Organizational

Resilience
Building Blocks for a Healthy & Successful Organization

Dorothy Spry; Nigel Marlow

DOROTHY SPRY, NIGEL MARLOW

ORGANIZATIONAL
RESILIENCE
BUILDING BLOCKS FOR A
HEALTHY & SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATION

2
Organizational Resilience: Building Blocks for a Healthy & Successful Organization
1st edition
© 2020 Dorothy Spry, Nigel Marlow & bookboon.com
ISBN 978-87-403-3529-3

3
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Contents

CONTENTS
About the Authors 5

1 Introduction 7
1.1 Introduction 7
1.2 Overview of this eBook 8

2 What is Organizational Resilience? 9

2.1 What is Organizational Resilience (OR)? 9
2.2 What does a Resilient Organization look like? 10

3 Building a Resilient Organization 11

3.1 Building a Resilient Organization 11
3.2 Leadership 12
3.3 Team Structuring 14
3.3 Team Structuring 15
3.4 A Learning Organization 19
3.5 Psychological Safety 20
3.6 Temperature Checks of Progress 23

4 Takeaways 27
4.1 Takeaways 27

Further Reading/References 28

4
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE About the Authors

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dorothy Ann Spry, MSc Organisational and Behavioural Psychologist with a background
in training, coaching and development; Dorothy has worked for various organisations in
the USA, UAE and Europe.

Dorothy is the author of numerous business management books and research articles.

Topics include: Psychometric Testing; Careers in the 21st Century; Emotional Intelligence;
Authentic Leadership, Anger Management and Cognitive Behavioural Coaching (CBC),
Psychopathic Leadership, The Good, Bad and Downright Ugly, Using ‘Fast Thinking’ in
Business Star Performers: How to enhance your Emotional Intelligence and Psychological
Resilience for Individuals.

Contact: [email protected]

Dr Nigel Marlow, Business & Consumer Psychologist

5
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE About the Authors

Nigel has a background of 20 years business experience at Director Level (UK, Germany
& Italy). He has also worked in the HE sectors as a Principal Lecturer in Psychology,
developing MSc programs in both Business Psychology and Consumer Psychology. Currently
he is R&D director for business-psychology. online and has created several bespoke online
engines for exploring the subconscious and emotional aspects of decision-making within
organizations and within the minds of consumers.

Contact: [email protected]

https://business-psychology.online/

6
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count,
and everything that counts cannot always be counted.”

– Einstein

Organizational Resilience (OR) is one of those ‘things’….” that counts but cannot always
be counted.”

It would be true to say that we are currently living in difficult times, with economic downturns,
the lack of confidence in the markets, crises of values, and so on. But it is time not only
for surviving, but also for emerging stronger than ever. And this is what resilience is about.

The paradox for organizations is that the only certain thing in their environment is ‘change’.
This may be social, political, economic and even physical environments; they are all complex,
chaotic, volatile and full of uncertainty.

Here are some examples of changes in the environment that are happening now: -

• Black-lives matter
• Covid-19
• Climate change (flooding, fire & drought)
• Terrorism
• Economic recession
• Migration
• Cyber-crime
• Social distancing
• Face masks
• Changing shopping habits
• Increased use of the Internet for ‘virtual meetings’ (social and business related)
• Stricter environmental protection laws to reduce pollution and overuse of non-
renewable resources
• Rise of Nationalism as a reaction to Globalization
• Use of drones and autonomous vehicles
• Aging populations in Western countries
• Smart technology (e.g. cars and fridges)
• Use of AI technology for face/voice recognition

7
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Introduction

• Increasing stress on food production systems

• Increasing stress on supply of freshwater
• Export of ‘working-class jobs’ to developing countries with low-wage economies
• Problems of privacy and security as more institutions/businesses use AI and Big
Data
• Rise of trade barriers and protectionism
• Addiction to legal opioids (anti-depressants)
• Addiction to (illegal) recreational drugs
• Increased prevalence of socio-economic illnesses e.g. obesity, diabetes and heart
disease
• Increase in prevalence of certain cancers
• Increase in mental health problems
• Change in the direction of consumers’ moral compass (e.g. concerns for workers’
rights, sustainability, ethical decision-making)
• Changes in the concept of “what constitutes an organization?” e.g. self-
organizing teams; shallow or zero power-gradients in decision-making; new
thinking on what ‘leadership’ is about; the need for buildings and physical
meeting spaces etc.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THIS EBOOK

In response to these testing times, leaders of industry are becoming increasing aware that
Organizational Resilience will help them to grow and protect their businesses and to maintain
high standards of performance and at the same time increase profit margins.

This eBook is part two of two eBooks. Part one, focuses on “Individual Resilience” whilst
this eBook is designed to help organizations understand the key elements required towards
building a resilient organization which will stand the test of time.

8
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE What is Organizational Resilience?

2 WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL
RESILIENCE?

2.1 WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE (OR)?

Organizational Resilience is the ability of an organization to successfully anticipate, prepare for

and/or respond and adapt to changes in its environment.

Although there are different approaches towards explaining organizational resilience, the overall
need is for flexibility; organizations need to have an open mind when seeking solutions to
problems and be inclusive in the ways in which decisions are arrived at.

Organizational resilience is not just about successfully reacting to developing situations and
circumstances; it is about anticipating change and seeing ‘problems’ as potential opportunities;
it is about welcoming risk as a stimulus and as a catalyst for proactive adaptation to
environmental change.

In a nutshell, resilient organizations have a culture of curiosity and creativity. Individuals,

teams and the organizational structures are flexible and open to challenges and new
ideas. Within the organization there is an ‘atmosphere’ of trust, respect and cooperation.
Information is readily shared between colleagues and other teams and there is a general

9
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE What is Organizational Resilience?

feeling of engagement and ‘togetherness’ that stimulates a mutual motivation to seek and
try out innovative ways to improve performance.

Organizational resilience mimics individual resilience in some ways. However, it is more

complex because it depends upon the outcome from an interaction between the members
of an organization and its systems. So, in general, as a starting point, we can differentiate
between individual and organizational resilience by thinking along these lines:

Individual resilience characteristics: the ability to respond to changing circumstances; a

readiness to be intuitive and welcome improvisation, and possessing an intrinsic motivation
based on personal values.

Organizational resilience characteristics: a flexibility in the decision-making processes;

decentralization; ‘leadership’ at all levels of the company; an acceptance of ambiguous and
contradictory information, and the ability to ‘learn’.

Note: A collection of people with high individual resilience (see eBook individual resilience),
does not necessary generate a resilient team. For example, in my career as an organizational
psychologist (Spry), I have seen lots of resilient employees who performed very well on an
individual level when facing a crisis. They had the ability to bounce back quickly from the
bad event and to adapt and change. However, they struggled during a crisis when it came
to working as ‘part of a team’.

2.2 WHAT DOES A RESILIENT ORGANIZATION LOOK LIKE?

An organization that can be considered to be healthy and resilient should be a place
(either physical or virtual):

1. Where managers and employees are motivated

2. Where managers and employees feel valued
3. Where managers and employees feel inspired
4. Where managers and employees feel they belong

In other words, resilient organizations avoid “rigid thinking”; they are open and flexible to
change; and generally, encourage creativity and confidence across all functional departments.

10
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3 BUILDING A RESILIENT
ORGANIZATION

3.1 BUILDING A RESILIENT ORGANIZATION

Organizational resilience is not something that can be suddenly turned-on like a tap in
response to a sudden crisis. The relevant ‘parts of the jigsaw’ already need to be in place
in order to deal with problems arising from unforeseen changes in the socio-political
environment and/or the marketplace.

Each of the pieces of the jigsaw (Figure 1 below) plays a crucial role in building a resilient
organization. In the remainder of this eBook we expand on each ‘piece’ and explain its
contribution to the whole of Organizational Resilience. We will begin with Leadership.

BUILDING A RESILIENT ORGANIZATION

A LEARNING ORGANIZATION

LEADERSHIP

TEMPERATURE CHECKS
FOR PROGRESS
TEAM STRUCTURING

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

Figure 1: The ‘Resilience Jigsaw’

Source: DA Spry

11
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3.2 LEADERSHIP
Organizational resilience is a quality that is important not just for the organization itself.
The ability of an organization to cope with change and challenges also affects how all its
stakeholders fare.

Organizations are an integral part of their local communities and the wider economy as well.
Organizations affect peoples’ lives by providing employment and remuneration; by proving
healthcare and sick pay. They also offer a focal point within the community for individuals
to socialize safely. Therefore, it is the leadership of organizations that has the responsibility
for adopting this wider view of organizational resilience. An ‘authentic’ leadership is required
that demonstrates a set of values that transcend the traditional economic criteria such as
‘profit’ or ‘return on investment’ etc.

Authentic leaders’ value open and honest relationships whether it is with their employees,
peers, clients, customers or shareholders. They do not discriminate between who has a higher
value above another – all are human beings. They set about building their relationships
with others based upon a strong moral-compass and an open and trusting communication.

The leadership will also need to show an understanding that individuals and different
workgroups and/or project-teams will hold different values; and the relationship between
these various organizational elements will need careful guidance. Therefore, it follows that the
leadership of resilient organizations needs to have self-awareness with regard to establishing an
organizational culture that has the following qualities (values or shared mission statement): -

INTERNALLY (within the organizations structures)

• A climate of cooperation and support, rather than one of ‘siloed-

competitiveness’.
• An atmosphere of open communication throughout and between all levels of the
organization.
• A culture that encourages creativity; one that tolerates ambiguity and dissention
and treats disruptions and disturbances as ‘opportunities’ for positive decision
making, (Mallak, 1998).
• Resilience is also crucially dependent on the cultural dimension ‘degree of
empowerment’ throughout all levels of the organization, (e.g. Norman et al,
2005).

12
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

EXTERNALLY (the wider community)

• A recognition of the organization’s responsibilities to the wider community of

stakeholders e.g. employees, local suppliers, service providers.
• Recognition of the organization’s responsibility to the social and ecological
environment.

Leadership of resilient organizations will want to identify and eradicate any, or all, of the
following behaviours:

• Unwritten rules/procedures: - “We have always done it this way!”

• Risk averse decision-making process over-extended and problem over-analyzed
for fear of a ‘rushed’ decision
• Fear of trying anything ‘new’
• Lack of diversity of people and viewpoints
• Non-conformity perceived as a threat or simply ignored
• People working in silos; a competitive culture of “them” and “us”
• Use of quick fixes/reinventing the wheel
• The use of ‘off-the-shelf ’ solutions in the hope that ‘one-size-fits-all’

Source: This Bug’s Life

13
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3.3 TEAM STRUCTURING

It would be true to say that the pandemic crisis has forged the way for new ways of working,
and it has become increasingly clear that ‘teamwork’ has to adapt to a new reality where
team members are no longer working face-to-face in a physical environment, at least not
100% of the time.

Organizations are finding it necessary to find new ways of structuring their approach to work,
and project teams are being ‘put-together’ in a virtual environment. The ‘new-normal’ way
of working now seems to be via the internet. The use of electronic communication systems
such as ‘Zoom’ and ‘Microsoft Teams’ are increasingly being employed as a supplement to
the normal use of phone and email.

Team members are perhaps listening to disembodied voices explaining a PowerPoint presentation
or engaging in a ‘Zoom’ video conference, where the ‘talking-head’ participants are visible.

Log in to SAP Learning Hub to access the full eLibrary

with +1000 eBooks and audio soft skills titles.

14
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3.3 TEAM STRUCTURING

In some instances, teams may be set-up so that there are scheduled opportunities for face-to-
face meetings (respecting social distancing) in a physical space. These physical meetings can
be once per month or more regular, according to the wishes of team members. In light of
this ‘new normal’, organizations will be required to become more flexible in the structuring of
their workforce. At the same time organizations will need to introduce sufficient coordination
to ensure knowledge sharing takes place between the different locations and/or functions.

Organization management should encourage the formation of teams and teamwork as

previous research (e.g. Hackman, 1990; Jackson, 1992) has shown that group decision
making is more effective than those decisions made by any single person i.e. ‘the manager’.

The benefits of organizational teams include

• The use of a range of different expertise
• Knowledge from diverse sources
• A multiple perspective on issues such as problem identification and definition

For teams to ‘work’ efficiently, information has to be readily accessible between team members
and between teams. Individual knowledge needs to be ‘translated’ into group knowledge
and ultimately organizational-level knowledge. This shared information becomes a shared
understanding, which in turn strengthens levels of trust, engagement, and motivation within
all levels of the workforce.

15
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

Consequently, the organization benefits from more insightful and creative problem solving.
This leads to enhanced organizational performance levels.

Important to note: The quality of that performance level will in future need to be validated
by measuring its success against a more comprehensive and inclusive set of criteria that
include both social and ecological specifications, in addition to the more traditional business
benchmarks.

Team Diversity
• Organizations are now operating in an environment that is increasingly
characterized by the imperatives of dealing with diversity amongst their
employees and customers, and of having to recognize and take into account the
multiple and often competing values and goals of different interest-groups.
• Organizations need to ensure that their project teams are as diverse as possible.
If teams are allowed to form informally based upon similarity or prior
acquaintance, the potential for learning is minimized because the knowledge and
viewpoints of group members will be similar and lack diversity.
• “Like-me” groupings may foster a relaxed & comfortable atmosphere and build a
sense of ‘belonging’. However, there is the danger of ‘Groupthink’ (Janis, 1971),
which occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or
conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making
outcome. Cohesiveness or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce
a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group
to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without proper critical
evaluation.

A similar phenomenon is the “Band-Wagon effect” (Asch, 1955), when the rate of
uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases with respect to the proportion of
others who have already done so. As more people come to believe in something,
others also „hop on the bandwagon“ regardless of the underlying evidence.

Both of these subconscious mind-sets (Groupthink & The Band Wagon Effect)
have the potential to seriously undermine a team’s problem-solving effectiveness.

16
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

Organizations can achieve diversity in their (virtual) team-structures via

- Recruiting team members with a background of a different expertise, education
and experience
- Ensuring a cross-section of social backgrounds
- Recruiting across gender and age groupings
- Ensuring ethnic diversity

Previous research has consistently shown that organizations that value diversity are more
likely to be effective in solving non-routine and complex problems (e.g. Jehn et al., 1999).
However, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have suggested that total diversity among workgroup
members is not always desirable; some “redundancy” (i.e. agreement between points of view
or perspectives) among group members is necessary to ensure sufficient common ground to
facilitate successful group interaction.

Ensuring diversity will also mean that organizations have to allow virtual teams more time
go through the stages of group development.

Bruce Tuckman (1965) proposed a four-stage model that characterized the necessary phases
that a group of individuals needed to face and resolve in order to become an effective team.

Stage 1: Forming
Individuals come together and learn about the tasks, challenges and opportunities placed
before them. Initially everyone is on their best behaviour but is focussed on self-presentation
rather than the clarification of any team objective(s) and the possible issues arising from
their pursuit.

Stage 2: Storming
As group members become more used to interacting with one another, individuals begin to
express opinions. Different opinions emerge as well as different working styles. At the same
time there is a tendency for individuals to assume different roles within the group and an
informal status hierarchy is implicitly established. This exchange of opinions and informal
‘role-distribution’ leads to conflict particularly if the informal roles do not correspond to the
formal status of individuals ‘outside’ of the group. Disagreements about roles and personality
clashes characterize this ‘storming’ phase. These must be resolved through discussion and a
degree of tolerance if the group is to progress.

17
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

Stage 3: Norming
The process of resolving disagreements and personality clashes leads to a more open and
trusting atmosphere: confrontation gives way to cooperation. Individuals ‘buy-in’ to the
common aims and objectives of the group and accept collective responsibility for the
performance of the group, even when this occasionally means ‘biting-the-tongue’. The dangers
of trying to minimize conflict at this stage may lead to ‘Groupthink’ and the ‘Band-Wagon’
effect explained earlier.

Perspectives and values are explored and tried out, and eventually become (implicitly)
acceptable as alternative problem-solving strategies.

Stage 4: Performing
The ‘norming stage’ has established an acceptable pattern of behaviour for group members
and there is an implicit agreement to focus on achieving common goals, rather than any
disharmony. The group has a recognized role structure and a functioning decision-making
process. Any dissent is now dealt with through a ‘diversity-lens’, which allows challenges to
be seen as attempts to contribute alternative solutions, rather than a destructive dynamic.
The group has transformed into a performing team.

Allowing time and support for a successful group transition into a team (through the 4-stage
process) will provide a platform for more organizational learning.

Hybrid Teams/Groups
Organizations will need to provide up-to-date technical support and training for hybrid and
virtual groups e.g. how to conduct webinars; i.e. the use of Zoom and other video facilities.
The use of Skype, Zoom or Microsoft Teams for meetings, should become ‘routine’ in order
to help generate feelings of ‘belonging’.

It will also be necessary to provide the facilities for teams/groups to meet face-to-face
either regularly or on an ad hoc basis. If this ‘hybrid’ form of teamwork is possible and/or
acceptable for all group members, the face-to-face communication helps with the ‘storming
and forming’ stages and facilitates the development of mutual trust and respect.

18
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3.4 A LEARNING ORGANIZATION

In order for an organization to flourish it is of paramount importance that the organizational
culture is one that fosters open and honest communication, and promotes the value of
cooperation, and of learning from others.

The culture of a resilient organization has a ‘flat’ or ‘democratic’ power structure. Employees
have the autonomy to solve problems by cooperation between themselves, sharing ideas and
insights in a non-judgmental atmosphere.

The culture is one that encourages ‘thinking-out-of-the-box’ and creativity is highly valued,
with different viewpoints being encouraged rather than frowned upon and being treated
as disruptive.

Individuals in such an organization are encouraged to a have a ‘lifelong learning’ perspective

and be continuously and critically monitoring their own performance through self-reflection.
Their motivation to learn through ‘trial and error’ enables improvements to be made by
continually testing new ideas and approaches. It follows that the environment or culture has
to be one in which the risk of making mistakes is accepted as part of the learning process.

The knowledge accumulated from individual (and group) learning experiences has to be
shared i.e. the atmosphere should be one of cooperation rather than individually competitive.
In this way, everyone in the organization benefits from the accumulating expertise and
skill sets. The atmosphere of collaboration needs to be supported by a knowledge-sharing
infrastructure and reflected in the remuneration system.

A ‘Learning-Organization’ is potentially a difficult and threatening environment. Individuals

working as part of a team are involved in solving novel problems that need identifying
and defining in a cooperative manner. This learning process takes place in the ‘presence’ of
colleagues, and in expressing personal ideas and values, there is a risk that exposed knowledge
and/or skill ‘gaps’, are interpreted as ignorance or incompetence.

If we look at the famous Johari Window model (Luft and Ingham, 1955), see Figure 2
below, disclosure and possible negative feedback is actually part of the positive process of
increasing self-awareness, a cornerstone of resilience. However, initially, individuals might
understandably be hesitant to share their private and maybe eccentric points of view or admit
particular limits to their knowledge for fear of embarrassment or being ridiculed by others.

It is therefore of paramount importance that the organizational culture is one that fosters
open and honest communication, and promotes the value of cooperation, and of learning
from others. This type of organizational culture or climate has been characterized as providing
a sense of ‘psychological safety’ for employees.

19
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

Feedback

Known to Unknown to
Self Self

Known to
Others
OPEN BLIND
Disclosure

Unknown to
Others

HIDDEN UNKNOWN

Figure 2: The Johari Window

3.5 PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

Psychological Safety has become a crucial topic of interest amongst researchers, leadership and
teams. Due to the fact that having this part of the jigsaw neatly in place empowers teams
and or organizations in their learning, creativity and innovation. So, what is Psychological
Safety?

Psychological Safety occurs when individuals have high levels

of interpersonal trust and mutual respect for each other,

– (Edmondson, 1999, 2018).

Psychological safety is a characterized by an atmosphere of mutual trust where

• Mistakes will be tolerated and be regarded as learning experiences rather than as

triggers for some sort of negative contingency
• Individuals can propose alternatives and challenges to the status quo without fear
of ridicule or accusations of ‘rocking-the-boat’
• The atmosphere is one of mutual respect and cooperation

20
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

Figure 3 below demonstrates the differences between Psychological Safety and Psychological
Danger

Psychological Danger Psychological Safety

Fear of Comfort
admitting admitting
mistakes mistakes

Better
«Common Learning
Blaming innovation &
Knowledge from
others decision-
Effect» failure
making

Less Everyone
likely to share openly
different views shares
ideas

Figure 3

A feeling of psychological safety in a team is a vital precursor for generating trust. In turn,
this atmosphere of safety and trust leads to:

• Higher levels of engagement

• Increased motivation
• An atmosphere that fosters curiosity about further learning and development
Fear of Comfort
opportunities
admitting admitting
• A willingness to tackle difficult problems with innovativemistakes
mistakes solutions

At a basic level, situations that evoke negative emotional responses, promote instinctive
‘fight-or-flight’ behaviour coined by Walter Cannon Better
a physiologist in the early Learning
1900s. In
«Common
Psychological Blaming innovation & Psychological
Knowledge
such environment’s individuals will tend from
Danger othersto look to criticize and blame
decision- Safetyco-workers, leading
Effect» failure
to increased interpersonal conflict, which in turn tends
makingto lead to defensive and obstructive
behaviour, and finally disengagement.
Less Everyone
Psychological safety (mainly
likely experienced at a subconscious or implicit level),
to share openly reduces the feelings
of insecurity and defensiveness and leads to a more open and honest shares
different
communication between
views ideas
team members, and at an organizational level, between teams. This improved quantity and
quality of interpersonal and inter-team interaction promotes higher levels of engagement,
motivation and creativity. The highest-performing organizations have one thing in common:
‘psychological safety’

21
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

In today’s highly competitive environments, which are both complex and chaotic, success
more and more depends on a cooperative interdependence that can bring a more ‘cool’ and
strategic perspective to problem solving and decision making. Such behaviours are fostered
by a positive team-atmosphere that is challenging but not threatening i.e. an atmosphere of
perceived psychological safety. Rather than the ‘fight-or-flight’ response, positive emotions
tend to lead to the ‘emergent’ characteristic of ‘trust’, and positive behaviours such as:

• Motivation
• Persistence
• Openness
• Resilience
• Confidence
• Tolerance

Members of a project-group need to be open towards new ideas and information from
a variety of sources and must also be willing to share this information. This implies that
there is a high degree of interpersonal trust and mutual respect among team members and
between different teams. Trust and respect are important aspects that foster a feeling or
‘atmosphere’ of psychological safety.

22
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3.6 TEMPERATURE CHECKS OF PROGRESS

Measuring for Psychological Safety

The final part of the jigsaw puzzle is the importance of organizational temperature checks in
order to get a current ‘reading’ of the employee’s psychological safety levels.

Here we introduce a new online engine that uses a radical method “Image-Pro™”, to uncover
implicit, hard-to-express feelings. This new measure indicates the felt ‘psychological safety’
being experienced by an organization’s employees.

“Psychological Safety” only exists as a psychological construct; it is a subjective experience

arising from the interaction of individuals in their work environment.

“Psychological Safety” has an ‘emergent’ quality that is not readily accessed by traditional
questionnaires. An individual’s appraisal or evaluation of their felt psychological safety is
implicit, taking place at a subconscious level and therefore requires implicit measures to
access it. (see eBook Using Fast Thinking in Business (Spry, D, 2020).

The Psychological Safety Measure (PSM)

The Psychological Safety Measure (PSM) measures seven independent dimensions that
contribute to a perceived atmosphere of psychological safety and trust:

• D = Dependability
• O = Openness
• C = Concern for others
• E = Engagement
• Sa = Satisfaction,
• M = Mutuality
• Su = Support

1. DEPENDABILITY: - is the belief that the organization will do what it says

it will do; that decisions made are perceived as unbiased, fair and just.
2. OPENESS: - This dimension indicates the perceptions about the general
nature of the communication within the organization. Openness implies the
degree of honesty and sincerity in what is being communicated.

23
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

3. CONCERN FOR OTHERS: - This dimension reflects employees’

perceptions about the extent to which the organization looks after their
wellbeing in both the physical and psychological sense.
4. ENGAGEMENT: - Is a measure of the ‘connectedness’ felt by the
stakeholders to the organization. High engagement indicates a strong
identification by employees with the values (culture) of the organization.
5. SATISFACTION: - This dimension is an indicator of the strength of
positive feeling that stakeholders have about the organization.
6. MUTUALITY: - This measure is an indirect measure of an organization’s
acceptance of diversity. Apart from traditional ‘diversity’ categories,
stakeholders may hold very different social and/or environmental values.
High mutuality implies a low power-gradient and more participation in
decision-making.
7. SUPPORT: - This dimension is measuring the perceived communal support
available from within the organization. The perceived level of support stems
from the willingness of co-workers to help each other without the expectation
of receiving tangible benefits in return.

Figure 4 below, is a screen shot from a section of the PSM to illustrate the unique Image-
Pro™ scale construction. 

Log in to SAP Learning Hub to access the full eLibrary

with +1000 eBooks and audio soft skills titles.

24
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

Generally, I think my workplace feels like this:

Figure 4: Like my workplace Not like my workplace

Participants respond to random screen presentations of images and/or words. This data is
then combined with more traditional Likert-scale responses to generate a global ‘Psychological
Safety’ figure and scores for the seven independent sub-scales (outlined above).

The PSM generates an indicative score for each dimension and a global ‘psychological
safety-index’.

Further details and access to a free trial are provided in the reference section at the end of
the book.

Another measure that gives leaders/managers/HR professionals an indication of their

organization’s wellness is the:

WELL-BEING QUESTIONNAIRE (WBQ)

The WBQ measures 3-psychological wellness dimensions: optimism, tolerance for ambiguity
and adaptability

This questionnaire is a mixture of items and images designed to access the implicit feelings
and perceptions of employees; it is an indication of how well individuals are coping with the
work-environment (work-life balance). Apart from measuring the physical and psychological
health of employees, it also helps management to identify potential ‘pressure-points’ (or
stressors) in the organization.

25
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Building a Resilient Organization

In addition, using its unique Image-Pro™ technology, WBQ provides information about the
emotional resilience of the organization’s employees.

The image-word combinations generate feedback on the dimensions of ‘optimism’, ‘tolerance

for ambiguity’ and ‘adaptability’, which are the most important individual characteristics
for strengthening organizational resilience, (see Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003)

Details of how to access the WBQ are in the reference section at the end of this eBook.

26
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Takeaways

4 TAKEAWAYS

4.1 TAKEAWAYS
We have covered a lot of material in this eBook, so here is a brief summary of the main
points to think about when considering the resilience of your organization:

• All organizations are facing a turbulent environment, which is at once

threatening but also presents opportunities for resilient systems and structures to
be put in place.
• An effective resilient organization depends heavily on its leadership to
establish and maintain a suitable ‘atmosphere’ throughout; one that fosters
open communication, cooperation and trust. This ‘atmosphere’ is an implicit
“Psychological Safety” felt by all employees.
• The suitable ‘atmosphere’ or ‘climate’ is a product of a series of management-
led interventions that develop an organizational culture that values creativity,
spontaneity, and autonomy. This is a ‘Learning Organization’.
• The organization is structured to employ teams to deliver high quality
performance. Teams are designed to reflect the diversity of the employees in
the organization and are set-up to function in a hybrid of virtual/face-to-face
configurations.
• The organizational culture needs to embrace ‘differences’ in terms of encouraging
diversity (gender; racial; and social etc.) within project teams and different
opinions and values need to be treated with respect as possible contributions
rather than dismissed as somehow unworthy of consideration.

Finally, we have offered you two new online instruments that can be used by management
to monitor ‘Psychological Safety’ and employee ‘Wellbeing’, which directly influence the
resilience characteristics of any organisation.

27
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Further Reading/References

FURTHER READING/REFERENCES
Denyer, D. (2017), Organizational Resilience: A summary of academic evidence, business
insights and new thinking; BSI and Cranfield School of Management

DIY or ‘make-do-and-mend’

Luft, J.; Ingham, H. (1955), The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness,
Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development; Los Angeles

Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups That Work (And Those That Don’t): Creating
Conditions for Effective Teamwork, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team Composition in Organization Settings: Issues in Managing an

Increasingly Diverse Workforce. In: S. Worchel, W. Wood & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group
Process and Productivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Briggs, R. O., Romano, N. C. Jr., & Mittleman, D. D. (1998).

The Virtual Office Work-Space: Group-Systems Web and Case Studies. In: D. Coleman
(Ed.), Groupware: Collaborative Strategies for Corporate LANs and Intranets. New York:
Prentice-Hall.

Janis, I. L. (1971), „Groupthink“, Psychology Today. 5 (6): 43–46, 74–76.

Asch, S. E. (1955), Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193 (5): 31–35

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999), Why Differences Make a Difference:
A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995),The Knowledge-Creating Company; New York: Oxford
University Press.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965), Developmental sequence in small groups, Psychological Bulletin.

63 (6): 384–399.

Mallak, L. (1998), Putting organizational resilience to work; Industrial Management, 40.6, 8–13

28
ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE Further Reading/References

Norman, S., Luthans, B., and Luthans, K., (2005); The proposed contagion effect of
hopeful leaders on the resilience of employees and organizations, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies,12.2

Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T. J. (2003), ‘Organizing for Resilience’ in K. S. Cameron, J.

E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn (Eds.) Positive Organizational Scholarship pp. 94-110, San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Using Fast Thinking in Business (Spry, D, 2020). Bookboon eBooks

psych safety See https://business-psychology.online/

https://emotix.org.uk/employee-wellness/

29