The aim of this special issue is to advance knowledge on self-organized communities that assume leadership roles in value creation, knowledge sharing and performance within and across organizational boundaries, thereby fostering innovation and resilience in times of crisis (Lough, 2021). A particular emphasis is placed on how such communities mobilize during periods of disruption – whether the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or energy shortages. Such moments of turbulence have demonstrated that spontaneous, community-driven initiatives can generate remarkable responses, sustaining creativity and enabling new pathways for innovation (Solnit, 2010; Ghemawat, 2018).Self-organized leadership communities (Lough, 2021) are increasingly recognized as critical in providing rapid and adaptive responses to complex and uncertain challenges. Resilience, understood as the capacity of individuals, organizations and societies to withstand and adapt to shocks, can be conceptualized across a wide range of domains, from psychology and ecology to computer science and management (Burnard and Bhamra, 2011). Within organizations, resilience is particularly dependent on the ability to mobilize and leverage the “human intelligence” embedded in networks of relationships both inside and outside the firm (Duchek, 2020; Woodward and Shaffakat, 2017).Research has an essential role to play in supplying conceptual frameworks that reconfigure social processes and enable meaningful interactions across organizational and community boundaries. Practice-based knowledge theory (Wenger, 1998; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2015; Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2020), for instance, underscores the importance of boundary crossing for knowledge circulation, facilitating connections between diverse actors and reinforcing the foundations of self-organized leadership communities. Relatedly, boundary spanners have been shown to play a critical role in innovation under turbulent conditions, bridging knowledge domains and facilitating transfer across organizational and environmental boundaries (Keszey, 2018; Schotter, 2021).This special issue thus turns attention to the role of intermediaries – both individuals and organizations – in enabling the development and functioning of such communities. Among these, boundary actors who participate simultaneously in multiple communities are able to acquire legitimacy and expertise, thereby enhancing the transfer of knowledge across domains. Similarly, peripheral participants, although not formally embedded within a community, contribute by sharing insights, practices and experiences (Wenger, 1998; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2015). These categories of actors are indispensable in crisis contexts, fostering agility, legitimacy and connectivity that enhance collective resilience. They help to instigate change and stimulate innovation (Goglio-Primard et al., 2020; Crespin-Mazet et al., 2023).Recent crises provide concrete illustrations of these dynamics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, communities rapidly mobilized to support caregivers and families, design engineer and manufacture solutions and safeguard public goods such as health and education. In the context of the war in Ukraine, communities within firms facilitated the provision of essential services – food, water, electricity and Internet – while simultaneously reorganizing supply chains through agile manufacturing, distributed sourcing and remote work arrangements. Educational and religious communities provided critical support to displaced children and contributed to the reception and integration of students in host countries. More recently, in conflict-affected areas, specialized communities and task forces have developed new forms of telecommunication, insurance and financial services (Dayson et al., 2021).These examples illustrate that fragility and disruption expose vulnerabilities across multiple levels but also highlight the capacity of communities to respond effectively to such challenges. As Lough (2021) observes, individuals and groups possess the ability to “bounce back” through self-organization.The presence of “core communities” is particularly important in this respect, as they draw upon dense social and relational connections embedded in specific territories (Beer et al., 2019; Bailey et al., 2013; Muller, 2006; Cohendet et al., 2021). This echoes the literature on “place leadership,” emphasizing how leadership emerges organically in localized settings to generate collective responses tailored to contextual challenges (Beer and Clower, 2014; Sotarauta, 2016; Hambleton, 2015; Broadhurst et al., 2021).At the same time, the scholarship on collective leadership highlights how shared roles, trust, collective identity and communication enable communities to adapt and thrive in adverse circumstances (Rowe et al., 2023). These insights complement research on organizational resilience, which identifies agency, social preconditions and resilience spirals as crucial factors for adaptation. Together, these varied perspectives illuminate the multifaceted nature of resilience, linking local action to organizational and societal transformation.In an era of persistent turbulence, self-organized leadership communities are indispensable. They not only provide timely responses to immediate crises but also support innovation, adaptation and long-term resilience. For organizations, the capacity to survive and thrive increasingly depends on their ability to leverage collective intelligence, foster collaboration and embrace change (Goglio et al., 2023).This special issue, which is partly based on research presented at the KCO 1 symposium (Kedge Business School), brings together six contributions that examine these processes, offering theoretical and empirical insights into how communities of practice, boundary actors, place leadership and self-organized leadership contribute to resilience and innovation under conditions of uncertainty.The first article, The dynamic response of coworking communities: unpacking resilience in times of disruption, by Cochis et al. (2026), explores how coworking communities developed resilience mechanisms and adaptability strategies in response to the significant disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study employs a mixed-method approach combining topic modeling with qualitative open coding, analyzing 99,745 tweets and 1,255 media documents related to coworking communities. The authors identify three interrelated dimensions of resilience: the instrumental dimension (physical and virtual interactions), the cognitive dimension (sense-making and collective understanding) and the affective dimension (emotional bonds). The study provides a holistic understanding of resilience in coworking spaces and emphasizes the importance of integrating virtual and physical practices while fostering emotional connections to sustain community cohesion during crises.In the second article, Boundary spanners as the missing link in supporting collaborative innovation in innovation spaces, Mérindol and Le Chaffotec (2026) examine the critical role of boundary spanners in enabling collaborative innovation within innovation spaces, both independent and organizationally managed. Based on a multi-case study of four innovation spaces in the French healthcare ecosystem, the research demonstrates that boundary spanners – whether individual managers or collective teams – act as network builders, mediators and entrepreneurs, whose influence extends beyond the physical boundaries of the innovation space. By mobilizing resources and connecting diverse actors, boundary spanners enable the emergence of resilient collaborative practices. The article also clarifies how their roles differ in independent versus organization-managed spaces while showing their fundamental contribution to the development of sustainable collaborative capabilities.The third article, Social collective organizing: a dynamic capability for the social resilience of a territory, by D’Antone et al. (2026), investigates how emergent social collectives enact dynamic capabilities to enhance the social resilience of their territories in the face of persistent adversities not addressed by local governments. Using an abductive approach, the study compares two social initiatives: Spesasospesa.org in Italy, tackling food poverty, and 30 Minutes to Save Lives in France, addressing cardiac arrest emergencies. The authors identify four key processes of resilience: sensing external triggers, seizing opportunities by mobilizing territorial resources, reconfiguring capabilities to adapt solutions to new domains and areas and leveraging boundary spanning activities. This research conceptualizes social resilience as a dynamic capability, demonstrating how collectives and their founders mobilize and adapt resources to sustain long-term territorial resilience.In the fourth contribution, Nonprofits and community resilience during a pandemic: a France-Quebec perspective, Lethielleux et al. (2026) analyze the interplay between the organizational resilience of nonprofit organizations and the resilience of their communities during the COVID-19 crisis. Drawing on participatory comparative research conducted in France and Quebec, the study highlights how the development of organizational resilience capabilities shaped the proactive or reactive role of two nonprofits, Episol and Paroles d’ExcluES, whose aim is to combat poverty and exclusion in their local communities by supporting community resilience. The article theorizes the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between nonprofits and communities, contributing to the literature on organizational resilience. This research emphasizes how nonprofit organizations become key players in social innovation during times of crisis, both within and beyond their local communities.The fifth article, Fostering community resilience through the lived experience of terrorist incidents, by Soomro (2026), examines how communities in terrorism-affected areas develop resilience and collective efficacy. The study is based on 21 semi-structured interviews conducted in Quetta, Pakistan, in 2023. The analysis identifies four major themes: stress induced by repeated exposure to terrorism, the persistent nature of the terrorist threat, active community participation in resilience-building and the challenges in sustaining engagement. The article advances the understanding of community resilience in extreme contexts and offers insights for strategies to strengthen collective efficacy and community-led responses to violent disruptions.In the last article, Ownership, freedom, belonging and God: Kibbutzim's strategies to extend their “sharing” model, Banai and Nirenberg (2026) examine how Israeli kibbutzim sustain their communal “sharing” model over long periods. Based on twenty years of interviews, observations and literature review, the study identifies four strategies adopted to renew and maintain the kibbutzim model: economic ownership, personal freedom, sense of belonging and religious beliefs. The authors demonstrate how Kibbutzim adapted their socio-economic models and leveraged psychological and cultural dimensions to maintain resilience. The article contributes to the literature on organizational and community resilience by extending life cycle theory to intentional communities and nonprofit organizations, highlighting both challenges and strategies for sustaining shared leadership communities.As the world navigates an era of persistent uncertainty, empowering self-organized leadership communities increasingly comes across as a strategic priority. These agile, community-driven initiatives not only offer timely responses to immediate crises but also cultivate innovation, social cohesion and long-term adaptive capacity mobilizing both individual and collective intelligence that are essential for organizational and societal resilience.The contributions to this special issue provide valuable theoretical and practical insights into the multifaceted nature of resilience. By examining how social collectives, nonprofits and intentional communities sustain adaptability and renew themselves over time, these studies illuminate the key processes and capabilities that enable resilience at the community level. Notably, they highlight the importance of dynamic interactions among boundary spanners, from coworking spaces and innovation ecosystems to nonprofit and intentional communities, place-based leadership and the integration of instrumental, cognitive and affective dimensions.In terms of managerial implications, policymakers, organizational leaders and community stakeholders should work to create enabling conditions for self-organization, fostering the social capital, collaborative mindsets and distributed decision-making that underpin resilient communities. Only by unleashing the power of collective agency can we enhance our capacity to weather storms and shape more sustainable futures. This agenda should also be integrated in business schools' curriculum. The insights from this special issue offer a roadmap for building the resilient communities we urgently need.We would like to thank the reviewers who contributed their valuable time and talent to develop this special issue and who have ensured the articles' quality through their constructive comments and suggestions to the authors. Finally, we are very grateful to the editorial team who provided us with valuable assistance, help and support in the processes of the Management Decision platform and in the follow-up of the various papers.
Goglio et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: