This perspective article addresses the profound “definitional crisis” within resilience research, revealing inconsistent findings regarding adversity's role in workplace outcomes. Traditional individual-centric models are critiqued for neglecting systemic factors like racism, colonialism, patriarchy, and capitalism. These models profoundly shape experiences and resource access for marginalized groups. Recent scholarship advocates for multilevel frameworks. Shifting focus from individual traits to community resources, social determinants, and public policy. Furthermore, resilience is conceptualized diversely across disciplines, ranging from dynamic processes to purely economic metrics. Acknowledging these conceptual and methodological limitations, this paper proposes adopting facet analytical approach, as a tentative solution. This framework aims to formalize and clarify the multifaceted resilience construct by breaking it down into four basic facets: (1) Modalities of coping, (2) Time span of resilient behavior, (3) Level of growth, and (4) Domain of outcome. This approach seeks to enhance construct validity and bring much-needed clarity to a theoretically ambiguous field, moving toward a more unified understanding. However, we feel that even this conceptualization approach will not offer a sufficiently adequate solution to the conceptualization of resilience. We suggest a likely solution to this issue.
Shwartz-Asher et al. (2025) studied this question.