The notion surrounding resilience originated from the area of bio-science and has been utilized in the field of psychology in explaining the capacity of human beings to deal with the pressure of life and improve the capacity to be resilient in order to survive [
7,
10]. Resilience can be displayed in certain events such as work, personal experience, or disaster situations [
11]. Individual resilience rests on personal life experiences in facing difficult times or situations that the individual faced in his/her lifetime [
7]. Individuals mainly engage in resilience behavior when they experience difficult or troublesome situations such as where their survival is at risk; portrayed as protective and lifesaving behaviors [
7,
10].
Similarly, the perception of risk is highly related to the characteristic features of individuals [
12]. In this sense, risk factors within and around the surrounding environment require the right attention and behavior. In other words, displaying the right behavior depends on the adaptive capacity of the individual to respond to the risky situation at hand [
13]. Although individuals differ in their capacity to adapt to risk, this often leads to exhibiting different behaviors towards challenging situations based on the differences in their adaptive capacity and recognition towards risk. Indeed, this is the main reason that the resilience behavioral model is based on the perception of vulnerability [
2].
2.1. Organizational Resilience
Organizations can be described as living entities having three characteristic features, namely purpose, people, and structure. Historically, organizational history is full of failures and few organizations nowadays older than 100 years remain operating. Organizational resilience was studied by Horne and Orr [
7], as the capacity of the organization to survive whereby the viewpoint concerning capacity and its relationship to organizational resilience stimulates the development mindset concerning organizational resilience. On the other hand, Luthans [
14] (p. 702) delineates resilience as “the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility”.
Therefore, resilience is the innate capacity of the organization to face adversity, conflict, and even failure but subsequently bounce back from these problematic situations and progresses by moving forward which is considered the responsibility of the organization. The behaviors associated with facing difficult situations or adversity enacts the responsibility of the organization to revert to business as usual to satisfy its stakeholders. This responsibility behavior, in turn, triggers the developmental mindset in the organizational community and for those organizations engaged in the learning process. Importantly, this enables organizational learning phenomenon to learn from internal situations and from external factors in building the capacity to face adversity in maintaining business as usual [
10]. This organizational learning posture learned by the organization leads inevitably into a learning organization [
15]. Furthermore, the learning organization framework stimulates or prompts the organization to learn from all aspects and experiences and across all organizational levels. Indeed, this enables the organization to learn, from an enterprise-wide perspective and not just at one stage of organizational learning [
15].
A study by Mallak [
16] considered the threat conditions in an organizational environment and how the organization responds to these challenges in order to survive. It is a normal propensity for an organization to manage risk or challenges and return to normal operations following the passing of a risky or troublesome situation [
17]. However, organizational responses to threats and challenging situations form part of the overall business strategy based on the ideology of the organization [
2]. In other words, organizational resilience is the capability of the organization to manage internal and external problems [
1]. It is also believed that both conceptualizations of organizational resilience have similarities given that both emphasize organization survival or dealing with challenging issues and returning to normal operating conditions.
Similarly, another perspective of organizational resilience as being intrinsic and unique is shared by [
11], Hollnagel [
18] as the hidden aptitude of the organization by Powley [
19]. Whereas, Gilly, Kechidi, and Talbot [
20] labeled organizational resilience as the dynamic and responsive ability of an organization. In a separate study, organizational resilience is portrayed as being both incremental and vigorous [
21]. Accordingly, this highlights that organizational resilience cannot merely be obtained at one time but rather is a continual process of moving forward, collecting experiences along the way and to attain greater resilience and ability to face the many uncertain challenges presented [
22]. Furthermore, changes and advancements in technology—in the industry and globally—also present organizational challenges [
23]. Importantly, an organization will not survive without the ability to be resilient in facing adversity.
Notwithstanding, given the changing nature of work, the work environment and global economic and political conditions, organizational survival at any level remains challenging. McManus et al. [
12] assert that resilience is the amalgamation of adaptive capacity, situational awareness, and the management of vulnerability at the organizational level. Whereas, adaptive capacity is the ability of the organization, as a system, to adjust according to changing environmental factors [
24]. The system concept posits that an organization will be faced and impacted by many factors ranging from internal factors to external environmental factors. Therefore, organizations need to build the ability to make the necessary adjustments in order to survive according to the factors that are impacting them [
21].
Moreover, the ability to be more resilience is associated with the awareness of the factors impacting the organization. In this sense, internal capacity is crucial for the effective management of troublesome situations that may impact the organization. Here, flexibility, adaptability, agility, and efficiency are common attributes in enabling organizational resilience [
25]. Although, organizational resilience is a function of the organization’s adaptability, responsiveness, sustainability, and competitiveness [
26]. One might presume that the ability concerning flexibility and providing an appropriate response is necessary in order to become resilient but maintaining a level of competitiveness is more important in order to survive [
20]. Nonetheless, the capacity to survive is associated with the capability to internally respond to the external environment by trigging the responses that are needed to be resilient. It is understandable that organizational resilience is a multidimensional construct, mainly with an external focus, which is driven by external environmental cues [
27]. Moreover, resilience is the ability to absorb unsavory events or risks to maintain business as usual.
Lengnick-Hall, Beck, and Lengnick-Hall [
28] presented organizational resilience based on three aspects of organizational dimensions namely cognitive, behavioral and contextual constituents [
29]. The cognitive aspect makes sense of reality, based on the employees perceived ideological association with the organization that builds on value toning, cognitive belief and organizational values delivered to employees [
14,
30]. These beliefs and values bring with it a citizenship attitude in the employees that enable the behaviors most demanded by the organization in order to work together as a community [
15]. After achieving cognitive alignment, the notion of action or behaviors become much easier for employees to display and achieve resilient behavior [
31]. Behavioral resilience can only be achieved when employees have a cognitive attachment [
11]. The context, in this case, provides the necessary conditions to enable the proper behaviors to be enacted along with the proper values being displayed comparable to the social capital within the organization. For example, resources being shared by employees in the form of networks [
15].
Nevertheless, Wicker, Filo, and Cuskelly [
32] extended the understanding of two-dimensional organizational resilience from both the operational and strategic perspective. Here they posited that operational resilience at the organization level is an organizational aptitude to absorb shock and then returning to the normal organizational condition as before the shock occurred. Organizational resilience is multifaceted, and a multilevel phenomenon that builds on the interaction of the causes that exist internally within the organization and externally, prompting the necessary behavior or actions to occur in the form of resilience. Organizational resilience is based on the availability of organizational resources which are delivered in the form of operational behaviors directed by the organization’s strategic mindset that creates a resilient organization.
2.2. Assessment of Organizational Resilience
As mentioned earlier, the valuation of organizational resilience is multifaceted. Based on the suggestion of Mallak [
16] and Somers [
22] endorsed the estimation of organizational resilience based on seven distinct characteristics of organizational resilience, namely perceived experiences constructively perform with positive adaptive behaviors, adequacy of external resources, expansion in decision-making boundaries, practicing bricolage, tolerance for uncertainty, and building virtual role systems.
Furthermore, the resilience of an organization is based on four factors, namely situation awareness, management of keystone vulnerabilities, quality, and adaptive capacity [
32]. Lee et al. [
8] proposed the evaluation of organizational resilience applying a scale using certain factors along with 73 items. Whereas, Whitman, Kachali, Roger, Vargo, and Seville [
33] posited a shorter version of the scale but using the same four factors proposed by Lee et al. [
8] but with 52 items. Lee et al.’s [
8] scale consisted of several factors representing innovation and creativity, collaboration similar to the scale of McManus et al. [
12]. Moreover, that resilience is approximated using assets management, resilience requirement and development, risk management, people management, and monitoring at the operational level.
Another approach that can be employed is to base organizational resilience on the system theory which assumes that members of the organization are actual resources as well as the capacity of the organization to become a resilient organization [
34]. The idea, in this case, is for the organization to have resilience; an organization needs resilient employees along with internal systems that activate or trigger organizational resilience. Accordingly, this leads to using an information system or artifact. A social system is also required to face potential threats and challenging situations aimed at the organization having an organizational system to respond to these challenges or conditions [
30]. Consequently, the behavioral capacities of the employees can act as the enabler for organizational resilience [
2,
7], via the information system [
29,
35]. Furthermore, the resilience of the organization does not merely reside on organizational resources in totality but rather is a collaborative approach along with the joint effort of stakeholders. For instance, employees, suppliers, other market players, and policymakers [
3] and the existing system that operationally performs well inside the organization [
20]. Moreover, endogeniety was not discussed in the literature as a prominent causality issue in the organizational resilience.
2.3. Information System Artifacts
Activity theory postulates that the ISA provides the necessary activities and conditions to support an organization [
29], used as tools that can assist employees in performing their tasks and activities more efficiently. An organizational informational tool facilitates and enables better comprehension relating to the activities for employees [
29]. The ISA assists in generating and enhancing coherence within the workplace environment, apart from enabling the collective working amongst the employees where common meaning and sharing of information become easier. The ISA acts similar to an instrument which strengthens the action patterns thereby helping to create common sense concerning objectivity for the community at large [
25,
26].
However, the ISA perception in the mindset of the user relies on the interaction between the user and the ISA. The ISA offers certain features that assist the worker in performing his/her tasks and connects the user with a common platform to interact with at the organizational level. The innovation within the organization also assists employees to improve their capacity and engagement. Accordingly, the ISA is not merely a static mix of features but is a dynamic bundle of user-driven needs and helps to fulfil certain user behaviors [
5]. Consequently, this leads to the phenomenon of organizational resilience [
3,
4,
5]. As the ISA creates awareness and effective response patterns, the use of technology can help to instill disaster cognition and the effective management of a disaster event [
5].
In effect, the ISA operates like a platform in IT-driven organizations, where employees perform their daily activities and other duties as well as a tool to engage within the organization with other users and acts as a learning platform [
25]. The ISA acts as a social actor in many respects and goes beyond the concept of a productivity-enhancing tool [
10]. Moreover, this common platform helps to acquire the collective conscience of the organization at the organizational level. Indeed, it does not only reside as a helping/learning tool but also provides a dynamic working environment for all users connecting them like a community where they collectively work and interact as part of the community [
6]. The collective community thereby leads to uniform behaviors at the organizational level that enables common behaviors of certain types to be enacted as expected and required by the organization [
12,
25].
Given the common behaviors promoted by the ISA, collective competency begins to develop as the users of ISA start to perform similar tasks cohesively and collectively with each other as connected in the system [
34]. As one completes his/her work/task, other work is then started, forming a progressive chain of events. The notion of coordination established and employees have a common meaning with community understanding enabling to achieve commitment. Accordingly, this generates the working system within the organization where the ISA connects with each other, communication becomes easier, and the ISA positively influences the level of commitment shared by employees [
2,
25]. Therefore, one can assume that the ISA creates an enabling environment and culture where each person working in the organization is in effect connected in performing daily tasks and purposely prepared for contingencies in the event of interruptions or change.
2.4. Hypothesis Development
In this section, the viewpoint of organizational resilience is regarded as having the capacity to be resilient; as cognitive, behavioral, and contextual characteristics that prompt the organization to have resilience [
28]. Capacity in the form of resilience can be developed, managed, and stored within the collective efforts of the organization’s employees [
28]. Accordingly, this leads to exploring the possible role of the collective behavioral stock of employees towards organizational resilience that results through the ISA implemented in the organization. Also, the collective behavioral model of organizational resilience is contemplated. Organizational resilience is a collection of six modules, such as vision, values, elasticity, empowerment, coping, and connections [
16].
Subsequently, the work of Somers [
22] grounded on public organizations, tests Mallak’s [
16] structure by examining individuals as well as examining organizational resilience objectives. The work acknowledged that organizations are a social organism in form, comprising of people, structure, and objectives that guide the organization. Furthermore, the good or bad operations of an organization rest on the action of people and responding to the internal and external challenges faced by the organization from time to time. This ability to react and counter in order to revert to the previous situation following the uncertain situation and circumstance is regarded as the concept behind a resilient organization [
21].
Nevertheless, this capability to combat or revert to business as usual, is unassociated with waiting for contingencies to occur or challenges to come along, but more importantly, that organizations receive the right information in order to reduce the level of vulnerability more efficiently through the ISA [
2,
25]. Indeed, this makes an organization resilient which provides a strong argument for collective sensemaking and working with shared objectives with collective capacities to achieve organizational goals through the implantation of the ISA. This aggregation of behaviors is also objectively mentioned by Lengnick-Hall et al. [
28] and the use of the ISA for resilience [
25].
2.4.1. Collective Commitment
As employees are agents of the organization [
36], therefore employee behaviors embody organizational activities [
14]. Committed employees are the most significant and highly valued resource in any organization as they work towards the best interests of the organization [
36]. The collective perceived commitment portrays the general sense of motivation that prevails in the organization. Employees are willing to work with each other and take charge when necessary upon having ownership of work-related tasks for routine work or unexpected events. This sense of collective commitment is further enhanced when employees have a common information system platform. In other words, the commitment of employees as described and charged by the common workplace is shaped by the ISA [
25]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). The collective sense of commitment has a positive effect on the information system artifacts.
2.4.2. Communication within the Organization
Communication is the process of exchanging ideas and information associated with the living organism. Organizations, as a form of social system communication, enable the organization to operate for collective causes along with collective efforts. Likewise, information accuracy and precision leads to knowledge that is essential for the performance of organizational tasks and in the understanding of environmental issues [
12]. Moreover, communication enables the cultivation of openness and shared knowledge, where employees feel a sense of belonging which is an important component of any social system that exists inside an organization [
9]. Organizational communication is a vital part of the culture as well as the prevailing norms of the organization [
2]. When communication is supported and facilitated through the use of the ISA, communication becomes more effective as the common medium within an organization, given it is in the shape of the ISA. Moreover, the ISA stores the information and work as a learning tool for the future [
25]. The above discussion, therefore, leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). The collective sense of communication has a positive effect on the information system artifacts.
2.4.3. Collective Community
The flow of information within an organization leads to the lessening of ambiguity among organizational employees so that employees can perform organizational tasks efficiently and correctly. Moreover, employees feeling greater contentment within the organization will extend their efforts further in resolving organizational problems [
8]. Similarly, employees with a team-based attitude and approach will work in one direction to manage and overcome organizational disruptions in order to overcome any crisis. The use of an information system undoubtedly helps to inspire a community feeling among organizational employees [
25]. Accordingly, the connectivity that employees experience through the provision of the ISA makes employees feel like part of the community. Therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). The collective sense of community has a positive effect on information system artifacts.
2.4.4. Collective Competency
Employees bring their competencies to the workplace which helps the organization to perform. In fact, the organization is the collection of collective competencies of employees [
28]. When all individual capacities are at the disposal of the organization, the capacity to look forward to opportunities and threats is consequently multiplied. These collective competencies help in making an organization have a purpose and with actions linked in a more conducive and appropriate manner [
9]. The ISA also works as the competency register, capturing every aspect of the employee’s skills, knowledge, and experiences [
25]. Accordingly, the collective competency is well managed through the assistance of the ISA. Therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). The collective sense of competence has a positive effect on information system artifacts.
2.4.5. Collective Connectedness
While organizations are a collection of people and interrelationships, they also vary concerning these relationships. A healthy organization will be associated with having high interrelationships and strong ties/connections [
6]. However, an organization having weak interrelationships and loose ties/connections is considered a weak organization. Consequently, this collective connectedness represents organizational resilience [
13]. Furthermore, having a connection outside of market players is also important for organizational resilience [
12]. Nowadays, people are more connected due to information systems, the internet, and mobile devices which is also true for organizations as well. Enterprise-wide information systems act like a common workplace that connects employees, enabling them to work more cohesively with a team-based attitude [
25]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). The collective sense of connectedness has a positive effect on information system artifacts.
2.4.6. Collective Coordination
Coordination is the essential ingredient needed to sustain an organization and also for the organization as a system, to accomplish organizational goals and objectives. Indeed, this coordination is reflected and represented through the organizational structure that enables the organization to operate as a complete system [
12]. Collective efforts cannot bring about positive outcomes or change if work efforts are uncoordinated [
9]. Importantly, coordination brings with it, the necessary conditions for the organization to work in teams to successfully achieve assigned tasks and to analyze the susceptibilities of certain situations that may adversely affect the organization [
12]. Coordination enriches organizational life through the division of tasks and achievements. Tasks can be assigned or allocated more efficiently which enriches the organization by using the information system [
25]. The information system empowers the coordination in real time and allows work division and team formulation to occur via virtual teams to complete tasks in the best way [
1,
34]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 6 (H6). The collective sense of coordination has a positive effect on information system artifacts.
2.4.7. Collective Consideration
Collective consideration is about priority setting inside the organization [
9]. Consideration provides the necessary direction and conditions in order for the organization to achieve the desired outcomes concerning the collective behaviors of employees. Importantly, direction helps to provide the necessary support that is needed, thereby establishing the necessary conditions or state needed instead of forming a negative or a discouraging mindset. Consideration provides the motivation to move forward for an organization during times of crisis through self-evaluation in order to improve the situation when it next eventuates. This is especially important for employees [
24]. Resilience can also be achieved using the ISA, given it provides the system and support necessary to revert to business as usual. The information system also enables in having the right information readily available to achieve resilience and decision making as well as a mechanism to learn for future situations and events [
25]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 7 (H7). The collective sense of consideration has a positive effect on information system artifacts.
2.4.8. Information System Artifacts and Organizational Resilience
Through the ISA, maintaining and storing information, tracking, and learning from past events becomes much easier. Although, it also helps to have a sequential and logical framework in place to ensure the information is readily available for use within the organization. The ISA works for the cognitive as well as the behavioral part for employees in providing better working conditions which help to achieve integration at the workplace level and reducing inflexibility inside the organization [
21]. Indeed, this results in encouraging a team-based environment in that employees have a common purpose in working within the organization as one cohesive unit [
10]. In this case, the implementation of the ISA provides the necessary conditions and infrastructure to achieve resilience that an organization is seeking to achieve concerning the availability, accuracy, and timeliness of information and in allocating tasks [
25]. Moreover, the ISA helps to achieve progress, by moving forward which facilitates a learning environment to be created based on previous mistakes and experiences in helping and guiding the organization to handle future challenges. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 8 (H8). Information system artifacts have a positive effect on organizational resilience.
2.4.9. Mediational Role of Information System Artifacts
The ISA is primarily based on an activity concept where the implementation of the ISA positively affects employee capacity and engagement by enhancing the individual’s resilience levels [
25]. This study contributes to the resilience stream of knowledge by testing the role of the ISA as a mediator between the employee’s perceived capacities gained through working in the organization with respect to the employee becoming a citizen of the organization and contributing to the resilience of the organization to face untimely challenges [
10]. The ISA also acts like a learning platform that motivates employees, enabling them to interact in a more conducive manner [
25]. The resilience of the organization is therefore based on the collective perceived behaviors of employees such as their commitment, communication, competency, connection, coordination, community, and consideration [
9]. In this case, the availability of the ISA activates these behaviors to work in a conducive manner towards organizational resilience [
25,
37]. Importantly, organizational resilience relies on the collective perceived behaviors of employees and the capacities associated with the ISA available in the organization [
3,
10,
25,
37]. Accordingly, based on the above discussion and supported by the finding from the previous studies, the following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 9 (H9). Information system artifact mediates the relationship between collective commitment, collective communication, collective perception, community, collective competency, collective coordination, and collective consideration with organizational resilience.