Qualitative research reveals critical factors linking individual resilience and organisational resilience in construction, suggesting practical strategies for improvement.
Environmental complexities and continuously evolving scenarios like natural disaster, political instabilities, pandemics have become a major challenge for construction organisations. Since no system or organisation can be designed to anticipate all possible risks, resilience has become a fundamental necessity. To achieve resilience at the organisational level, it is vital to consider, assess and utilise individual resilience of employees as they constitute the core of the organisational system. Though the concept of individual resilience has been extensively applied across a plethora of academic fields, there is a lack of unified understanding of the relationship between individual resilience and organisational resilience. While prior research has acknowledged both constructs independently, their interplay within high-risk sectors such as construction remains underexplored. Thus, the current study employs qualitative research methods, including case studies and semi-structured interviews with 20 construction professionals from various construction organisations of New Zealand. The collected data were analysed through NVivo to identify crucial factors and mechanisms involved between resilient individuals and resilient organisations. The results include mediating factors and a relevant model that can help in establishing the link between individual resilience and organisational resilience of the New Zealand construction industry. The study contributes theoretically by re-conceptualising resilience as a dynamic-mediated construct, and practically by offering targeted strategies for resilience-building within project-based environments. Future studies may explore the gap between resourcefulness and resilience to formulate robust plans and policies to support organisations, government, and other stakeholders during setbacks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mitansha et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: