The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Organizational resilience, job Effects of

organizational
satisfaction and resilience

business performance
Ilse Maria Beuren
Post-Graduate Accounting Program, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Florian
opolis, Brazil Received 18 March 2021
Revised 15 July 2021
Vanderlei dos Santos Accepted 9 August 2021

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Ibirama, Brazil, and

Viviane Theiss
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian
opolis, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to analyze the effects of organizational resilience on job satisfaction and business
performance in companies that have undergone corporate reorganizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey was carried out on a sample of 102 executives and managers
from Brazilian companies that underwent corporate reorganization. The structural equation modeling (SEM)
technique was used to test the hypotheses.
Findings – The results indicate that organizational resilience influences business performance (in the
dimensions of economy-financial, customers and processes/learning) and job satisfaction (in the dimensions of
financial and personal benefits). However, the relations between job satisfaction and business performance
were partial, indicating that satisfaction can affect performance through other variables.
Research limitations/implications – The main study implication lies on the empirical immersion
regarding the effects of active organizational resilience on multi-faceted business performance, to the detriment
of only the financial view and on job satisfaction.
Practical implications – The distinct effects of resilience on business performance and job satisfaction
provide managers with insight into how to allocate resources, in order to benefit the interests of both employer
and employee.
Originality/value – This is one of the first studies to provide empirical evidence of the effects of active
organizational resilience on multi-dimensional business performance. The results provide new insights into
this relationship and may clarify divergent results found in the literature. It also provides evidence of the effects
of active organizational resilience on job satisfaction in companies that have undergone corporate
reorganizations, events that are supposed to require resilient skills.
Keywords Organizational resilience, Resilience capability, Job satisfaction, Business performance,
Corporate reorganization
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The term resilience is used in various areas of knowledge and refers to an element’s capacity
and ability to return to a stable state after an interruption (Bhamra et al., 2011). In the
organizational domain, it refers to the organization’s ability to face unexpected turbulences
and events in advance, due to strategic awareness and operational management associated
with internal and external shocks (Annarelli and Nonino, 2016). From an active perspective,
organizational resilience is understood as the company’s ability to absorb complexities and
emerge from a challenging situation with a greater repertoire of actions that is stronger than
International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
This paper has benefited from the helpful comments of anonymous reviewers. Financial support (Bolsa Management
PQ) from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient
ıfico e Tecnol
ogico - CNPq) is gratefully acknowledged. DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2021-0158
IJPPM it was before the disturbing event (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). Therefore, it is a desirable
feature of the organization and its members in order to tackle various types of adversities
(Linnenluecke, 2017; Beuren and Santos, 2019).
The literature recommends that the resilience capability influences organizational
performance. It is argued that resilient companies outperform non-resilient companies, since
organizational resilience promotes effective responses to environmental change; supports the
development of various types of organizational capabilities (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011) and
allows organizations to manage disruptive challenges and thrive in times of crisis (Lee et al.,
2013). However, there are studies that have not found a direct relation to performance (e.g.
Hallak et al., 2018) in some of them resilience affected performance through other variables,
such as product innovation (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014) and managers’ self-efficacy (Hallak
et al., 2018), and others found a direct relationship (Li et al., 2017; Yang and Hsu, 2018). In these
studies, performance was portrayed in a unidimensional way, where economic-financial
performance has prevailed (Acquaah et al., 2011; Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014; Li et al., 2017),
except Yang and Hsu (2018), which focused on operational performance. Yet, the literature
recognizes that performance is a multi-dimensional concept, showing financial and non-
financial dimensions (Bisbe and Otley, 2004; L
opez-Nicol
as and Merono-Cerd
an, 2011).
The literature also highlights that the capacity for organizational resilience influences
individual attitudes and behaviors (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Annarelli and Nonino, 2016;
Linnenluecke, 2017), such as job satisfaction. Nevertheless, surveys (e.g. Jung and Yoon, 2015;
Meneghel et al., 2016) examining the effects of resilience on job satisfaction have focused on
individual resilience. Yet, collective perceptions and the organizational environment can influence
individual job attitudes (Meneghel et al., 2016). Varshney and Varshney (2017) investigated
resilience and performance at the individual level but considered resilience as a personality trait.
In view of the research gaps observed, this study analyzes the effects of organizational
resilience on job satisfaction (in the dimensions of financial and personal benefits) and business
performance (in the dimensions of economic-financial, customers and processes/learning) in
companies that have undergone corporate reorganizations. Corporate reorganization requires
adaptation, so that all those involved can overcome the discomfort resulting from change and
legitimize the new ties of operation, control and command (Koerniadi et al., 2015). In order to
overcome it and resume its normal operations, the company needs to create and increase
organizational resilience capabilities. Thus, a theoretical model was designed and tested by
means of structural equations, which was based on a survey carried out with managers from
Brazilian companies that underwent some corporate reorganization process.
The study contributes to the literature mainly in three ways. First, it presents new
evidence on the relationship of organizational resilience with job satisfaction and business
performance, which has shown conflicting results in the literature. Second, although previous
research postulated the effect of resilience on performance, they ignored its multi-dimensional
concept. Thus, this research expands the understanding of the effects of organizational
resilience capacity on business performance, considering performance beyond the financial
perspective. The study results provide new insights into this relationship and may clarify the
divergent results in the literature. Third, the study investigates the effects of organizational
resilience on job satisfaction, whereas previous research has focused on individual resilience.
Although job satisfaction reflects an assessment of individual experiences, it is likely to be
affected by the environment where people work (Meneghel et al., 2016). Thus, this research
provides clues about the extent to which organizational resilience affects managers’ job
satisfaction, which, in turn, is reflected in organizational results.
From a practical viewpoint, research can help companies to design policies and strategies
to develop resilience, to achieve greater job satisfaction and greater performance in the
dimensions of economic-financial, customers and processes/learning. More specifically, the
research presents insights in its field of investigation, considering companies that have gone
through corporate reorganization processes. Previous research on resilience and performance Effects of
considered the context of luxury restaurants (Hallak et al., 2018), the product innovation organizational
process (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014), supply chains (Li et al., 2017) and scenarios of economic
recession (Lampel et al., 2014). In cases of corporate reorganization, it is normal to have wear
resilience
and tear by those involved, renegotiations, conferences, agreements, implementation of new
controls, training, hiring/dismissals, among other aspects that involve changes (Koerniadi
et al., 2015), which require developing of active organizational resilience.
The next section provides a literature review on organizational resilience and its links to
multi-dimensional business performance and multi-faceted job satisfaction in order to
support the research hypotheses. In section 3, the study method is specified, which implies a
description of the measures used and data collection. Section 4 presents the empirical
research results. Section 5 discusses the results. Finally, section 6 brings the conclusions,
implications and opportunities for further research.

2. Literature review and research hypotheses

Resilience is a multi-disciplinary and multi-faceted concept (Bhamra et al., 2011), it has a series
of interpretations in a wide variety of research fields (Annarelli and Nonino, 2016). Although
the ideas and measures of resilience vary between studies, usually resilience refers to the
capacity and potential of an element to resume its normal condition after the occurrence of an
event that disturbs its state (Bhamra et al., 2011; Hosseini et al., 2016). Horne and Orr (1998,
p. 31) define resilience as “a key quality of people, groups, organizations, and systems as a
whole to respond productively to the significant change that disturbs the expected pattern of
events without being involved in a long regressive behavior period.”
At the organizational level, resilience refers to the need for companies to respond to a
rapidly changing business environment (Hosseini et al., 2016). According to Chewning et al.
(2012), organizational resilience refers to the organization’s ability to repair old practices and
introduce new practices when old ones are no longer feasible. Linnenluecke (2017) sees
organizational resilience as the organization’s ability to recover from adverse events and
maintain desirable functions and results in the midst of tension. There are several similarities
in the definitions of organizational resilience, which are reflected in words like adaptation,
recovery, resisting major disturbances, absorbing changes and disturbances, adjusting and
maintaining functions and structures (Hosseini et al., 2016). Notwithstanding over the years,
the concept of resilience applied to organizations has taken on a deeper meaning (Annarelli
and Nonino, 2016) and a proactive capability.
From this perspective, the concept of organizational resilience goes beyond restoration to
include the introduction of new capabilities and an increased ability to monitor and even
create new opportunities (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Beuren and Santos, 2019). In the present
study, this expanded the conception of organizational resilience, from its active perspective,
which is adopted as a major factor that allows a company to leverage its resources and
capabilities not only to solve current dilemmas, but also to explore opportunities. However,
Linnenluecke (2017) warns that the operationalization of resilience is an issue that has not yet
been tackled by the literature, as there are various classification and measurement systems.
Also, little attention has been paid to the consequences of organizational resilience (Akg€ un
and Keskin, 2014) and to the active perspective of organizational resilience.

2.1 Effects of organizational resilience on business performance

Resilience contributes to performance in usual organizational and crisis situations, since
people, groups and/or organizations manage and adapt to uncertainty (Lee et al., 2013). Faced
with an internal or external impact, the resilience capability allows the organization to reduce
the impact of an interruption by proactively activating strategies to react while recovering
IJPPM (Yang and Hsu, 2018). Kwak et al. (2018) explain that organizational resilience allows
companies to reformulate processes and respond properly to the new environment. This
implies that organizational resilience has the potential to improve the organization’s
operational performance (Yang and Hsu, 2018).
Resilience enables companies to proactively respond to changing market demand and
disruption in the face of their competitors (Lam and Bai, 2016). Acquaah et al. (2011) found
that companies, when faced with increased competition and changes in customer
preferences, began to fulfill promises of delivery with greater agility, while others began
to emphasize flexibility by adjusting their capacity, mix and product design. They also
noticed that a key mechanism for achieving resilience consists in establishing financial
reserves that enable the company to deal with unforeseen events. According to Yang and Hsu
(2018), enhancing resilience capability can (1) improve the quality of companies’ products or
services, (2) meet customers’ needs and (3) improve operational efficiency, which leads to
higher performance.
Therefore, resilience is a major factor for long-term performance of an organization (Lam
and Bai, 2016) in the dimensions of economic-financial, customers and processes/learning, as
organizational resilience allows companies in the face of an occasional crisis, turbulence and/
or adversity: (1) absorb changes and resume balance (Annarelli and Nonino, 2016); (2) take
proactive measures and create new business opportunities (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014); (3)
prioritize contacts with suppliers and strategic alliances to ensure the necessary resources to
support adaptive initiatives (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011); (4) have the necessary ability to adapt
to internal and external environment requirements (Bhamra et al., 2011); (5) be able to
improvise without drastically affecting the economic-financial results (Chewning et al., 2012);
(6) make investments before they are needed, in order to ensure that the company can benefit
from situations that emerge (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011) and (7) flexibly monitor what has been
happening around them (Lee et al., 2013).
Yang and Hsu (2018) found that resilience capability is positioned as a dynamic ability and
it has a positive impact on operational performance. On the other hand, Akg€ un and Keskin
(2014) found that product innovation mediates the relationship between organizational
resilience and company performance. Li et al. (2017) found that the three dimensions of
resilience analyzed (preparedness, alertness and agility) in the supply chain significantly
affected the companies’ financial performances. The authors identified that supply chain
preparation, as a proactive resilience capability, has a greater influence on a company’s
financial performance than reactive capabilities, including alertness and agility, something
which suggests that companies should pay closer attention to proactive approaches to
building supply chain resilience.
Given the theoretical arguments above and the empirical evidence introduced, the first
research hypothesis proposed was as follows:
H1. Organizational resilience has a direct and positive effect on business performance.

2.2 Effects of organizational resilience on job satisfaction

Job satisfaction represents a pleasant emotional state resulting from individual assessment of
job experience (Locke, 1969). It is a dynamic construction that changes in response to personal
and environmental conditions (Westover and Taylor, 2010). The crucial role of the
organizational context in the formation of individual attitudes and behaviors in the
workplace is increasingly recognized (Halkos and Bousinakis, 2010; Meneghel et al., 2016).
People are not isolated players in the workplace, but their perceptions, feelings and behaviors
are influenced by their interactions with the organizational environment (Meneghel et al.,
2016). Westover and Taylor (2010) observed that organizational factors are responsible for
more variations in job satisfaction than personal traits.
 Individual job satisfaction is likely to be influenced by organizational resilience. Effects of
According to the literature, resilient organizations thrive even under uncertain, unstable, organizational
adverse and surprising conditions (Bhamra et al., 2011; Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014;
Linnenluecke, 2017). Organizational resilience capability involves preparing social and
resilience
intellectual capital in order to ensure long-term success in organizations (Lampel et al., 2014).
Resilience capability increases individual knowledge, skills and technical capabilities and
their behavioral repercussions (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014). Thus, organizational resilience
allows people to effectively deal with challenges, while achieving their goals, something
which leads to job satisfaction (Varshney and Varshney, 2017).
Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005) and Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) argue that a resilient
company (1) manages unexpected interruptions and events to shorten unfavorable outcomes;
(2) acknowledges contributions that favor a collective mindset among people in the
organization, such as experience, opportunism and creation; (3) encourages decision-making
by people within the organization, despite uncertainty; (4) enables the acquisition of new
skills, such as the ability to follow a different course of action than what is the standard; (5)
encourages learning and innovation and (6) widely shares information and knowledge, and
the workplace is also perceived as favorable to taking interpersonal risks.
It is conjectured that such organizational policies and practices to contribute for
individuals to perceive the workplace as an environment favorable to using and improving
their abilities, expressing their skills and acquiring competences, something which leads
them to reach a higher satisfaction level. Organizational resilience allows people to better
cope with a variety of situations, improving optimism and making them more engaged and
satisfied in their workplace (Hallak et al., 2018). Interaction with people contributes to a
pleasant organizational climate, with reflections in the relationships between colleagues and
perhaps with satisfaction in terms of financial benefits, as their skills can be improved during
an occasional turbulence (Beuren et al., 2020). Lampel et al. (2014) warn that building
interpersonal bonds between employees and the organization is a must to deal with crises.
Research studies like Jung and Yoon (2015), Meneghel et al. (2016) and Varshney and
Varshney (2017) observed that resilience was positive and significantly related to job
satisfaction. Although these studies have addressed individual resilience, Annarelli and
Nonino (2016) add that they are a starting point for constituting resilient organizations, since
the actions and interactions between organization members favor the emergence of resilience
as a collective capability. Thus, it is expected that people are more satisfied when they realize
that the organization easily adapts to changing environments, recovers from adversity and
constantly seeks innovative business solutions. The arguments and evidence presented here
lead to the second research hypothesis proposal as follows:
H2. Organizational resilience has a direct and positive effect on job satisfaction.

2.3 Effects of job satisfaction on business performance

Most previous research on job satisfaction and performance focused on individual
performance (Meli
an-Gonz
alez et al., 2015). More recent studies address the relationship
between job satisfaction and organizational performance and the results are not congruent.
Some studies have found positive associations between job satisfaction and organizational
performance, while others have found no statistically significant correlations between these
two variables (Bakoti
c, 2016). Although this relationship is not fully resolved in the literature,
job satisfaction is a key factor in sustaining productivity (Meneghel et al., 2016; Varshney and
Varshney, 2017), with repercussions on business performance.
Ogbonnaya and Valizade (2018) highlight that people represent a rare and inimitable asset
that the organization may have to perform better than its competitors. According to Gul et al.
(2018), job satisfaction enables some improvement in the execution of activities, with
IJPPM beneficial consequences for business performance. Halkos and Bousinakis (2010) found that
productivity is seriously affected by stress and satisfaction, with increased stress leading to
reduced productivity and increased satisfaction leading to increased productivity. Katou
(2017) pointed out that to improve operational performance, organizations need to use
practices that improve job satisfaction. Satisfied people engage in collaborative behaviors,
feel more motivated to work toward organizational goals (Meli
an-Gonz
alez et al., 2015) and
follow the discretionary behaviors necessary to achieve higher organizational performance
(Ogbonnaya and Valizade, 2018).
Bakoti
c (2016) analyzed the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
performance in 40 large and mid-sized Croatian companies. Performance was analyzed by
having economic-financial indicators as a basis, such as return on equity, earnings before
taxes per employee, revenue per employee, among others. The results showed statistically
significant positive correlations between job satisfaction and some financial indicators of
organizational performance, but the association intensity was weak. It was concluded that it
is job satisfaction that determines organizational performance, and not the other way around.
Meli
an-Gonz
alez et al. (2015) also focused on the financial perspective for analyzing business
performance. However, job satisfaction was captured in its general aspect and by facets. The
results showed that general satisfaction had a positive influence on all performance
indicators, while in the analysis by facets not all were associated with the indicators analyzed.
Baird and Su (2018) examined, among other aspects, the association between the use of
multi-dimensional performance measures (financial, customer, learning and growth and
internal business processes) and organizational performance. Although the literature has
primarily applied an aggregate measure of organizational performance, the study results
provide insight into how the use of multi-dimensional performance measures can improve
organizational performance. In general, they point out that the organization can consider
financial and non-financial measures to improve organizational performance.
The results of these studies and the arguments previously put forward provide evidence
that job satisfaction has an effect on better organizational performance. From this
perspective, the third research hypothesis proposed was as follows:
H3. Job satisfaction has a direct and positive effect on business performance.
Figure 1 shows the theoretical research model and the hypotheses proposed by having the
theoretical framework as a basis.
In line with Figure 1, the hypotheses indicate that organizational resilience, analyzed from
an active perspective (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011), reflects on business performance, measured
by economic-financial performance, customers and processes/learning and on job
satisfaction, measured by satisfaction with financial and personal benefits (Walton, 1973)
in complex moments (Bisbe and Otley, 2004; L
opez-Nicol
as and Merono-Cerd
an, 2011), just as
in the case of corporate reorganizations. Furthermore, the elements of job satisfaction are
reflected in the attributes of business performance.

Job Satisfaction
H2

Organizational
Resilience
H3
H1
Figure 1.
Theoretical model and Business
research hypotheses Performance
3. Methods and procedures Effects of
3.1 Sample selection and data collection organizational
A survey was conducted with managers of the companies listed on the stock exchange Brasil,
Bolsa, Balc~ao (B3), selected for making the management report and explanatory notes
resilience
available to the public, which are documents presumed to contain information on corporate
reorganizations (acquisition, merger or split), events considered to analyze resilience. Out of
the 737 listed companies, financial institutions were initially excluded due to their
peculiarities and, consequently, differences in accounting information. For the remaining
419 companies, it was verified whether there was any corporate reorganization process
within the period from 2014 to 2016, and 92 companies were found. The managers of these
companies were identified via the network of professional profiles LinkedIn.
The filter in a LinkedIn Premium account came from these terms as follows: (1) general
director, executive director (chief executive officer [CEO]); (2) chief financial officer (chief
financial officer [CFO]); (3) managers responsible for controllership (controllers) and (4)
managers from other organizational areas. It is worth noticing that respondents were not part
of the researcher’s LinkedIn profile and did not even know them. After the managers accepted
the invitations to join the researcher’s social media, the link to the research instrument was
forwarded. Respondents were also assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their
responses. Among the 1,813 invitations sent on the network LinkedIn, 910 were accepted, but
only 484 people viewed the questionnaire available on the platform QuestionPro and only 105
answered the questionnaire. As three respondents did not authorize the use of their data, the
final sample consisted in 102 valid responses.
The demographic profile shows that most respondents were men (98%), the average age
was 45 years (SD 9.79), and the average length of time working in the company was
approximately 8 years (SD 8.70). Among the positions or functions in the company, those of
CEO (33%), controllers (25%) and CFO (12%) stood out. Regarding education, 16.7% have an
undergraduate degree, 58.8% have an MBA, 19.6% have a Master’s degree and 4.9% have a
PhD. The average length of time the respondents occupy these positions in the organization is
approximately five years (SD 6.93). As for the type of corporate reorganization that took place
in the company, 41.2% of respondents reported acquisitions, 27.4% incorporations, 16.7%
mergers and 14.7% splits.
A t-test for independent samples was performed to check the non-response bias, which did
not show significant differences between the initial and late respondents for all constructs in
this study (p values ranged from 0.079 to 0.423, single-tailed test).

3.2 Measurement of variables

The study used three main constructs: organizational resilience, job satisfaction and business
performance. Job satisfaction was analyzed through two latent variables (satisfaction with
financial benefits and personal satisfaction) and performance was analyzed by means of three
latent variables (economic-financial performance, customer performance and process/
learning performance). The Appendix provides the variables and the respective statements,
with descriptive statistics (mean value and standard deviation [SD]). Each latent variable was
measured using multiple items, with statements on a Likert scale or a seven-point semantic
differential.
Organizational resilience was measured through three central elements: cognitive skills,
behavioral traits and contextual conditions. In line with the theoretical study by Lengnick-
Hall et al. (2011), 26 statements were made in which respondents were asked to indicate their
degree of agreement, considering a seven-point scale, which varied between 1 5 strongly
disagree and 7 5 strongly agree. For instance, Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011, p. 245) claim that
several cognitive factors can contribute to create organizational resilience: “firms can foster a
IJPPM positive, constructive conceptual orientation through a strong sense of purpose, core values, a
genuine vision, and a deliberate use of language.” Based on this description, three statements
were made: (1) our company has a strong sense of purpose, core values and genuine vision;
(2) our company promotes a positive and constructive conceptual orientation and (3) our
company makes deliberate use of language (words, images and stories).
Akg€ un and Keskin (2014) also considered the propositions of Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011)
and Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005), but made 43 statements for the context of new product
development. Though, unlike the theoretical propositions of Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011)
focused on strategic management of human resources, this study aimed at the context of
corporate reorganizations, exploratory factor analysis grouped the 26 statements into two
groups, not distinguishing between cognitive skills, behavioral characteristics and
contextual conditions. The first group encompasses the statements belonging to the
dimensions cognitive abilities and behavioral traits (statements 1 to 15, Appendix) and some
belonging to contextual conditions (statements 20 to 25). In this group, the dimensions are
interconnected and comprise organizational and relational actions between the organization,
managers, employees and suppliers. The second group (statements 16 to 19) covers the
dimension contextual conditions related to workplace perception of risk-taking. The total
explained variance was 71.22%.
In exploratory factor analysis, a statement (not included in the Appendix) that had a factor
load less than 0.60 (Hair et al., 2016) was excluded. Thus, the final resilience construct was
analyzed with 25 statements, as a second order construct, composed of two first order
constructs (organizational/relational actions and workplace perception, with 21 and 4
statements, respectively). The analysis of organizational resilience was conducted as a
second order construct, which is consistent with Akg€ un and Keskin (2014), since the research
purpose is verifying the effects of resilience on business performance and job satisfaction and
not segregating it by dimensions. By using a second order construct, the number of
relationships in the structural model is reduced and, consequently, the partial least squares
(PLS) path model becomes more harmonious and understandable (Hair et al., 2016). The
validity precepts for the second order construct were followed according to literature
recommendations, in the logic of a higher-order construct of the reflective-reflective type, with
repetition of indicators.
The multi-faceted business performance, considering financial and non-financial
information, was analyzed based on 15 items, in which the respondents were asked to
qualify their company’s performance (compared to the industry average) within the last two
years, to each item, on a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 5 well below the average and
7 5 well above the average. In total, eight statements were taken from the study by Bisbe and
Otley (2004) relating to the economic-financial and customer performance, while the study by
L
opez-Nicol
as and Merono-Cerd
an (2011) provided seven statements about process
performance and growth and learning. Exploratory factor analysis grouped these 15 items
into three groups, whose total explained variance was 69.26%. The first group was named as
economic-financial performance, the second was customer performance and the third was
process/learning performance.
Job satisfaction was analyzed through nine items, in which respondents were asked to
assess their satisfaction level for each item exposed. These items were based on the study by
Walton (1973) and measured on a scale ranging from 1 5 not very satisfied to 7 5 very
satisfied. The exploratory factor analysis organized these items into two groups, named as,
here, satisfaction with financial benefits and personal satisfaction, whose total explained
variance was 64.11%. Job satisfaction is a multi-faceted construct and it involves a variety of
factors, that is why we chose to analyze each dimension separately and not as a second order
construct. Meli
an-Gonz
alez et al. (2015) mention that there is evidence that not all facets of job
satisfaction play the same role in explaining organizational performance.
 The common method bias (CMB) was assessed by using the Harman single factor test, Effects of
which proved not to be a problem in this research, since several factors with eigenvalues organizational
greater than 1 were identified, explaining 74.70% of the total variance and that no factor
represented almost all the variance. To minimize its effect, recommendations by Podsakoff
resilience
et al. (2003) were considered as follows: (1) respondents’ anonymity was ensured; (2) guidance
that there were no right or wrong answers and that respondents should answer questions
according to the moment; (3) research statements were written in order to avoid ambiguities,
using simple language and clarifying terms, when necessary; (4) conducting a pre-test with
researchers before conducting the research and (5) balancing the exposure of questions,
especially the dependent and independent variables.
Variance inflation factors (VIFs) were estimated to examine multicollinearity levels. The
results showed that they are below a harmful level, since the highest value was 2.696. Hair
et al. (2016) recommend VIFs <5.

4. Results
To analyze data and test the hypotheses, the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique
was applied, estimated through PLS. A partial least squares-structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) model is usually analyzed in two sequential steps: (1) measurement model and (2)
structural model (Hair et al., 2016). Measurement model adequacy was assessed in terms of
reliability (individual and composite) and validity (convergent and discriminant) of measures
in the constructs (Hair et al., 2016).
The factor loads of each variable were examined to assess the individual reliability of
items (Appendix). Most items had factorial loads above 0.70 in their respective constructs.
Only five items had loads marginally below 0.70 but above 0.60. Standardized loads must be
at least 0.70 (Hair et al., 2016), but lower loads are acceptable if other indicators of a construct
have higher loads (Chin, 1998). In this research, the five items with loads below 0.70 and above
0.60 belong to different constructs and other loads of these constructs exhibit higher numbers
(Barclay et al., 1995).
Average variance extracted (AVE), compound reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha of all
constructs had values above 0.50, 0.70 and 0.70, respectively (Appendix), something which
indicates convergent validity and internal consistency in the model (Hair et al., 2016). The
constructs also met the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for discriminant
validity, which is guaranteed if the square root of a construct’s AVE is greater than the
correlations with other constructs in the research model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All the
square roots of the AVE in each latent variable are greater than the respective correlations
between the latent variables (see Table 1), which demonstrates satisfactory discriminant
validity. Discriminant validity was also assessed through the criterion proposed by Chin
(1998), in which the values of factor loads were higher in latent variables than in others,
validating the inclusion of all latent variables in the analysis.

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Organizational resilience 0.799

2 Satisfaction with financial benefits 0.411 0.907
3 Personal satisfaction 0.749 0.544 0.759
4 Economic-financial performance 0.434 0.138 0.411 0.945
5 Customer performance 0.513 0.142 0.459 0.563 0.786
6 Process/Learning performance 0.729 0.324 0.606 0.586 0.640 0.771 Table 1.
Note(s): N 5 102. The diagonal elements are the square roots of the extracted average variance. The elements Discriminant validity
outside the diagonal are the correlations between the constructs and correlations
IJPPM In the structural model, the path coefficients and their significance level were analyzed, in
addition to using indicators to assess the model’s quality. PLS models use the bootstrapping
technique to determine whether the regression coefficients of the structural model are
statistically significant, something which allows for several sampling observations, in addition
to estimating the effect’s significance on each regression coefficient between the variables (Chin
and Newsted, 1999). By having bootstrapping run with 5,000 interactions, path values (path), t
value and p value of each relationship were obtained as shown in Table 2. The structural model
was also evaluated by (1) Pearson determination coefficient (R2), (2) predictive relevance (Q2) or
Stone–Geisser’s indicator and (3) effect size (F2) or Cohen’s indicator (Hair et al., 2016).
The H1 of the research predicts that organizational resilience has positive effects on business
performance, on the dimensions of economic-financial, customers and processes/learning. The
results show that organizational resilience is positively associated with the three dimensions of
performance, with a higher emphasis on the performance of processes/learning (β 5 0.628,
p < 0.01), followed by customer performance (β 5 0.387, p < 0.01) and, finally, the economic-
financial performance (β 5 0.288, p < 0.05). These results provide support for non-rejection of H1.
H2 predicts a positive relationship between organizational resilience and job satisfaction.
The PLS results show a significant positive association between resilience and satisfaction
with financial benefits (β 5 0.411, p < 0.01) and a relatively large coefficient (0.749, p < 0.01),
which indicates that the capacity for organizational resilience is a major predictor of personal
satisfaction. Thus, H2 of the study is supported. The structural model evaluation indicators
(Pearson’s determination coefficient [R2], predictive relevance and effect size) indicate that
personal satisfaction is better explained by organizational resilience compared to satisfaction
with financial benefits.
H3 provides a positive and direct relationship between the two dimensions of job
satisfaction with the three dimensions of business performance. The results show that only
personal satisfaction is significantly related to two dimensions of performance, i.e. economic-
financial (β 5 0.262, p < 0.10) and customers (β 5 0.253, p < 0.10). No significant associations
were found between satisfaction with financial benefits and business performance in its three
dimensions or between personal satisfactions with the performance of processes/learning.
Thus, H3 is partially supported.

5. Discussion of results
The research results indicate that organizational resilience directly affects business
performance in all its dimensions. The structural coefficient of economic-financial
performance (0.288) was small, with a lower explanatory power (R2 0.216) than the other
dimensions analyzed. The performance of processes/learning showed a high explanatory
power (R2 0.539) and its coefficient ranged from moderate to strong (0.628). This suggests that
the capacity for organizational resilience first affects performance in terms of processes/
learning, followed by customers and, finally, economic-financial performance. It is
noteworthy that in corporate restructuring there may be changes in the company’s
physical structure, in its production process, in product distribution and marketing, in
redistribution of functions and positions and in operations’ centralization of controls.
The association of organizational resilience with the performance of processes/learning is
supported by the argument that organizational resilience includes new skills and expands the
behavioral repertoires (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011), encourages creativity and the search for
innovative business solutions (Hallak et al., 2018), in addition to reducing the time needed to
identify, respond and solve problems faced in intercompany relationships, for instance, in the
supply chain (Yang and Hsu, 2018). Thus, organizations respond quickly to the needs of their
customers and increase their value through agility and robustness (Acquaah et al., 2011), with
an impact on economic-financial performance.
Path to
Satisfaction with financial Personal Economic-financial Customer Process/Learning
Path from benefits satisfaction performance performance performance

Organizational resilience 0.411*** (4.201) 0.749*** (16.541) 0.288** (2.189) 0.387*** (2.769) 0.628*** (6.698)
Satisfaction with financial – – 0.123 (1.455) 0.154 (1.505) 0.010 (0.184)
benefits
Personal satisfaction – – 0.262* (1.880) 0.253* (1.809) 0.141 (1.461)
R2 0.169 0.562 0.216 0.293 0.539
Predictive relevance (Q2) 0.122 0.314 0.178 0.144 0.300
Effect size (F2) 0.413 0.426 0.752 0.429 0.450
Note(s): N 5 102. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05 and *p < 0.10. T-value in parentheses
organizational
resilience
Effects of

evaluation
Path coefficients and
Table 2.

structural model
IJPPM These results differ from the studies by Akg€ un and Keskin (2014) and Hallak et al. (2018),
who did not observe direct relationships but analyzed a single performance perspective. In
the study by Akg€ un and Keskin (2014), resilience affected performance through product
innovation, while by Hallak et al. (2018) through the self-efficacy of managers; but in both, the
performance was portrayed in a unidimensional way, i.e. as economic-financial performance.
Integrating various performance perspectives can bring new assumptions about and insights
into the relationship between organizational resilience and performance as demonstrated in
this research. It is also argued that resilience is a long-term strategic initiative that changes
the way a company operates by aligning the links between functional and competitive
strategies (Acquaah et al., 2011). According to Kwak et al. (2018), the resilience capability may
not generate an instant effect of competitive advantage, but in the long run.
In line with what was observed by Linnenluecke (2017), the results indicate that
organizational resilience influences job satisfaction, specifically the personal aspect, which
includes satisfaction with work conditions, joy due to the interest aroused by the tasks, with
the opportunities offered, as well as aspects of interpersonal relationships. Organizational
resilience involves preparing social and intellectual capital, expanding knowledge, skills and
technical capacities (Lampel et al., 2014), which can explain the positive and significant
relations to job satisfaction. The relationship between organizational resilience and job
satisfaction (personal satisfaction and satisfaction with financial benefits) indicates that
these companies can face turbulence, in addition to offering growth and social integration
opportunities to their managers (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005). Resilient organizations are
characterized by workplaces conducive to seeking information, admitting mistakes,
experimenting and offering critical feedback (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005). This can
provide the basis for the persons’ positive assessments of their work experiences, leaving
them more satisfied.
However, no significant associations were observed between satisfaction with financial
benefits and business performance, only of personal satisfaction with economic-financial
performance and customer performance, at the significance level of 0.10. The positive effect
between personal satisfaction and economic-financial performance and customer
performance may be explained by people’s alignment with the organizational
environment, showing positive results for both (Lampel et al., 2014; Gul et al., 2018). On the
other hand, direct non-significant relationships between job satisfaction and business
performance may result from the multi-facets of organizational performance (Bisbe and
Otley, 2004). Bakoti
c (2016) argues that the relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational performance is more complex, due to internal and external factors, when
compared to the relationship between job satisfaction and individual performance. Hakos and
Bousinakis (2010) warn that satisfaction affects productivity indirectly, a feeling that affects
the dedication to the organization. The effect of job satisfaction can be indirect, for instance,
fulfilling tasks (Varshney and Varshney, 2017), organizational citizenship behaviors (Jung
and Yoon, 2015) and reduced absenteeism (Ogbonnaya and Valizade, 2018).
It is inferred from the results of this research that the way how organizations deal with
turbulence and discontinuities and adapt to new risky environments is reflected in job
satisfaction and business performance. Thus, organizations must be proactive in the face of
adversity and turbulence (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). To do this, they need to develop new
skills and create opportunities before disturbing events occur (Annarelli and Nonino, 2016),
instead of reacting to current problems (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014). From this perspective,
resilience is linked to the company’s ability to absorb complexities and emerge stronger in
another challenging situation, with a greater repertoire of actions in face of a disturbing event
(Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). This requires restructuring processes, leveraging efficiency in the
use of resources and taking measures to guide learning and growth, with a view to creating
value for customers and increasing economic-financial performance.
6. Conclusions Effects of
The study has taken the premise that organizational resilience is a predictor of job organizational
satisfaction (personal and financial benefits) and business performance, in the dimensions
economic-financial, customers and processes/learning. In a complementary way, interactions
resilience
between facets of job satisfaction and the three dimensions of business performance were
analyzed. The results revealed that organizational resilience is positively associated with job
satisfaction and business performance in all dimensions under analysis, emphasizing
personal satisfaction and processes/learning performance.
These results indicate that organizations skilled in dealing with adverse circumstances
and capable of adapting in terms of creating new solutions due to the variability of the
business environment tend to foster the development of people’s capabilities, encourage the
sharing of knowledge and use their resources efficiently. This favors the ability to conquer
new slices of market share, from the retention and acquisition of new customers and obtain
greater economic-financial return. These findings are consistent with the understanding of
Lampel et al. (2014) that the development of organizational resilience capacity involves
adaptive processes that promote the updating of competences and simultaneously restore
efficiency. Thus, problems are seen as opportunities, and they bring greater satisfaction to its
members, with reflections on business performance.

6.1 Theoretical implications

This study has contributed to the body of literature seeking to examine the effects of
resilience on business performance (Acquaah et al., 2011; Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014; Li et al.,
2017; Hallak et al., 2018; Yang and Hsu, 2018). These studies have shown divergent results
and various views regarding the direct effects of organizational resilience on performance.
They have also examined performance from a single perspective, considering it as a
unidimensional concept. From this viewpoint, the previous literature is extended to examine
the reflexes of organizational resilience in business performance and in the dimensions of
economic-financial, customers and processes/learning. In the present study, the results
suggest that resilience is an organizational attribute that the effects of organizational
resilience occur in the first instance in the processes/learning, subsequently having effects on
customer performance and, finally, on the economic-financial performance. Therefore, the
multi-dimensional aspect of performance can bring new prognosis to this discussion.
The study adds to the previous literature by investigating the consequences of
organizational resilience (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014), to the detriment of its antecedents. For
this purpose, the active perspective of organizational resilience was considered, whose
discussion remains mainly in the theoretical field (Akg€ un and Keskin, 2014). Therefore, in
addition to the results, the study contributes to devising a research instrument to capture the
active aspect of resilience in the context of corporate reorganizations, based on the theoretical
propositions put forward by Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011).
The effects of organizational resilience on job satisfaction is another noteworthy
analysis, since previous research studies (e.g. Jung and Yoon, 2015; Meneghel et al., 2016)
have considered the reflexes of individual resilience to the detriment of organizational
resilience, just as pointed out by Menechel et al. (2016). There is also a lack of research
studies that see satisfaction as a multi-faceted construct (Meli
an-Gonz
alez et al., 2015). In
the present study, organizational resilience was regarded as an antecedent of personal
satisfaction and satisfaction with financial benefits. Therefore, organizational attributes
were considered in this study, in addition to job satisfaction as a multi-faceted construct.
Furthermore, the analysis of the role of job satisfaction on business performance revealed
that its effects are not so direct and that various facets of satisfaction have different
implications for performance.
IJPPM 6.2 Practical implications
Resilience capability can be developed and managed. This implies the organization analyzing
and responding effectively to environmental conditions, communicating a strong and clear
purpose to encourage decision-making and actions that are consistent with its core values.
Managers must ensure that the organization has skills and abilities to analyze the greatest
diversity of behavioral responses in the face of uncertain and surprising conditions. To this end,
they must design policies and practices that can actively address organizational resilience and
obtain potential benefits from its strategic capability (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).
In this sense, management can develop values that lead to collaboration routines and
flexibility habits, create open and interpersonal communication channels, provide informal
and face-to-face dialogs between individuals, seek multiple sources of information, encourage
unlearning obsolete or dysfunctional heuristics and promote creativity (Yang and Hsu, 2018).
These changes have the potential to reduce costs in the long run, allowing them to build
financial reserves and thus contribute to achieving resilience in their competitive
environments (Gittell et al., 2006).
The distinct effects of the resilience dimensions on a firm’s financial performance provide
insights to managers when making decisions about resource allocation for various resilience
practices (Li et al., 2017). As job satisfaction impacts organizational performance and various
measures of worker well-being, companies need to pay attention to these differences and
challenges in order to work to adapt their management philosophy and policies and to create
an environment of unique job that benefits the interests of both, employer and employee
(Westover and Taylor, 2010).

6.3 Limitations and further research

Among the research limitations, it is worth highlighting that the relations proposed in the
structural model were examined in a static way, since data collection took place by means of a
questionnaire at a single point in time. Further research could benefit from the use of longitudinal
case studies. The research study covered only managers of organizations that have undergone
corporate reorganization processes, and the perceptions of lower-level employees have not been
investigated, although they also deal with organizational changes and contribute to
organizational resilience and business performance. Further studies on resilience may address
people from various hierarchical levels at the organization. The study addressed the active
perspective of resilience; to do so, it embodied measures recently taken in the literature. Thus,
although the measurement model has evidenced that they are valid and reliable, it is
recommended to reapply this instrument. Further research may also consider various dimensions
of resilience and examine how they affect business performance or how organizational resilience
affects business performance, considering the magnitude of changes in face of a disturbing event.

References
Acquaah, M., Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Jayaram, J. (2011), “Resilience in family and nonfamily firms:
an examination of the relationships between manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy and
firm performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5527-5544.
un, A.E. and Keskin, H. (2014), “Organisational resilience capacity and firm product innovativeness
Akg€
and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 23, pp. 6918-6937.
Annarelli, A. and Nonino, F. (2016), “Strategic and operational management of organizational
resilience: current state of research and future directions”, Omega, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Baird, K. and Su, S. (2018), “The association between controls, performance measures and
performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67
No. 6, pp. 967-984.
Bakoti
c, D. (2016), “Relationship between job satisfaction and organisational performance”, Economic Effects of
Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 118-130.
organizational
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2
resilience
No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Beuren, I.M. and Santos, V. (2019), “Enabling and coercive management control systems and
organizational resilience”, Revista Contabilidade and Finanças, Vol. 30 No. 81, pp. 307-323.
Beuren, I.M., Santos, V. and Bernd, D.C. (2020), “Effects of the management control system on
empowerment and organizational resilience”, BBR. Brazilian Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 211-232.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. and Burnard, K. (2011), “Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future
directions”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5375-5393.
Bisbe, J. and Otley, D. (2004), “The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on
product innovation”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 709-737.
Chewning, L.V., Lai, C.H. and Doerfel, M.L. (2012), “Organizational resilience and using information
and communication technologies to rebuild communication structures”, Management
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-263.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
New Jersey, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-342.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006), “Relationships, layoffs, and organizational
resilience airline industry responses to September 11”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 300-329.
Gul, H., Usman, M., Liu, Y., Rehman, Z. and Jebran, K. (2018), “Does the effect of power distance
moderate the relation between person environment fit and job satisfaction leading to job
performance? Evidence from Afghanistan and Pakistan”, Future Business Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 68-83.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Halkos, G. and Bousinakis, D. (2010), “The effect of stress and satisfaction on productivity”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 415-431.
Hallak, R., Assaker, G., O’Connor, P. and Lee, C. (2018), “Firm performance in the upscale restaurant
sector: the effects of resilience, creative self-efficacy, innovation and industry experience”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 229-240.
Horne, J.F. III and Orr, J.E. (1998), “Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations”,
Employment Relations Today, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 29-39.
Hosseini, S., Barker, K. and Ramirez-Marquez, J.E. (2016), “A review of definitions and measures of
system resilience”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 47-61.
Jung, H.S. and Yoon, H.H. (2015), “The impact of employees’ positive psychological capital on job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1135-1156.
Katou, A.A. (2017), “How does human resource management influence organisational performance?
An integrative approach-based analysis”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 797-821.
IJPPM Koerniadi, H., Krishnamurti, C. and Tourni-Rad, A. (2015), “Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and
default risk”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 336-348.
Kwak, D.W., Seo, Y.J. and Mason, R. (2018), “Investigating the relationship between supply chain
innovation, risk management capabilities and competitive advantage in global supply chains”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Lam, J.S.L. and Bai, X. (2016), “A quality function deployment approach to improve maritime supply
chain resilience”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 92
Nos s/n, pp. 16-27.
Lampel, J., Bhalla, A. and Jha, P.P. (2014), “Does governance confer organisational resilience? Evidence
from UK employee owned businesses”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 66-72.
Lee, A.V., Vargo, J. and Seville, E. (2013), “Developing a tool to measure and compare organizations’
resilience”, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Beck, T.E. (2005), “Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: how organizations
respond to environmental change”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 738-757.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011), “Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 502-509.
Li, X., Wu, Q., Holsapple, C.W. and Goldsby, T. (2017), “An empirical examination of firm financial
performance along dimensions of supply chain resilience”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 254-269.
Linnenluecke, M.K. (2017), “Resilience in business and management research: a review of influential
publications and a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 4-30.
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-336.
L
opez-Nicol
as, C. and Merono-Cerd
an, A.L. (2011), “Strategic knowledge management, innovation and
performance”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 502-509.
Meli
an-Gonz
alez, S., Bulchand-Gidumal, J. and Gonz
alez L
opez-Valc
arcel, B. (2015), “New evidence of
the relationship between employee satisfaction and firm economic performance”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 906-929.
Meneghel, I., Borgogni, L., Miraglia, M., Salanova, M. and Mart
ınez, I.M. (2016), “From social context
and resilience to performance through job satisfaction: a multilevel study over time”, Human
Relations, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 2047-2067.
Ogbonnaya, C. and Valizade, D. (2018), “High performance work practices, employee outcomes and
organizational performance: a 2-1-2 multilevel mediation analysis”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 239-259.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Varshney, D. and Varshney, N.K. (2017), “The effect of resilience on performance and job satisfaction
among construction managers in Saudi Arabia”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 36-45.
Walton, R.E. (1973), “Quality of working life: what is it?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 11-21.
Westover, J.H. and Taylor, J. (2010), “International differences in job satisfaction: the effects of public
service motivation, rewards and work relations”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 811-828.
Yang, C.C. and Hsu, W.L. (2018), “Evaluating the impact of security management practices on
resilience capability in maritime firms—a relational perspective”, Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 110 Nos s/n, pp. 220-233.
Appendix Effects of
organizational
Constructs and assertions Mean SD Loadings resilience
Organizational resilience (based on Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Akg€
un and Keskin, 2014)
(AVE 5 0.638, CR 5 0.977, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.975)
First group–organizational/relational actions (statements 1 to 15 and 20 to 25)
(AVE 5 0.702, CR 5 0.980, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.978)
Cognitive skills and behavioral traits–first group
Our company . . .
Has a strong sense of purpose, core values and a genuine vision 5.18 1.452 0.802
Promotes positive and constructive conceptual orientation 4.94 1.377 0.875
Makes deliberate use of language (words, images and stories) 4.80 1.350 0.786
Encourages a constructive sense, which allows managers and employees to interpret and give 4.74 1.400 0.900
meaning to unprecedented events and conditions
Puts high value on pluralism and individual differences and invests heavily in human capital 4.57 1.499 0.854
Uses formal and informal mechanisms for social interaction and minimize rules and procedures 4.57 1.493 0.861
Values contributions that favor the collective mentality among people in the organization, such 4.55 1.565 0.896
as experience, opportunism and creation
Encourages the use of decision-making by people within the organization, despite uncertainty 4.61 1.562 0.862
Provides a favorable environment for questioning fundamental assumptions in order to find 4.71 1.506 0.870
new and appropriate solutions
The characteristics of resourcefulness, skill, practicality and agility of people are valued for 4.64 1.566 0.904
them to get involved in creativity of the unconventional responses conception, yet robust, to
unprecedented challenges
Instigates behavioral preparation so that people can deliberately unlearn obsolete information 4.30 1.420 0.856
or dysfunctional heuristic
Provides the development of new skills, with a view to the ability to follow a different course of 4.39 1.504 0.879
action than the norm
Develops useful and practical habits, especially repetitive and those learned from the routines 4.62 1.428 0.845
that provide the first answer to any unexpected threat
Provides an environment that encourages the combination of originality and initiative to 4.46 1.419 0.893
capitalize on an eventual immediate situation
Encourages you to take action and make investments before they are needed, to ensure that the 4.25 1.563 0.767
company can benefit from situations that arise

Second group–workplace perception (statements 16 to 19)

(AVE 5 0.806, CR 5 0.943, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.919)
Contextual conditions–second group
The work environment is perceived as conducive to taking interpersonal risks, such as the risk 4.25 1.539 0.880
of being considered ignorant, when asking questions or seeking information
The work environment is perceived as conducive to taking interpersonal risks, such as the risk 4.17 1.574 0.945
of being considered incompetent, for asking for help, admitting mistakes or experiencing
The work environment is perceived as conducive to taking interpersonal risks, such as the risk 4.18 1.465 0.934
of being considered negative when offering critical feedbacks
The work environment is perceived as conducive to taking interpersonal risks, such as not 4.13 1.552 0.827
seeking feedback for fear of taking time or someone’s ill will
Contextual conditions–first group
Social capital evolves from respectful interactions within the organizational community, with 4.60 1.524 0.868
face-to-face interactions and dialogs based on trust, honesty and respect
Privilege contacts with suppliers and strategic alliances to ensure the necessary resources to 4.71 1.411 0.675
support adaptive initiatives
The resources obtained through networks of organizational relations ensure a measure of 4.27 1.351 0.825
continuous slack, extend the range of possible actions and promote a variety of interpretations
for alternative applications of these resources
People create favorable contextual conditions and focus on developing interpersonal 4.33 1.323 0.793
connections and supplying resources that lead to the ability to act quickly
People widely share information and knowledge 4.43 1.499 0.770 Table A1.
People widely share decision-making 4.27 1.678 0.772 Questionnaire items
and descriptive
(continued ) statistics
IJPPM Constructs and assertions Mean SD Loadings

Satisfaction with financial benefits (based on Walton, 1973)

(AVE 5 0.822, CR 5 0.902, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.784)
Compensation you receive for your work 5.06 1.142 0.903
Fair compensation in relation to your colleagues 5.08 1.272 0.910
Personal satisfaction (based on Walton, 1973)
(AVE 5 0.576, CR 5 0.904, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.878)
Healthy and safe working conditions 5.82 1.129 0.785
Immediate opportunities to use and develop your skills 5.48 1.377 0.827
Future opportunities for security and continued growth 4.98 1.414 0.790
Relationship with people in the organization where you work 5.73 1.100 0.756
Treatment and relationship with your superior 5.67 1.285 0.775
Balance between your professional and personal life 4.90 1.512 0.690
Social relevance of your work 5.37 1.289 0.677
Economic-financial performance (Bisbe and Otley, 2004)
(AVE 5 0.893, CR 5 0.961, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.940)
Rate of profit growth 4.48 1.501 0.958
Return on investment 4.43 1.564 0.952
Profit/sales ratio 4.46 1.447 0.924
Customer performance (Bisbe and Otley, 2004)
(AVE 5 0.618, CR 5 0.889, Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.848)
Customer satisfaction 5.10 1.029 0.846
Customer retention 5.10 1.215 0.841
Acquisition of new customers 4.61 1.187 0.767
Increase in market share 4.68 1.358 0.651
Rate of sales growth 4.73 1.291 0.809
Process/learning performance (L
opez-Nicol
as and Merono-Cerd
an, 2011)
(AVE 5 0.594, CR 5 0.911 and Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.886)
Provides higher quality products 5.20 1.099 0.644
Is more efficient in using resources 4.66 1.361 0.776
Has internal processes oriented to quality 4.84 1.377 0.844
Delivers orders quicker 4.84 1.326 0.776
Has more satisfied employees 4.65 1.240 0.816
Has more qualified employees 4.88 1.171 0.762
Table A1. Has more creative and innovative employees 4.59 1.330 0.764

About the authors

Ilse Maria Beuren has a Doctorate in Controllership and Accounting by University of S~ao Paulo (USP).
She is a full professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and she is leader of the
Research Center for Controlling and Management Control Systems of the Federal University of Santa
Catarina. She is author of several books, chapters of books and articles and is interested in the areas as
follows: management control systems, managerial accounting and controllership. Ilse Maria Beuren is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Vanderlei dos Santos has a Doctorate in Accounting by Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC).
He is a member of the Research Center for Controlling and Management Control Systems of the Federal
University of Santa Catarina.
Viviane Theiss has a Doctorate in Accounting by Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). She is
a member of the Research Center for Controlling and Management Control Systems of the Federal
University of Santa Catarina.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]