ......................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Impact of flexibility Strategies to Crisis ......................................................................................................... 32
4.2.2.1 Restaurant Operational Effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Adaptive Capacity: Similarities & Differences in Application of Resilience Strategies ................................. 33
4.2.3.1 Adaptation of Restaurant Business to Changes ............................................................................................ 33
4.2.3.2 Exploration of new opportunities; Digitization & Customer Satisfaction in Restaurants.............................. 33
4.2.3.3 Technological Innovation to Restaurant Business ......................................................................................... 34
4.2.3.4 Stakeholder Participation & Involvement ...................................................................................................... 34
4.2.4 Change Capacity Strategies as Resilience Measures ...................................................................................... 35
4.2.4.1 Leadership & Team Collaboration in Restaurants ......................................................................................... 35
4.2.4.2 Operational Effectiveness Introduced in Restaurants ................................................................................... 36
i. Adaptation to changing customers’ needs........................................................................................................ 36
i. Digitization & Technological Innovation in Restaurants .................................................................................. 36
ii. Customer Satisfaction........................................................................................................................................ 37
iii. Crisis Management Plan................................................................................................................................ 37
iv. Incremental Changes ..................................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.5 Buffering Strategies as Resilience Measures .................................................................................................. 38
4.2.5.1 Delivery Service.............................................................................................................................................. 38
4.2.5.2 Open Innovation ............................................................................................................................................ 38
4.2.5.3 Favorable Government Policies ..................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.5.4 Sensing & Seizing Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.6 Summary of Key of Empirical Results ......................................................................................................... 40
5 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................41
5.1 Crisis Management Main Themes............................................................................................................................ 41
iv5.2 Summary of Organizational Resilience Main Themes......................................................................................42
5.2.1 Organizational Resilience Strategies ................................................................................................................ 43
5.2.2 Components of Integrated Resilience Model (Framework 4)........................................................................... 45
5.2.3 Crisis Management in Restaurants ................................................................................................................... 46
5.3 Topology of Hillmann & Guenther (2021) ............................................................................................................ 49
5. 4. Analysis of Sit-In Restaurants Resilience Strategies ........................................................................................... 50
5.4.1 Flexibility Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 50
5.4.2 Adaptive Capacity............................................................................................................................................. 51
5.4.3 Change Capacity Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 52
5.4.4 Buffering Strategies .......................................................................................................................................... 52
5.5 Operational effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................ 53
6. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................55
6.1 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 55
7 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................58
7.1 Key Research Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 58
7.2 Further Research .................................................................................................................................................... 59
7.3 Managerial inferences and insights ....................................................................................................................... 60
8 REFERENCE ..................................................................................................................................................61
9 APPENDIX .....................................................................................................................................................71
9.1 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 71
vLIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Steps and Phases of Crisis Management
Figure 2 Conceptual Model - Hillmann and Guenther (2021)
Figure 3 Summary of Organizational Resilience Main Themes
Figure 4 Integrated Resilience Approach to Crisis Management
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Theoretical Concepts List
Table 2 Interview Participants
Table 3 Summary of Key of Empirical Results
Table 4 Main themes under Crisis Management
CHARTS
Chart 1 Similarities & Differences in Application of Resilience Strategies
vi1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Sweden has experienced remarkable crises over the past years. In the 1990’s, Sweden faced crises in
the banking sector (Jonung 2009; Englund 1999). This led to a rapid unemployment for many years
and sharp decline of the country’s GDP. Again, between the year 2008 and 2009, Sweden experienced
a financial crisis that resulted in a decline of the country’s economy. Currently, Covid-19 pandemic
which is an example of a unique crisis that has affected every part of the world bringing most
economies and businesses to a halt with Swedish economy largely affected too. Sit-in restaurants in
Sweden have not been spared by the current Covid-19 crisis as they usually relied on the Swedish
people who appreciated eating in sit-in restaurants (Mavoungou 2020). The impact of Covid-19 crisis
in sit-in restaurants has been reviewed in Sweden by UC Company, which is a credit organization,
and discovered that liquidations in cafés had increased to 123% from 105% in March 2020 since the
onset of the crisis in March 2020. It was noted that Covid-19 led to a huge decrease in financial
activity, all around the world (Goolsbee and Syverson 2020). This was attributed to both willful
efforts by members of the public to diminish the spread of the pandemic such that sit-in restaurants
were worst affected as people dreaded to dine at restaurants for fear of contracting the virus.
Furthermore, operating hours for sit-in restaurants were reduced and operating costs like fixed costs
increased as they attempted to adhere to one-meter distance and four (4) people per table. Therefore,
it is against this background that this research is premised.
The research sought to assess resilience capabilities of sit-in restaurants managers in crisis
management with Covid-19 crisis as an example. Sit-in Restaurants are referred to as Restaurant in
this research. The focus for this research study is on resilience at an organizational level. Managers
of sit-in restaurants confronted by the need to survive through the negative impacts of Covid-19 crisis,
they knowingly or unknowingly adopted resilience strategies in order to avoid bankruptcy. This
research was a qualitative study in which the researchers investigated what resilience strategies were
applied by managers of restaurants in crises. A comparison of such strategies was done to establish
similarities and differences in application of these strategies with the aim of assessing the impact or
the effectiveness of resilience strategies to the restaurant business survival during crises.
The theoretical framework of this research was inspired by Hillmann and Guenther (2021) who
categorized organizational resilience strategies into four classes, that is, organizational flexibility,
organizational adaptive capacity, organizational buffering, and organizational change capacity. Other
research studies have been noted in the process of selecting theoretical framework for this research.
Previous research on organizational resilience in Covid-19 crisis were done in the first phase of the
1pandemic in which businesses adopted resilience to survive, thus stimulated organizational resilience
studies from China (Huang, Chen and Nguyen 2020), Romania (Motoc 2020), and other studies from
different contexts for instance HRM (El Dessouky and Al-Ghareeb 2020); Hospitality industry,
Textile & Clothing industry (Pal, Torstensson and Mattila 2014) have also been discovered. These
studies were done when the crisis was still in its infancy, and thus the level of organizational
resiliencies was not as robust and intense as in the second phase of the crisis. Other research studies
have been carried out in Sweden to investigate the vulnerability of immigrant owned restaurants by
Mavoungou (2020), but this research does not reflect the resilience capabilities of these foreign owned
restaurants to survive through the Covid-19 crisis. The importance of organizational resilience in the
Covid-19 crisis management cannot be underestimated. Among things suggested by several authors
that form the foundations of organizational resilience are business model innovation (Zott and Amit
2010), networking (Jung 2017), anticipation and improvisation (Rerup 2001).
Researchers gathered research data through use of qualitative methods so as to make a well-informed
comparison of the application of resilience strategies adopted by managers of restaurants during
crises. Research findings revealed that some restaurant managers were more resilient in managing
crises thereby contributing to survival of some restaurants. Some managers of restaurants only
focused their organizational resilience strategies on organizational buffering alone such that
restaurants did not survive through crisis. However, there must be a better balance of organizational
resilience strategies in order for the organization to effectively manage crisis.
Further studies could consider carrying out similar research on a broader scale using other research
methods such as extensive use of questionnaires or participant observation and improve on empirical
data collection. Furthermore, since this research only focused on restaurants, it will be more
significant if this research can be extended to other industries with a large sample, for example, health
industry or hospitality industry in Sweden and determine resilience capabilities in crisis management
especially during Covid-19 pandemic. In sum, this research will help restaurants in Sweden to prepare
for future uncertainties when confronted by a crisis or possibly improve their level of organizational
resilience strategies in crisis management.
1.2 Research Gap
This research is relevant because it managed to test the applicability of organizational resilience
theory inspired by Hillmann and Guenther (2021) in which organizational resilience strategies were
placed into four categories, that is, organizational flexibility, organizational adaptive capacity,
organizational buffering, and organizational change capacity. Therefore, by operationalizing
organizational resilience theory, this research study contributed into organizational theory through
2development of a new theoretical framework based on empirical findings thereby laying down the
foundation for challenging existing organizational resilience theory. Taking everything into
consideration, this research helped to expose strengths and weaknesses of restaurants’ resilience
capabilities. Additionally, by making a comparison of the application of resilience strategies, this
research managed to reveal which strategies fit for similar future crises. Future managers will be able
to learn from resilience strategies implemented by sit-in restaurant managers in crisis management as
empirical evidence managed to reveal how organizational resilience strategies can be implemented
and also which strategies suited which situation when confronted by an unexpected occurrence from
the operating environment, particularly in the next phases of Covid-19 crisis or any future eventuality
similar to the covid-19 pandemic.
1.3 Problem statement
This thesis is about identifying organizational resilience strategies adopted during crises situations.
As previously mentioned above, Covid-19 is an ongoing crisis with unique impacts that are not
sparing any business. Restaurants, as the focus for this research, resorted to a number of factors to
lessen the negative impact of crises, for example Covid-19 crisis, so as to stay in business. The
prevailing critical economic conditions require restaurants to adopt resilience strategies as a way to
manage crises. Declining business in restaurants and increased fixed costs is a huge problem
compelling the majority of organizations to seek innovative ways for adaptation through crisis
(Seetharaman 2020). Adaptation to the negative implications of the unstable environment
surrounding restaurant operations and services during this ongoing pandemic has been referred to as
mountain climb calling for strategic adaptation in the pursuit for survival (Ottenbacher 2007).
However, it is imperative to investigate what organizational resilience strategies have been
implemented by restaurants to mitigate disturbances in the midst of unstable and confusing business
environments marred with severe losses and bankruptcy (Goolsbee and Syverson, 2020).
Worldwide web sources indicated that since Covid-19, as one of the major crises, began on 20
November 2019. Sweden forced partial lockdown on cafés, limiting all restaurants to be shut by 10PM
in March 2020. Mavoungou (2020) conducted a study to comprehend why immigrant owned
restaurants are more vulnerable when confronted with the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden. Study
results showed that immigrant owned cafes struggled to cope and were confronted with different
problems. In 2017, it was noticed that eateries in Stockholm, capital city of Sweden amount to roughly
3.3 thousand, Gothenburg, second-biggest city, around 1.6 thousand while in Malmö, Swedish third-
biggest town, around 700 cafés were recorded (Mavoungou 2020). A similar study in April 2020
Sweden recorded a 200% in restaurant bankruptcy as compared to April 2019. It was against this
3background that there was need to carry out a research study so as to ascertain organizational
resilience strategies adopted in order to avoid bankruptcy by restaurants that are still existing.
1.4 Research Question
The research was based on the following stated problem: -
What resilience strategies did managers of Sit-in restaurants in Sweden apply in managing
crises?
This main question helped to investigate the following follow-up questions:
1. Which of the four organizational resilience strategies namely organizational flexibility,
organizational adaptive capacity, organizational buffering, and organizational change
capacity was effectively adopted in sit in restaurants in Covid-19 crisis management?
2. What are the similarities and differences in the application of organizational resilience
strategies adopted by sit-in restaurant managers during crises?
3. How effective were organizational resilience strategies applied in the survival of sit-in
restaurants during crisis?
1.5 Research Purpose
The purpose of this research was to theorize resilience of restaurants in Sweden given their capability
to mitigate the negative impact of undesirable environment conditions prevailing during Covid-19
crisis through development of positive responses to secure the future of the business (Werner and
Smith 2001). The objective of this research was to assess resilience capabilities of restaurants in
Sweden through identifying resilience strategies that were applied by managers in order for the
restaurants to survive. This research aimed at applying and testing organizational resilience strategies,
that is, organizational flexibility, organizational change capacity, organizational adaptive capacity
and organizational buffering, a conceptual framework suggested by Hillman and Guenther (2021).
Additionally, this research was necessary as it contributed towards understanding organizational
resilience measures adopted by sit-in restaurants in a different context, that is, Swedish context which
was characterized by the country’s different approach towards mitigation of Covid-19 pandemic. The
Swedish approach prompted a high level of controversy where there was free movement of people
during Covid-19 crisis thereby instilling more fear and uncertainty in how sit-in restaurants operated.
Besides this, the research study was more relevant than the previous studies as this research was
carried out during the second wave of the Covid-19 crisis that is more severe than the first phase.
Organizations required more advanced efforts in resilience in order to survive the gruesome crisis
4compared to the research done by Huang, Chen and Nguyen, (2020) in which the research was done
when the crisis had lasted 142 days only. This research will help restaurants in Sweden to prepare for
future uncertainties when confronted with a crisis or possibly improve their level of organizational
resilience in the next phases of Covid-19 Crisis.
1.6 Thesis structure
52 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
First, crisis management theory was studied to determine how organizations in previous years
managed crises. Secondly, theory on organizational resilience will commence by providing a clearer
understanding of organizational resilience by examining different definitions from the perspective of
various authors. Various definitions have been analyzed and it was noted that, the trajectory, in one
way or the other, the definitions converged in the sense that managers are seen continuously adopting
different measures to spearhead and streamline firm’s survival to prevent disruptions. Thirdly, theory
on approaches and levels of organizational resilience was also examined as these contribute towards
creating deeper understanding regarding how different concepts transcend in organizational
resilience. Finally, the theory selected for the purpose of developing a theoretical framework for this
study was chosen based on four organizational resilience strategies that were inspired by Hillmann
and Guenther (2021) that is, organizational flexibility, organizational change capacity,
organizational adaptive capacity and organizational buffering capacity. This theoretical framework
was applied in restaurants to test its effectiveness during crisis management and finally developed a
tested organizational resilience framework.
2.1 Crisis Management
Crisis management has been defined by Markman (2020) as the practice of preparing for negative
occurrences, reducing their potential to damage or disrupt, and bringing the organization back on the
right track as rapidly as possible. By this definition, organizational resilience qualifies to be a relevant
practice for crisis management as it is defined by Hillmann and Guenther (2021) who considered
organizational resilience as a process of how firms handle difficult situations to achieve a favorable
result as observed during this research. Thus, restaurants implemented several measures to avoid
disruption of their businesses from Covid-19 crisis. Mitroff et al (1987) noted in their article how
managers, consultants as well as researchers traditionally only dedicated their expertise on problems
related to firm financial performance (profitability) and growth. As a result of this, the researchers
considered the need for organizational resilience in crisis management. Mitroff et al (1987)
recommended management to follow some phases and steps necessary for crisis management as
shown by Figure 1 below. The framework was applied empirically so as to determine how sit-in
restaurants planned to resolve crisis. With the nature of Covid-19 crisis, managers abandoned the
steps and phases contributed by Mitroff et al (1987) in which crisis management plans were no longer
followed. Such being the case, organizational resilience capabilities to sail through the crisis enabled
some restaurants to survive. The phases referred to in Mitroff et al (1987) crisis management detailed
how management could effectively come out of a crisis if properly followed. According to Mitroff et
al (1987), Figure 1 highlight some common phases which are followed in crisis management.
6Detection involves environmental scanning, monitoring and control mechanisms to manage crisis.
The sloping sides have been marked prevention/ preparation to indicate that it is a difficult situation
that requires planning. Phase 2 represents that not all organizations can be in a position to manage
crisis, but with constant revising of plans, the organization might be able to cope with crises. Phase
three represent managerial plans that are implemented in order to guide the process of recovery. Phase
four is about how an organization learns from previous crises and apply that knowledge in its crisis
handling strategies. Therefore, Figure 1 was vital in providing basic knowledge about how
restaurants managed crisis. This was later analyzed in Chapter 5
Figure 1: Steps and Phases of Crisis Management
Mitroff et al (1987)
The negative consequences of crises on organizational activities were treated as minor "externalities"
of production (Mitroff et al 1987). Nowadays, crises such as pollution, natural disasters, and Covid-
19 pandemic have caused a lot of extensive damages and loss thereby inevitably leading to changes
in lifestyle, organizational performance and structures, bad reputation and so forth. Therefore,
managers use their capabilities to achieve organizational resilience and this concept has become a
buzz word in organizational crisis management. Mitroff et al (1987) argued that a crisis is grave, it
is beyond the capability of managers, researchers, and consultants to prevent or let alone predict
when, how and where managerial skills will be effective or lead to effective recovery from the crisis.
7However, in the face of the current Covid-19 crisis, restaurant managers’ skills are rendered
ineffective if there is lack of resilience. This research will assess capabilities of managers to achieve
organizational resilience in crisis management.
Crisis management according to Parson (1996) is considered as unexpected happening. The article
highlighted the need to plan towards crisis by coming up with an uncondensed scenario planning and
devising moldable plans. The aim of the article was to present comprehensive information about the
crisis and relate it to experience with the purpose to help managers devise a self-crisis management
strategy. Lack of experience by restaurant management was observed to increase challenges in
managing crises during research. Further, Parson (1996) emphasizes crisis management as a blend of
‘common sense and experience’ which involves oneself and that of others within a given period of
time. The article concluded by highlighting some of the dos and don'ts of crisis management thereby
helping the authors to be well equipped with relevant knowledge about crisis management and make
well informed arguments.
Additionally, Mitroff et al (1987 p. 283) focused on corporate crises which are “precipitated by
people, organizational structures, economic or technology that cause extensive damage to human life
and the natural and social environment’’. Examples of such crises are what happened in 1982 whereby
Tylenol capsules were polluted with cyanide resulting in the death of eight (8) persons and about
$100 million lost in property (Mitroff et al 1987); and in 1984, due to a leakage of methyl carbide in
India, 3000 people lost their lives whilst about 300,000 more were injured (Mitroff et al 1987). Since
unexpected occurrences are on the rise, for example Covid-19 crisis, Mitroff et al (1987) aimed at
helping management and organizations to assume definite and organized ways in dealing effectively
with crises. This research noted how difficult it was to prepare for something that is unknown in terms
of how it will happen and how it will end, especially Covid-19 crisis. Regester (1993) also explained
that crises in companies can be of varied nature ranging from government legislation, market
disasters, fraud etc. The article pinpointed that the central to crisis management is expectancy,
‘planning, preparation and training’ (Regester 1993).
Gilpin and Murphy (2008) acknowledged that in 2003, almost 60 million residents in North American
and south of Canada had a blackout which resulted in a commotion such as looting, and this
contributed to profitability loss amounting to $12 billion. This is among the three crises set aside in
this article which brings out one key point, that is, the impact of crisis takes years to avert or might
even be impossible to avert, for example Covid-19 crisis. The article further stressed that, to help
lessen the impact of crisis, the role of eventuality, and uncertainty need to be critically considered
(Gilpin and Murphy 2008). A crisis requires collaborative efforts to prevent the impact. In restaurants,
8however, a research study helped to investigate different organizational resilience strategies adopted
and how effective they have contributed towards survival of restaurants from the impact of Covid-19
crisis. Therefore, organizational resilience strategies became fundamental to provide learning points
to bounce back from crisis.
2.2 Organizational Resilience Definition
Organizational resilience has been defined by Powley and Caza (2020 p. 36) as “an openness to
experience, learning identity, social support, flexibility, continuous improvement and international
focus. On another hand, Bell (2020) defined resilience as the ability of an organization to chance and
adapt in order to handle challenges. It is believed that if an organization is capable of handling
changing circumstances, unfavorable situations or disruptive situations, the organization is
considered to be resilient. Lengnick-Hall, Beck and Lengnick-Hall (2011 p. 244) also defined
resilience as ‘a firm’s ability to effectively absorb, develop situation-specific responses to and
ultimately engage in transformative activities to capitalize on disruptive surprises that potentially
threaten organizational survival’. The most recent definition of resilience comes from Hillmann and
Guenther (2021) who defined it as a process of how firms attempt to handle difficult situations to
achieve a favorable result. Sun, Buys, Wang and McAuley (2011 p. 185) on the other hand views
resilience as ‘a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of entrepreneurial functioning after
a crisis, disturbance, or challenge’. Werner et al (2021) describe organizational resilience as the
dynamic capability of a firm that strongly relies on its stakeholders to counteract sudden changes
from the external environment. Additionally, Werner et al (2021) also recommended a proactive
attitude as a panacea for responding to changes and also that there is a need for the firm to be flexible
and innovative. The definition by Werner et al (2021 p. 51) highlighted some key phrases worth
noting such as ‘adapt’; ‘proactive attitude’ and ‘flexible and innovativeness’ depicting the importance
of acquiring knowledge from the peripheral environment and the ability to adapt and contribute to
how resilient an organization will be. That same article identified two distinct ways that help to make
an organization resilient, namely, differentiable and flexibility to change (Werner et al 2021). The
approach used was studying two distinct companies on how their non-financial Key Performance
Indicators create resilience in the two companies. The outcome of the study was aimed to help
managers to build a strong and solidified organizational resilience. In agreement to Werner et al
(2021) definition of organizational resilience, Gittell et al (2006) concurred that organizational
resilience is about a dynamic capacity in relation to how adaptable the organization is with the passing
of time and their desire to progress. The adaptability of sit-in restaurants was noted during research
to determine survival during crisis situations depending on the resilience capabilities of managers.
9After considering the different definitions of organizational resilience mentioned above, this research
analyzed them to create a deeper understanding of resilience concept. Some common elements that
characterize organizational resilience were noted and this improved the level of the researchers’
understanding. In sum, organizational resilience refers to the ability of an organization to respond to
changing situations. Such situations include uncertainty, unexpected occurrences or surprises,
turbulent environments, climatic changes, disruptive situations such as terrorism, cyber-attacks,
pandemics etc.
2.2.1 Levels of Organizational Resilience
Further theories have revealed that resilience can take place at various levels, that is, individual levels
through psychological contracts of employees with the organization, (McCoy and Elwood 2009). It
is believed that this forms the antecedent of organizational resilience as this depends on how
employees are treated and that determines how they perceive organizational resilience. Another level
of organizational resilience revealed in the theory is the collective levels e.g. group of employees
and in teams (Hillmann and Guenther, 2021). From the analysis, it was realized that there should be
a convergence of resilience between the organization and its employees in order to achieve desirable
outcomes from organizational resilience (Coutu 2002; Horne 1997). Tasic et al (2020) contended
that there is reciprocal connection between crisis management and organizational resilience at various
levels. The levels can be individual, organizational and environmental. Tasic et al (2020) approach
of study included examining a security company using multilevel framework. It was concluded that
levels of organizational resilience function in four stages namely, evaluating and observing the
environment, assessing readiness, analyzing reactions, and finally, reinforcing capabilities. All the
above-mentioned stages demand constant incorporation of vigorous practices in an organization as
well as collaborating with its peripheral environment to ensure solid organizational resilience, (Tasic
et al 2020).
2.2.2 Approaches to Organizational Resilience
Driven by many academic debates, triggered by the concept of resilience leading to disagreements
regarding definitions of resilience, contexts in which organizational resilience takes place as well as
its managerial implications, Darkow (2019) reviewed and summarized current literature on resilience
to increase understanding on the notion of organizational resilience. Darkow (2019) reveals two
dominating paradigms of organizational resilience, that is, firstly, a plan to “Resist Approach” and
secondly, “Containing Crisis Approach”. Challenges associated with each one of these approaches
were examined in relation to organizational resilience. Suggestions to achieve an increased approach
to organizational resilience were put forward. This formed the outcome of the review in which some
various measures to achieve organizational resilience were suggested based on stages of crises,
(Williams, Gruber, Sutcliffe, Shepherd and Zhao 2017). A conclusion was reached that resilience “is
10no longer limited to bouncing back, but rather opens up a wide range of opportunities to achieve a
new normal” (Darkow 2019 p.151). Looking closely at the conclusion drawn by Darkow (2019), this
thesis observes a critique of traditional view of organizational resilience thereby introducing a
transition in organizational resilience from traditional approaches to new resilience approaches.
A study carried out by Ahern (2011) noted that a traditional view departs from recovery based on
internal features of an organization that allows it to recuperate from a threat-based environment. To
compound on this, Mithani (2020) also emphasized that internal characteristics make the system “safe
to fail”. A theoretical foundation contributed by Mithani (2020) provides a vital forum that leads to
promotion of increased managerial responsiveness to unexpected changes in the organizational
environment. What was understood from Mithani (2020) review was that some important themes
were distinguished. These were noted as the need for resilience during life-threatening events,
economic and technological threats. Modes of resilience such as avoidance, absorption, elasticity,
learning, and rejuvenation in a static or dynamic environment were observed. However, this shows
that organizational resilience rests upon the internal capability of the firm whilst perception of the
external is necessary to identify emergent gaps in internal capabilities Mithani (2020). It was further
argued that a capability that is exclusive and core to the firm, resilience leads to interface between a
firm and its external environment as it provides an ongoing process of protection, assessment, and
improvement, (Mithani 2020). An alternative perspective of organizational resilience explored by
Mithani (2020) has to do with adaptation. Adaptation is the core of every organization in terms of
economic and technological revolutions. Adaptation aid in dealing with exceptional variations in the
peripheral environment and Mithani (2020) proposes the use of adaptation in crises like pandemics,
terrorist attacks, and the likes. Whilst past researches only associated adaption to menaces in
technology and economics, Mithani (2020) associated adaptation to crisis such as severe occurrences.
To put more emphasis on Mithani (2020) theoretical arguments on adaptability, Weick (1993)
proposes that adaptation is not only about adapting to the peripheral environment, but encompasses
inventiveness, action and goal oriented (Kantur and Say 2015; Weick 1993). In contrast to these
theoretical conclusions, emphasis has been placed on adaptation as a way of building resilience for
crisis management. Tasic et al (2020) and Bundy et al (2017) proposed organizational culture and
structure as a key element to responding to crisis.
Given all these theoretical arguments on organizational resilience above, the researchers’
understanding was augmented in relation to how the internal characteristics of an organization
contribute to organizational survival during crises thereby stressing the importance of managerial
capabilities. Furthermore, resilience stresses the manner on how organizations make use of their
11internal resources in the form of capabilities. Thus, this research study used these theoretical
foundations to establish how restaurants adopted their resilience capabilities. A further analysis of
theory on organizational resilience by (Hillmann and Guenther 2021) recommended the development
of empirical measurement of organizational resilience which is what this research seeks to do.
Additionally, the examination of previous theories has shown that there is a lack of conceptualization
and measurement of this concept thereby making it difficult for organizations to improve or determine
their resilience capabilities because it is not clear how resilience level can be measured. This
contribution from Hillmann and Guenther (2021) has triggered this research which seeks to study the
similarities and differences in the applicability of concepts which form the backbone of organizational
resilience. By carrying out this research study, a contribution to organizational theory will be made
through assessing effectiveness of resilience strategies used in crisis management by restaurant
managers. However, the ability of an organization to be resilient rests upon the capability of an
organization’s management to adopt strategies that enable it to recover from a difficult situation.
According to Hillmann and Guenther (2021), organizational resilience strategies can improve how a
firm implements all domains necessary to adapt to a crisis. Below is a conceptual model contributed
by Hillmann and Guenther (2021) indicating some important conceptual factors embedded in the way
an organization operates to recover from crises. Figure 2 was suggested by Hillman and Guenther
(2021). The figure shows six domains that are of primary importance in organizational resilience with
stability domain as the most critical. From conceptual analysis that was made, organizational
recovery, renewal and adaptation are distinguished to achieve evolvement in an organization. The
model emphasizes that organizational resilience should be aimed at achieving organizational growth.
Three first-order constructs that is, cognitive; structural and emotional resources were distinguished
as vital in achieving organizational creativity. Last but not least, cause indicators such as resilience
behaviors, resilience capabilities and resilience resources were described as essential in determining
organizational resilience response which in turn determine organizational resilience. In sum, this will
result in organizational growth and learning (Hillmann and Guenther, 2021). All things considered;
this research investigated the way in which restaurants evolved during crisis taking into consideration
factors suggested in Figure 2 below.
12Figure 2: Conceptual Model by Hillmann and Guenther (2021)
This thesis further identified four categories of resilience strategies that were applied and tested in
restaurants to determine how they assisted in overcoming the negative effects of crises. These
resilience strategies are further examined in the next section.
2.3 Categories of Organizational Resilience Strategies
2.3.1 Organizational Flexibility
According to Hatum and Pettigrew (2004 p. 239) organizational flexibility was defined as “‘a
combination of a repertoire of organizational and managerial capabilities that allow organizations to
adapt quickly under environmental shifts”. In their article, Hatum and Pettigrew (2004) studied the
processes in which organizations adapt and compete in an emerging economy in Argentina in the
1990s given the prevailing competitive environment. Organizational adaptation is a term defined by
Tolimson (1976 p. 533) as “the ability of an organization to change itself, or the way in which it
behaves, in order to survive in the face of external changes that were not predicted in any precise way
when the organization was designed”. These external changes are considered to be of high velocity
(Eisenhardt 1989) and at the same time hypercompetitive (D’Aveni 1994). However, the speed of
changes in the external environment calls for organizations to be flexible and adaptive. March (1995)
emphasized the importance of organizational adaptation and argued that if an organization fails to
adapt it will eventually collapse. Hatum and Pettigrew (2004) cites examples of how indigenous
organizations collapsed as a result of the 2001 devaluation crisis which was compounded by lack of
trust of national institutions in Argentina as reported in Economist (2002). Hatum and Pettigrew’s
(2004) objective in their study was to establish the factors determining a firm’s flexibility and to have
13a clear picture about why some firms are more flexible than others. Methods of data collection were
in-depth interviews, analysis of documentaries, quantitative methods to analyze statistical data and
archival material analysis. The findings of the study were that determinants of organizational
flexibility were related to new management coming from a different industry, firm’s rapport with
peers, and nature of decision-making process as well as ability to implement strategies.
After considering the definitions of flexibility cited above, this research study assessed the similarities
and differences in the application of flexibility strategies in restaurants in Sweden in response to
changing situations arising from the external environmental shifts emanating from crises such as
Covid-19 crisis. In Chapter Five (5) further analysis of literature and empirical results in relation to
flexibility strategies adopted by managers of restaurants.
2.3.2 Organizational Adaptive Capacity
Staber and Sydow (2002) outlined adaptive capacity as the quest that stimulates the way in which an
organization copes with disturbances arising from uncertainty and unpredictable changes. However,
Staber and Sydow (2002) argued on Chakravarthy (1982) views on adaptive capacity as the procedure
of information diffusion and dissemination capability of an organization. Adaptive capacity is not the
same as adaptation. Adaptive capacity implies the capacity to deal and face with unspecified future
occurrences while on the other hand, adaptation denotes the attitude employed to increase suitability
in present situations. Adaptive capacity is distinct from adaptation as it enables probing and learning
from their surroundings stressing on ‘double -loop learning’ (Staber and Sydow 2002). Staber and
Sydow (2002) pinpointed that organizations with the presence of adaptive capacity react rapidly to
unstable environments in contrast to just making use of organizations’ available resources. Also,
organizations with the presence of adaptive capacity are very reactive to their surroundings.
The use of adaptive capacity has its own problems resulting from the complex nature of ‘adaptive
work’ (Eichholz 2014). Eichholz (2014), explored in what way organization can succeed in a volatile
environment. The research highlighted that organizations' approach to crises differ contingent on the
presence of adaptive capacity within the organization that is whether large or small. The more
presence of adaptive capacity, the more efficient and effective an organization engages in ‘adaptive
work’ resulting in higher increase in adaptive capacity (Eichholz 2014). Eichholz (2014) asserted that
organizations need to employ experiential learning, but however, these organizations cannot regulate
the experiential learning due to volatility of the environment, yet for organizations to succeed and
adapt to the environment in times of crisis underpin the presence of adaptive capacity.
Eichholz (2014) suggested that for an organization to pursue a higher level of adaptive capacity, these
five elements are crucial namely; first, adaptive capacity flowing from solidifying the core
environment. Secondly, people with purpose whereby it was observed that an organization increases
14You can also read
