Origin of concept

Since psychologists originally defined resilience as a personal trait, early studies naturally focused on uncovering the extraordinary personal qualities of resilient children. Successful high-risk children were referred to as being invulnerable or stress-resistant, although resilience eventually became the most prominent term for describing such individuals (Masten and Reed, 2002). Subsequent studies focused on identifying risk factors (i.e., threats and hazards to individual functioning and development) as well as protective factors, assets, resources, or other qualities of persons or contexts implicated in the development of resilience such as attributes of children (e.g., good cognitive abilities, self-efficacy), aspects of their families

(e.g., close relationships with care giving adults, authoritative parenting), and characteristics of their wider social environments (e.g., effective schools, neighborhoods with high collective efficacy) (Masten and Reed, 2002; Luthar et al, 2000). Over the years, the focus shifted away from identifying the protective factors to understanding the protective processes, with the intention of elaborating the underlying mechanisms in order to understand how such factors contribute to positive outcomes (Luthar et al., 2000).

Garmezy (1991) has made an important point about resilience, saying that to be resilient does not assure success in every endeavor. Rather, it implies a “capacity for recovery or maintained adaptive behavior that may follow initial retreat or incapacity” upon experiencing a stressful event.

Definitions

A number of researchers have given various definitions of resilience. A few of the prominent ones are given in this section. Psychological resilience is defined by flexibility in response to changing situational demands, and the ability to bounce back from negative emotional experiences (Block and Block, 1980; Block and Kremen, 1996; Lazarus, 1993).

According to Masten and Coatsworth (1995), resilience refers to “achieving desirable outcomes in spite of significant challenges to adaptation or development” (p. 737). Theoretical descriptions of psychological resilience indicate that resilient people are able to ‘‘bounce back’’ from stressful experiences quickly and efficiently (Carver, 1998). Theoretical writings on resilience have indicated that resilient individuals are characterized by high positive emotionality (e.g., Block and Kremen, 1996; Klohnen, 1996; Wolin and Wolin, 1993) and by the capacity to rebound from negative circumstances despite threats to the individual (e.g., Block and Block, 1980; Lazarus, 1993; Masten, 2001).

Masten and Reed (2002) assert resilience is “a class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk” (p. 74). Thus, resilient employees are those who have the ability to positively adapt and thrive in very challenging circumstances such as involved in most organizational change.

Sutcliffe and Vogus (2002) defined resilience refers to the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions. Wildavsky (1988: 77) defined resilience as the “capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back.”

Luthans (2002a) defines resilience as a “positive psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility” (p. 702). At the core of this capacity is the bouncing back (and beyond) from setbacks and positively coping and adapting to significant changes.

Instead of only portraying resilient individuals as exceptional case studies of those who somehow defy the laws of gravity associated with adversity, Coutu (2002) describes them as those who accept reality, strongly hold onto meaningful and stable values and beliefs, and possess effective adaptive mechanisms that allow them to flexibly improvise in response to unexpected situations. Similarly, Wolin and Wolin (2006) challenge the “damage model” and its underlying “risk paradigm,” which establish preconceived notions based on a person’s “at-risk” classification. These labels, and consequently the ways in which the person is treated by mentors and peers, can become self-fulfilling prophecies that can set that person up for success or failure, independently of the person’s real ability to cope, adapt, and bounce back.

Resilience in human behaviour

Resilience has been described as the capacity for successful adaptation, positive functioning, or competence (Garmezy, 1993; Masten et al., 1990) despite high-risk status, chronic stress, or following prolonged or severe trauma. Resilience is often operationalized as the positive end of the distribution of developmental outcomes in a sample of high-risk individuals (Rutter, 1990). Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) also support the position that cognitive states and abilities such as resilience precede positive emotions and found that “high-resilient individuals tend to experience positive emotions even amidst stress” (p. 331). Tugade et al. (2004) found that those individuals higher in resilience used positive emotions to cope during and after stressful events. Similar results were found by Fredrickson et al. (2003) when studying the role of resilience in responding to the 9/11 attacks in New York. Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) emphasize that positive emotions enhance resilience, and so it is likely that emotions, once manifested, may in turn influence one’s subsequent thinking/ cognition.

Oreg (2003) asserts that resistance to change involves a reluctance to lose control, the quality of cognitive rigidity, a lack of psychological resilience, intolerance to the adjustment period involved in change, preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty, and a reluctance to give up old habits. Resilient individuals not only cultivate positive emotions in themselves, but they are also skilled at eliciting positive emotions in close others (i.e., caregivers early in life and companions later on), which creates a supportive social network to aid in the coping process (Demos, 1989; Kumpfer, 1999; Werner and Smith, 1992).

Hope and resilience also share a process orientation, in which the mechanisms that link the person to the desired outcomes are most critical for success. According to Masten and Reed (2002), resilience is comprised of adaptational processes, which are mechanisms developed by highly resilient individuals to effectively employ their available assets (e.g., cognitive, affective, social, financial, and other positive characteristics, skills, and resources) to mitigate the impact of their risk factors (e.g., weaknesses, deficiencies, and other negative factors that have the potential to amplify setbacks). Resilience is manifested when appropriate adaptational processes are used to draw on the right assets to withstand or recover from setbacks fueled by risk factors. In the same way that the process of generating alternative pathways is integral for the sustenance of hope, the effectiveness of one’s adaptational processes may be more critical for resilience than the simple additive sum of existing assets and risk factors.

Resilience implies effective coping, meaning efforts to restore or maintain internal or external equilibrium under significant threat by means of human activities, including thought and action. The studies of Murphy and her colleagues in Topeka exerted a strong influence on the formulation of this concept of resilience. They distinguished two types of coping: Coping I referred to the "capacity to cope with opportunities, challenges, frustrations, threats in the environment"; and Coping II referred to the "maintenance of internal integration" (Murphy and Moriarty, 1976). In general, girls have been described as more resilient than boys in childhood but as more vulnerable in adolescence (Rutter, 1989; Werner and Smith, 1982).

Resilience as Recovery

When adversity is prolonged or severe, resilience refers to the phenomenon of recovery when the immediate danger or stress recedes, not to invulnerability. Children of the Holocaust, children subjected to abuse and neglect by caregivers, and children who have lost a parent attest to the human capacity for recovery (Anthony and Cohler, 1987; Dugan and Coles, 1989; Garmezy, 1985; Garmezy and Rutter, 1983; Zimrin, 1986).

Ego resilience

Redl’s (1969) concept of ego resilience pertains to capacity to withstand pathogenic pressure, the ability to recover rapidly from a temporary collapse even without outside help, and the strength to bounce back to normal or even supernormal levels of functioning.

Resilience is often measured behaviourally on the basis of the person’s competence and success in meeting society’s expectations despite great obstacles. Internal indexes (thoughts and feelings) are often ignored, despite evidence that impressive social competence may well be heavily correlated with depression and anxiety (Miller, 1990; Peck, 1987). Clinicians and researchers are alerted to attend to the distinctions and interactions between adaptive behaviour and emotional status. Resilience needs to be examined and understood from both perspectives.

Scale to measure Ego-resiliency

Block and Kremen (1996) developed a scale to measure ego-resiliency. The items of Ego-resiliency scale, known as ER89, are as follows:-

1. I am generous with my friends

2. I quickly get over and recover from being startled

3. I enjoy dealing with new and unusual situations

4. I usually succeed in making a favourable impression on people

5. I enjoy trying new foods I have never tasted before

6. I am regarded as a very energetic person

7. I like to take different paths to familiar places

8. I am more curious than most people

9. Most of the people I meet are likeable

10. I usually think carefully about something before acting

11. I like to do new and different things

12. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested

13. I would be willing to describe myself as a pretty "strong" personality

14. I get over my anger at someone reasonably quickly

ER89 items are responded to by participants using a 4-step continuum:

1 = does not apply at all

2 = applies slightly, if at all

3 = applies somewhat

4 = applies very strongly

Scale to measure Career Resilience

Carson and Bedeian’s (1994) “career resilience” construct assesses the extent to which an employee believes his or her career entails costs and problems. This is a four-item scale consisting of the following items:-

1. The costs associated with my line of work/career field sometimes seem too great.

2. Given the problems I encounter in this line of work/career field, I sometimes wonder if I get enough out of it.

3. Given the problems in this line of work/ field, I sometimes wonder if the personal burden is worth it.

4. The discomforts associated with my line of work/career field sometimes seem too great.

The items are measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Higher levels of career resilience indicate that the employee sees fewer costs and problems in this career (Carson and Bedeian, 1994).

Research Work of Fred Luthans

Luthans (2002) defines resiliency as “the capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (p. 702). Unlike traditional conceptualizations of resiliency as an extraordinary capacity that can only be observed and admired in highly unique individuals, the positive psychology and Positive Organizational Behaviour (POB) perspective on resilience is that it is a learnable capacity that can be developed in the most ordinary of people (Masten, 2001; Masten and Reed, 2002) and measured as state like (Luthans et al., 2007; Wagnild and Young, 1993).

In their initial framework of authentic leadership, Luthans and Avolio (2003) identified the positive psychological capacities of confidence, optimism, hope and resiliency as personal resources of the authentic leader.

However, in line with the recognized developmental psychology literature (Egeland, Carlson, and Sroufe, 1993), POB resiliency is primarily viewed as a process rather than an outcome. In this process, assets and risks are combined in a nonlinear fashion. Rather than focusing on the variety, frequency, and intensity of assets and risk factors that one possesses, the adaptive employment of assets to effectively deal with risk factors and the accumulation, interaction, and sequence of risks being faced and assets being created, developed, and deployed become the determining factors for the outcomes of the resiliency process (Sandau-Beckler et al., 2002). Process-focused strategies attempt to enhance resilience by building effective coping mechanisms that can facilitate the utilization of various assets to overcome adversity.

Organizational resiliency

Organizational resiliency may be promoted through organizational-level asset-focused strategies, risk-focused strategies, process-focused strategies, and values that can meaningfully guide and trickle down to enhance unit and individual resiliency (Youssef and Luthans, 2005). A humanistic work ideology, including compassion, virtuousness, resiliency, and other similar positive characteristics, can equip organizations with the dynamic capabilities necessary for adaptability and responsiveness to environmental changes using strategies that would add value through human capital (Wooten and Crane, 2004).

Concept of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) by Fred Luthans

Psychological capital is measured by the 24-item PsyCap questionnaire or PCQ (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). This instrument includes 6 items for each of the four components of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale. A sample item for measuring resilience is: “I usually take stressful things at work in stride”

Using positivity, theoretical foundation, valid measurement, statelike developmental potential, and performance impact as their criteria for inclusion, Luthans and colleagues (see Luthans, 2002; Luthans and Youssef, 2007; Luthans et al., 2007) identified from the positive psychology literature efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism as being especially (but not exclusively) relevant to POB. Although each of the psychological resources have differing theoretical perspectives and definitions, efficacy is defined here as “one’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998b, p. 66). Hope is defined as “a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 287). Optimism is both a positivity-oriented future expectation (Carver and Scheier, 2002) and an attributional style that interprets specific positive events through personal, permanent, and pervasive causes and negative events through external, temporary, and situation-specific ones (Seligman, 1998). Resiliency is “the capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702). Taken together, these four have been theoretically developed and empirically tested as a statelike positive core construct termed psychological capital (PsyCap) (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007).

Specifically, PsyCap is defined here as: An individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by:

1. having confidence (self efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks

2. making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future

3. persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed

4. when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 3).

The integration of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism represents the core construct of PsyCap. This PsyCap can be considered a multidimensional construct identified by these four positive psychological resources. PsyCap attempts to integrate and advance the positive approach to organizational behavior in several ways. In addition to the POB inclusion criteria of being positive, theoretically based, measurable, developmental, and performance related, PsyCap as defined in the introductory comments is conceptualized, measured, and developed in terms of a statelike positive core construct, to which each of the individual resources of efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency synergistically contributes.

In addition, whereas efficacy, hope, and optimism tend to be proactive in nature, resilience is most often expressed in a reactive mode, as a response to a setback. However, resilience shares several interesting characteristics with efficacy, hope, and optimism. Both efficacy and resilience have an underlying perseverance component that motivates endurance in the face of obstacles. Although the context of the setbacks may be different (characterized by pursuit of specific self-set goals that is proactive in the context of efficacy but reactive in resilience), both capacities motivate persistence and a keeping-at-it outlook.

Resilience, the fourth resource of psychological capital, is identified in positive psychology as one’s ability, when faced with adversity, to rebound or “bounce back” from a setback or failure (Masten, 2001; Masten and Reed, 2002). It has been traditionally focused on “at risk” youth who succeed despite severe odds and adversity. Luthans (2002a, p. 702) defines PsyCap resilience as “the capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility.” Resilience focuses on attention to risks, assets, and process strategies for coping with and adapting to life events (Luthans, Vogelgesang, and Lester, 2006; Masten and Reed, 2002). Persons who are high in resiliency demonstrate high flexibility and openness to experiences that are novel, different, and ambiguous (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). When negative events occur, the resilient individual will assess assets in the environment and identify resources that can mitigate the impact and effect of the negative occurrence. They will draw from internal (cognitive) and external (networks) resources that will assist and permit recalibration and balance restoration (Coutu, 2002; Masten and Reed, 2002).

Positive emotions have also been shown empirically to enhance resilience in the face of negative events (Tugade et al., 2004). As this dynamic learning process of resilience focuses on positive adaptation, developmental interventions serving to maximize assets or resources and minimize risk factors (Masten, 2001; Masten and Reed, 2002) provide successful strategies for resilience focused interventions (Bonanno, 2005; Luthans, Vogelgesang, and Lester, 2006).

The PsyCap Intervention focuses on building the individual’s ability to anticipate adversity in goal accomplishment and to envision ways to overcome obstacles or “goal blockers” that can lead to disengagement from goal pursuit. The resilience component specifically focuses on risk factors that may contribute to undesirable events and assets that may mitigate or absolve undesirable events (Masten and Reed, 2002). The intervention would target the resources that would best enable trainees to work around negative contextual factors (e.g., lack of supervisory and peer support) and seek ways to use acquired skills on the job. One method may be to educate others on the benefits the trainee can now provide through his or her use of the newly acquired KSAs. Another method may be to obtain support through a community of learners or alums who went through the same learning experience.

Research Studies on PsyCap

Because of higher levels of resilience, even when high-PsyCap individuals experience negative events in the workplace, they are more likely to positively adapt and bounce back from those events, preventing the escalation and development of intentions to quit. Specifically, those high in PsyCap may be more resilient to stressful events, stressors, and setbacks (Masten and Reed, 2002)and do not experience the negative repercussions as strongly. In addition, when exposed to stressors, instead of responding with CWBs, individuals high in PsyCap would be expected to remain optimistic that the situation will improve (Carver and Scheier, 2002), generate plans and pathways to change the situation for the better (Snyder et al., 2000), and feel efficacious in their own abilities to persevere in the situation and continue being successful despite the adversity (Bandura, 1997).

Organizational Application

Within an organizational-developmental framework, resilience or competence is viewed as the ability to use internal and external resources successfully to resolve stage-salient developmental issues (Waters and Sroufe, 1983).

As a POB capacity, resiliency draws from rich theoretical and clinical research and practice foundations, extrapolating where common themes exist and adapting where warranted by the discontinuities across contextual differences. For example, there are established approaches for developing resiliency that have been recently shown to be applicable to the workplace. Masten (2001) and Masten and Reed (2002) outlines asset-focused strategies, risk-focused strategies, and process-focused strategies as effective approaches for building resiliency. Masten and Reed (2002) define an asset as “a measurable characteristic in a group of individuals or their situation that predicts a positive outcome in the future on a specific outcome criterion” (p. 76). Assets that are relevant to the workplace may include knowledge, skills, abilities, personality traits, and social relationships and support, all of which are predictive of higher performance. Asset-focused strategies emphasize building resiliency through enhancing one’s asset inventories, thus increasing the probability of success.

Given the additional perspectives that positive psychology and POB assimilate into resiliency, it becomes evident that resilience cannot be limited to just a reactive capacity that is expressed in times of adversity. POB resiliency also incorporates a proactive dimension that promotes discrepancy creation even in the absence of external threats (Bandura and Locke, 2003). It allows adversities and setbacks to be viewed as opportunities for learning, growth, and development. It engages creative and flexible adaptive mechanisms, guided by ethical values and strong belief systems, toward the achievement of personally and organizationally meaningful goals. This type of resilience has been supported as a predictor of work-related outcomes and shown to be open to development and management in the workplace.

Prior research has shown that managing trauma promotes resilience, self-esteem, and self-control (Sattler et al., 1995), which are resources that transfer across stressful settings. Organizations may find utility in selecting new employees based on personal stress robustness. For example, resources such as optimism, an ability to communicate, self-discipline, and organization skills promote resilience in post-trauma settings (Riolli, Savicki, and Cepani, 2002). Because these resources predict employee performance and coping efficacy (Begley, Lee, and Czajka, 2000), incorporating measures of these individual difference factors into the employee selection process is worthy of consideration.

In organizational theory, resiliency is an organization’s ability to achieve desirable outcomes amidst adversity and barriers (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2002). Sutcliffe and Vogus have elaborated on the organizational theory of resilience (sometimes resiliency) as a characteristic or capacity of individuals or organizations, or more specifically (a) the ability to absorb strain and preserve (or improve) functioning despite the presence of adversity (both internal adversity—such as rapid change, lousy leadership, performance and production pressures—and external adversity--such as increasing competition and demands from stakeholders), or (b) an ability to recover or bounce back from untoward events.

Resiliency requires positive adjustment, adaptation to challenging circumstances, and innovative solutions when the work situation is not ideal (Worline et al., 2002). Pellissier (2011) has proposed four primary attributes of resilience engineering: capacity, flexibility, tolerance, and inter-element collaboration. Capacity requires that the system be sized to handle the maximum and most likely events, such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters. However, a system cannot depend on capacity alone; the other attributes must be present to handle unpredicted events. Capacity includes functional redundancy. Flexibility requires the system to be able to reorganize. For example, plans must be in place to allow the command and control to shift upwards in the event of a serious disruption, such as a terrorist attack. Tolerance allows the system to degrade gracefully in the face of an attack. That is, all resources would not become inoperative after the first strike. One of the most important resilience attributes is inter-element collaboration. This attribute allows all elements of the system to interact and cooperate with each other as in collaborative innovation systems.

Johnson and Lenz’s (2009) have proposed a list of activities relating to resilient organizations. These are:-

1. Resilient organizations actively attend to their environments

2. Resilient organizations prepare themselves and their employees for disruptions

3. Resilient organizations build in flexibility

4. Engaging suppliers and their networks in devising makeshift solutions to temporary disruptions is a flexibility strategy. So are policies that encourage flexibility in when and where work is done. Employees who are used to tele-work and virtual workspaces adapt more quickly and are more productive following a crisis. In addition, research shows that flexible work practices contribute to greater employee resilience, productivity, and commitment, and to lower levels of stress.

5. Resilient organizations strengthen and extend their communications networks – internally and externally

6. Resilient organizations encourage innovation and experimentation.

7. Resilient organizations foster a culture of continuous innovation and ingenuity to solve problems and adapt to challenges. A side benefit is that employees who believe they can influence events that affect their work and lives are more likely to be engaged, committed, and act in positive ways associated with resilience. Some organizations also have internal idea markets to surface new ideas and innovations, for example, ‘crowdsourcing’ to engage people externally in solving a given problem or Eli Lilly's Innocentive Open Innovation Marketplace.

8. Resilient organizations cultivate a culture with clearly shared purpose and values

Criticism

However, several authors like Cooper et al. (2005), Shamir and Eilam (2005), and Sparrow (2005) have expressed concerns about defining authentic leadership as encompassing the positive psychological capacities of confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience.

Tools for measuring resilience

Ryan and Caltabiano (2009) conducted a study to develop a scale to measure resilience in midlife. The scale was administered to a sample of 130 men and women, aged 35 - 60 years, from the normal population. The contents of scale are as under:-

1. Deal with whatever comes my way

2. Achieve my goals

3. My life has meaning

4. Overcome financial difficulties

5. Friends I can confide in

6. Easily discouraged by failure

7. View change as a challenge

8. Can find a solution to a problem

9. In control of my own life

10. Do not cope well with stress

11. Have someone to help me if needed

12. Inability to deal with death

13. Give up when things look hopeless

14. Accept changes to body due to age

15. Can get through difficult times

16. Rely on family in tough times

17. Not equipped to handle changed work conditions

18. Belief in myself gets me through

19. Do not follow through with plans

20. I have little influence over what happens to me

21. Cope positively with illness

22. Love challenges and follow them through

23. Difficulty with loved ones leaving home

24. Control how I respond to events in my life

25. Spiritual beliefs give me hope during loss

The Resilience in Midlife Scale (RIM scale) consists of 25 items, each self-rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4) where 0 = Strongly disagree, 1 = Somewhat disagree, 2 = Neither disagree nor agree, 3 = Somewhat agree, 4 = Strongly agree. Each item is worded for sixth grade reading ability and items are worded in a manner to exclude gender bias. Scores can range from 0 – 100, with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. Cronbach’s alpha for the total RIM scale was .87, which indicates good internal consistency and therefore high reliability. Item-total correlations ranged from .16 to .61, with the majority falling between .35 and .57. The Spearman-Brown coefficient for the RIM scale was .88, which suggests good reliability. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the RIM scale with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. A strong, positive correlation between the two scales was evidenced (r = .81, p < .01), supporting the convergent validity of the RIM scale. Factor analysis results reflected that the scale consisted of five factors, four internal and one external. The factors are self-efficacy, perseverance, internal locus of control, coping and adaptation, and family and social networks.

The RIM scale has potential utility in clinical and research settings. The RIM scale could be employed to measure and quantify the level of resilience an individual brings to a difficult life situation, his or her potential ability to cope with change and negotiate the challenges of midlife, as well as the level of recovery an individual exhibits after an adverse life event.

The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI)

The CCAI (Kelley, C. and Meyers, J., 1995) is a 50 item-long instrument with which the ability of a person to live contentedly and work effectively in a cross-cultural environment is assessed. It is based on a non-culture-specific approach, which assumes that there are features common to all cultural transitions, irrespective of the culture of origin. The CCAI provides a framework within which to measure the ability of individuals to adapt from one culture to another or to work in a culturally diverse setting.

When individuals find themselves in a new culture they often experience negative emotional reactions to their situation. Therefore, an important component to being able to adapt to a new environment is the ability to deal with these emotions and still maintain a positive outlook on one’s situation, in other words, to have emotional resilience. This self-assessment inventory gauges adaptability to other cultures on the basis of four research-based cultural dimensions:

Emotional Resilience

(18 Items)

a. Coping with stress and ambiguity

b. Recovering from imperfections and mistakes

c. Openness to new ideas and experiences

d. Interaction with people in new or unfamiliar situations

e. Emotionally resilient people are likely to be more positively inclined, resourceful and to control negative emotions.

Flexibility/

Openness

(17 Items)

a. Openness towards, and preparedness to learn from things and people that are different from oneself

b. Tolerance of others, non-judgmental attitude towards new experiences

c. Flexibility or role behavior

d. The degree to which a person enjoys diverse approaches to behavior and thinking is analyzed

Perceptual Acuity

(10 Items)

a. Attention to communication cues

b. Ability to recognize the logic and coherence of other cultures

c. This dimension examines the ability to accurately perceive cues across cultures

Personal Autonomy

(7 Items)

a. Personal identity independent of environmental indications

b. Confidence in one’s own values and beliefs

c. Sense of empowerment in the context of an unfamiliar cultural situation

Note:- Since this scale is registered with National Computer System (Minneapolis, USA), so exact items could not be obtained. However, the same can be purchased if required.

Criticism of CCAI

Davis and Finney (2003) designed a research study to examine the replicability of the four-factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory proposed by Kelley and Meyers (1995). Unfortunately, the four-factor model did not fit their data as demonstrated by the results from the CFA. An exploratory factor analysis failed to produce a structure that was interpretable. The authors recommended that this instrument should not be used to assess the cross-cultural adaptability of any population until it has been studied further. The scale appeared to need major revision including item analysis and structural changes.

14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14)

Wagnild and Young has developed a 14-item "The Resilience Scale" (called RS-14). This scale is available on internet (http://www.resiliencescale.com/en/rstest/ rstest_14_en.html) for free of cost. The 14 items are as follows:

1. I usually manage one way or another.

2. I feel proud that I have accomplished things in life.

3. I usually take things in stride.

4. I am friends with myself.

5. I feel that I can handle many things at a time.

6. I am determined.

7. I can get through difficult times because I've experienced difficulty before.

8. I have self-discipline.

9. I keep interested in things.

10. I can usually find something to laugh about.

11. My belief in myself gets me through hard times.

12. In an emergency, I'm someone people can generally rely on.

13. My life has meaning.

14. When I'm in a difficult situation, I can usually find my way out of it.

These items are rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from "1" (Strongly Disagree) on the left to "7" (Strongly Agree) on the right.

Wagnild and Young has also developed a 25-item "The Resilience Scale” (called RS-25). This scale includes all the items of RS-14 and an additional 11 items. These items are rated on a seven-point Likert in the same manner as in RS-14. The items are as under:

1. When I make plans, I follow through with them.

2. I am able to depend on myself more than anyone else.

3. Keeping interested in things is important to me.

4. I can be on my own if I have to.

5. I seldom wonder what the point of it all is.

6. I take things one day at a time.

7. I can usually look at a situation in a number of ways.

8. Sometimes I make myself do things whether I want to or not.

9. I do not dwell on things that I can't do anything about.

10. I have enough energy to do what I have to do.

11. It's okay if there are people who don't like me.

REFERENCES:

Anthony, E. J., and Cohler, B. J. (Eds.). (1987). The invulnerable child. Guilford Press.

Block, J. H., and Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the origination of behavior. In W. A. Collings (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Block, J., and Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(2), 349.

Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266.

Carson, K. D., and Bedeian, A. G. 1994. Career Commitment: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44: 237-262.

Carver, C., and Scheier, M. (2002). Optimism. In C.R. Snyder and S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology, 231-243. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Coutu, D. L. 2002. How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5): 46-55.

Davis, S. L., and Finney, S. J. (2003). Examining the psychometric properties of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Demos, E. V. (1989). Resiliency in infancy. In T. F. Dugan and R. Cole (Eds.). The child of our times: Studies in the development of resiliency (pp. 3–22). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Dugan, T. F., and Coles, R. (Eds.). (1989). The child in our times: Studies in the development of resiliency. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Egeland, B., Carlson, E., and Sroufe, L. A. 1993. Resilience as a process. Development and Psychopathology, 5: 517-528.

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., and Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(2), 365.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Book (Suppl. No. 4, pp. 213-233). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children's adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments. Pediatric annals, 20(9), 459-60.

Garmezy, N. (1993). Vulnerability and resilience. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keesey, and K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Approaches to personality and development (pp. 377-398). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Garmezy, N., and Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development in children. New York: McGraw-H

Johnson-Lenz, P., and Johnson-Lenz, T. (2009). Six habits of highly resilient organizations. People Place, 1(3).

Kelley, C., and Meyers, J. E. (1993). The cross-cultural adaptability inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Klohnen, E. C. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067–1079

Kumpfer, K. L. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to resilience: The resilience framework. In M. D. Glantz and J. L. Johnson (Eds.). Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 179–222). New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1–21.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 23(6), 695-706.

Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior, Journal of Management, 33, 321-349

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., and Avolio, B. J. (2006). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., and Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 60(3), 541-572.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., and Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child development, 71(3), 543.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., and Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444

Masten, A. S., and Coatsworth, D. (1995). Competence, resilience, and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 715–752). New York: Wiley.

Masten, A. S., and Reed, M. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In CR Snyder, SJ López (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, A. (1990). The untouched key: Tracing childhood trauma in creativity and destructiveness. New York: Doubleday.

Murphy, L. B., and Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth: From infancy to adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Oreg, S. 2003. Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 680-693.

Peck, E. C. (1987). The traits of true invulnerability and posttraumatic stress in psychoanalyzed men of action. In E. J. Anthony and B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child (pp. 315–360). New York: Guilford

Pellissier, R. (2010). The implementation of resilience engineering to enhance organizational innovation in a complex environment. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), p145.

Redl, F. (1969). Adolescents—Just how do they react? In G. Caplan and S. Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 79–90). New York: Basic.

Rutter, M. (1989). Temperament: Conceptual issues and clinical implications. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates,andM. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 463-479). New York: Wiley

Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In A. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, and S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, L., and Caltabiano, M. L. (2009). Development of a new resilience scale: The Resilience in Midlife Scale (RIM Scale). Asian Social Science, 5(11), 39.

Sandau-Beckler, P., Devall, E., and de la Rosa, I. 2002. Strengthening family resilience: Prevention and treatment for high-risk substance-affected families. Journal of Individual Psychology, 58: 305-327.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Pocket Books.

Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., and Anderson, J. (1991). Hope and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In C. R. Snyder and D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 285-305). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Stajkovic, A., and Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 62-74.

Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T.J. (2003). Organizing for Resilience. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E., and Quinn, R.E. (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. pp. 94-110.

Tugade, M. M., and Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 320.

Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., and Feldman Barrett, L. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of personality, 72(6), 1161-1190.

Wagnild, G., and Young, H. 1993. Development and psychometric evaluation of the resiliency scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2): 165-178.

Waters, E., and Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as developmental construct. Developmental Review, 3, 79-97.

Werner, E. E., and Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E., and Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wildavsky, A. B. (1988). Searching for safety (Vol. 10). Transaction publishers.

Wolin, S., and Wolin, S. (1993). Bound and Determined: Growing up resilient in a troubled family. New York: Villard

Wolin, S., and Wolin, S. (1999). Project Resilience Core Concepts. Online at: www. projectresilience. com.

Wooten, L. P., and Crane, P. (2004). Generating Dynamic Capabilities through a Humanistic Work Ideology The Case of a Certified-Nurse Midwife Practice in a Professional Bureaucracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 848-866.

Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., Kanov, J., Lilius, J. M., and Maitlis, S. (2003). Creating fertile soil: The organizing dynamics of resilience. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.

Youssef, C. M., and Luthans, F. (2005). Resiliency development of organizations, leaders and employees: Multi-level theory building for sustained performance. Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development, 3, 303-343.

Zimrin, H. (1986). A profile of survival. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 339-349

Received on 30.07.2015 Modified on 12.08.2015

Int. J. Rev. & Res. Social Sci. 3(3): July- Sept., 2015; Page 128-136

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2015.00004.0