Exploring the Interplay Between Individual and Organisational Resilience in the Construction Sector: A Comprehensive Analysis

Abstract

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.

1. Introduction

Resilience in New Zealand’s construction sector has become a critical concern over the past decade, especially in light of major disruptions like the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes and the COVID-19 pandemic, Gabrielle Cyclone, etc. These events have underscored the need for construction organisations to build and maintain resilience, given their pivotal roles in planning, designing, constructing, and managing infrastructure essential to risk reduction and recovery [1,2]. Barasa, Mbau [3] asserted that Organisational resilience is the blend of managing challenges and adapting to sustain. While this ability encompasses several levels and dimensions, there is growing recognition of individual resilience in conjunction with organisational resilience. Individual resilience is the ability to cope with stress, recover from setbacks, and remain effective under pressure. In line with this, several scholars have asserted the role of individuals in promoting organisational change [4,5]. Doe [6] suggested that resilient organisations rely on the existence of individuals who can withstand changes and perceive them as opportunities to advance further.

Recent multi-level studies, such as Clements and Kinman [7], highlight that resilience operates across individuals, teams, and organisations in an interconnected and dynamic manner, rather than as isolated phenomena. Similarly, Kołodziej, Żak [8] highlighted that organisational resilience is deeply shaped by its context and differs substantially between sectors, reinforcing the relevance of grounding this research in the distinctive setting of New Zealand’s construction industry.

However, recent studies also note that while resilient people are valuable, having resilient individuals alone may not automatically translate into a resilient organisation, indicating a multifaceted and context-dependent interplay. For instance, a study by [9] underscored that organisational survival and adaptation are critically dependent on a broader set of supportive elements. These include strong leadership, an employee-centric orientation, fostering collaboration, and promoting robust knowledge sharing and continuous learning. Without these foundational organisational pillars, individual resilience may not only be less effective but could even be negatively impacted, potentially leading to an inability to function effectively and overwhelming stress. This was even discussed by [10] that organisation resilience is a distinct capacity that emerges from the interaction and mutual strengthening of individual, team, and organisation levels of resilience. The research specifically highlighted shared indicators to discuss the precise limits or boundary conditions of the overlap between individual and organisational resilience.

Moreover, in the context of the New Zealand construction sector, the literature has predominantly focused on organisational resilience frameworks Like [11,12,13]. While these studies provide valuable insights into how firms can withstand and recover from external shocks, they often neglect the nuanced interconnection between individual and organisational resilience. This absence of integration results in limited understanding of how the resilience of individual employees contributes to, or is constrained by, broader organisational systems. The concept, thus, lacks clarity regarding the attainment of organisational resilience by virtue of resilient employees. In addition, the construction projects are multifaceted and involve numerous stakeholders working together [14], making the interplay among them more intricate. This has increased the uncertainty regarding how employee resilience influences organisational resilience [15].

Despite growing interest in both individual and organisational resilience, limited attention has been given to how these two constructs interact—especially in complex and disruption-prone sectors such as construction. While the existing literature tends to examine resilience at either the individual or organisational level, few studies explore how professionals within the industry conceptualise their relationship in practical terms. This disconnect between theoretical models and practitioner perspectives can lead to resilience frameworks that are abstract, incomplete, or misaligned with real-world needs. Moreover, limited attention has been given to the underlying source, purpose, and contextual drivers, which are essential for understanding how resilience truly emerges and is sustained in dynamic, high-pressure environments like the construction sector. As a result, resilience planning in construction organisations may be fragmented or ineffective, failing to fully leverage the dynamic interplay between individual and organisational capacities.

To conceptually ground the relationship between individual and organisational resilience, this study recognises both constructs as interdependent yet distinct. Individual resilience is often rooted in psychological capacities such as adaptability, self-efficacy, and emotional regulation [16,17], while organisational resilience arises from systemic attributes including leadership, governance, culture, and resource mobilisation [3,11]. Although these operate at different levels, recent studies [7,10] highlight their dynamic interplay, mediated by contextual conditions such as trust, learning orientation, and autonomy. This study hypothesises that organisational attributes act as moderating factors that can either facilitate or inhibit the transfer of resilience across levels. When these conditions are favourable, resilient individuals contribute to organisational learning and adaptability, while resilient organisations reinforce individual agency and psychological safety. Conversely, misalignment between levels—such as strong individuals within rigid or toxic systems can obstruct resilience outcomes. The conceptual framework developed here provides the foundation for the integrated model introduced in the subsequent section.

Thus, the current study aims to analyse the relationship between individual resilience and organisational resilience by addressing three major research questions:

• What is the current level of understanding amongst the construction professionals of New Zealand?
• What are the crucial factors that influence both individual resilience and organisational resilience?
• How can the relationship between individual and organisational resilience be conceptualised to inform an integrated framework?

Enhancing resilience in this dual context would allow construction firms to craft crisis response plans that are more effective. This will also help in establishing connections within fields like psychology, organisation behaviour, sociology, and other relevant disciplines. Therefore, the current study would help in deepening the knowledge of the association between individual and organisation factors to create a more resilient, agile, and sustainable organisational system. Through a detailed background study and qualitative research approach, the study provides significant themes to highlight what major processes and aspects govern the relationship between individual resilience and organisational resilience. The study recommends future research to utilise the factors provided to develop a concrete model to help industry practitioners and academicians. The final model will aid in formulating plans, policies, and strategies to safeguard construction organisations during setbacks.

Accordingly, the paper is structured into five sections: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on individual and organisational resilience, particularly in the construction sector, to understand the existing research gap and relevance of the current study. Section 3 outlines the qualitative research design, including sampling, data collection, and analytical methods to illustrate the process behind data acquisition and analysis. Section 4 presents the thematic findings derived from interview data and discusses these findings in light of existing research, drawing out conceptual linkages and practical relevance. Finally, Section 5 includes the conclusion by outlining the theoretical and practical implications of the study, along with its limitations and recommendations for future research.

2. Background Studies

2.1. Organisational and Individual Resilience

2.1.1. Organisational Resilience

The present study adopts a dynamic perspective on resilience, viewing it as a capacity that develops progressively in response to external pressures. Conceptualising organisational resilience as a process underscores its evolving nature, shaped by continuous cycles of learning, adjustment, and transformation. Reflecting this view, the study adopts the definition proposed by [18] which states that “organisational resilience is a firm’s ability to effectively absorb, develop situation-specific responses to, and ultimately engage in transformative activities to capitalise on disruptive surprises that potentially threaten organisation survival.” Scholars such as [4,9,19,20] have also supported and acknowledged this idea of organisational resilience.

2.1.2. Individual Resilience

Amongst the various definitions proposed by scholars, the current research adopts the framing proposed by McGonagle et al. [16], which describes individual resilience as the “positive adaptability or ability to thrive in the face of adversity.” This interpretation underscores that resilience is not simply about withstanding challenges but about evolving through them an active, constructive process of adaptation and growth. Its emphasis on “positive” adaptability is particularly meaningful, signalling that resilience involves not just resistance, but purposeful transformation. Moreover, the definition’s clarity and versatility make it applicable across various domains, including psychology, organisational research, and crisis management, making it both academically robust and practically relevant. Moreover, this definition of individual resilience also aligns with other scholars’ ideas such as [17,21,22] who focussed on positive adaptation and bounce back theory.

2.2. Relationship Between Individual and Organisational Resilience of NZ Construction Sector

2.2.1. Positive Impact of Individual Resilience on Organisational Resilience

A large body of literature supports mutually dependent relationship between individual and organisational resilience. At the individual level, resilience is commonly defined in psychological terms: the ability to absorb stress, remain functional, and adapt personally during adversity [23]. Research in this area often focuses on high job strain, mental health risks, and coping strategies among construction professionals and frontline workers. Programmes like MATES in construction, for example, aim to foster individual resilience through peer support and education. At the organisational level, Pascua and Chang-Richards [24] examined civil construction contractors in New Zealand through case studies and highlighted the importance of both human and organisational factors, such as leadership and staff training, in building resilience. Similarly, McManus [11] identified key indicators of organisational resilience including staff engagement, communication, and relationship management. According to [25,26], resilient individuals maintain high performance under stress and drive engagement during adversity, contributing to organisational learning and adaptive capability. These studies consistently point to an intertwined relationship between individual and organisational resilience.

2.2.2. Limited or Negative Impact

Although authors have proposed that emotionally sound and mentally prepared workers may enhance firm performance during crises [24], these insights remain largely theoretical. For example, in a longitudinal qualitative study of small businesses following the Christchurch earthquakes, De Vries and Hamilton [27] found that “even the most resilient of individual owners will struggle to survive if their business model is not resilient. Hence, individual resilience is necessary but not sufficient.” This underscores that a construction enterprise’s ability to survive and recover after disruption depends not only on the resilience of its leaders and employees but also on broader organisational factors such as business structure and resource availability. At the individual level, van Heerden, Chawynski [23] explored major stressors and coping strategies among New Zealand construction professionals. Their findings showed that organisational environments strongly influence employees’ capacity to cope, and that burnout or high staff turnover can, in turn, weaken an organisation’s overall resilience. However, the study does not clearly explore the link between strengthening individual resilience and measurable improvements in organisational performance or crisis readiness. Recent case studies in New Zealand construction suggest that the relationship is not linear or hierarchical, but interactive and conditional. For example, firms with technically resilient systems still failed to adapt due to employee burnout or disengagement, while others with modest resources remained operational due to cohesive teams and flexible leadership [9].

2.2.3. Fragmented and Siloed Understanding

In New Zealand’s construction sector, resilience has emerged as a critical concept in both academic and industry discourse, particularly in response to mounting disruptions such as earthquakes, financial shocks, and global pandemics. However, the concept remains fragmented in both application and understanding. Studies of organisational resilience in the NZ context, particularly those led by BRANZ and ResOrgs, highlight system-level attributes such as leadership, adaptability, planning processes, supply chain stability, and financial robustness [12,28]. These features are often viewed as technical or strategic in nature, and while staff capability is sometimes mentioned, it is rarely examined as a dynamic driver of firm-level resilience. This separation creates a critical blind spot: the assumption that individual resilience either passively supports or is independent of organisational outcomes. Wilkinson, Potangaroa [29] argue that studies connecting the two levels of resilience are “sparse and underdeveloped,” and that the relationship is often assumed rather than empirically demonstrated. Conceptually, this divide is reinforced by inconsistent definitions and lack of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms. For instance, individual resilience is linked to personal traits (emotions, adaptability, etc.) while organisational resilience depends on external resources and structures [30]. This highlights that the origins of resilience differ by levels—some factors are internal to people, others are built into the wider organisation—and understanding these sources is essential to see how resilience in people and in the organisation interplay. In addition, understanding why resilience exists is crucially important. As Wiig, Aase [31] argued that “it is important to articulate and define what resilience is for and what goals and objectives it is supporting in any system.” In other words, investigation to specify the purpose and defining the goals that resilience serves helps explain how and when resilience mechanisms are activated. Together, recognising the sources (personal vs. environmental) and purposes (what system outcomes they serve) of resilience at individual and organisational levels is critical for conceptualising how resilience emerges and operates across levels.

2.2.4. Unclear Link Between the Individual and Organisational Resilience

Despite the increasing interest in resilience following global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Cyclone Gabrielle, empirical studies that analyse the interdependence between individual and organisational resilience remain scarce, and existing frameworks often fail to capture it. Li, Yu [32] observed that resilience definitions and dimensions frequently lack holistic integration—often compartmentalised across structural, operational, and supply chain domains. In addition, Zungu, Laryea [33] argue that existing resilience frameworks are insufficient for contracting firms because they overlook practitioner experiences and industry specific complexities. While various studies point to an intertwined relationship, explicit investigation of how these two dimensions interact dynamically remains limited. Conceptual inconsistencies and differing definitions of resilience further complicate efforts to map these interactions. As a result, there is still insufficient understanding of how individual and organisational resilience co-evolve, often leading to uncertainty and errors in resilience planning. This points to an emerging understanding: resilience may reside not only in structures or individuals, but in how they align and respond together. Hence, the current study discusses how these dimensions relate in practice, to identify shared enablers of resilience across levels, and to develop an integrated conceptual model that reflects how resilience is enacted, understood, and sustained in real construction settings. Moreover, due to the existing studies tending to focus predominantly on either individual or organisational resilience in isolation, there is a pressing need for a unifying framework that bridges this divide. The present research responds to this need by offering an integrated model that connects individual and organisational perspectives, thereby providing a more holistic understanding of resilience in complex, real-world construction settings. Most current resilience models are highly context-dependent and lack adaptability across sectors or disruption types. In contrast, the proposed framework is inductively developed from empirical data and grounded in actual organisational practices and individual experiences during disruptions. It is designed to address both sudden shocks and gradual stressors. Organisations require actionable strategies that move beyond abstract concepts and checklists. By combining individual strength with organisational learning and supporting factors, this research contributes a practical model that would enable organisations not only to survive disruption but to evolve through it.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Procedure of Conducting the Study

The core objective of this study is to conceptualise how IR and OR interact in practice and to identify the mediating factors between individual and organisational resilience. As the associated research question are exploratory in nature and demand a method capable of capturing complex, subjective, and context-dependent insights, semi-structured interviews were utilised for this purpose. The use of interviews allowed for flexible, open-ended engagement with participants, facilitating the collection of rich, contextually grounded data. This flexibility enables the researcher to probe deeper into specific examples of resilience, clarify meanings, and uncover nuanced mechanisms—particularly those mediating the link between individual and organisational levels. Unlike structured surveys or closed-ended tools, semi-structured interviews generate the rich, detailed data necessary to understand dynamic relationships, reveal emergent themes, and build an evidence-based conceptual framework grounded in real-world construction industry contexts.

Interview questions were developed based on findings from the background literature and analysis of relevant case studies across sectors such as healthcare, consultancy, and security. These sources helped identify thematic gaps and practical insights that shaped the content and structure of the interview guide.

The responders included consultants, contractors, infrastructure firms, real estate developers, and material suppliers—professionals actively engaged in the New Zealand construction sector. The shortlisting criteria included factors such as company history, prior exposure to crises, firm size, employee satisfaction, and financial performance. These indicators helped identify organisations that had demonstrated resilience under challenging conditions.

Based on qualitative research standards, the objective is not statistical generalisation but rather depth, richness, and contextual relevance [34]. Accordingly, 20 construction professionals were purposefully selected and contacted for interviews. Given the niche focus of the study—exploring individual and organisational resilience in the construction industry—the number of participants with the requisite combination of experience, seniority, and topic relevance was inherently limited. Moreover, the New Zealand construction sector is comparatively small and tightly networked, which constrained access to senior-level professionals. This challenge was especially evident when targeting individuals with decision-making authority in areas such as human resources, project delivery, or resilience planning. Despite these access limitations, the participants who were successfully recruited possessed deep domain knowledge and diverse project experience, qualifying them as information-rich cases capable of offering meaningful insights.

This sampling approach is methodologically sound and well-supported in the literature. Guest, Bunce [35] found that data saturation in thematic analysis typically occurs within the first 12 interviews, and that basic themes are often well established after six interviews. Their findings support the notion that large sample sizes are not necessary when the sample is homogeneous in terms of expertise and relevance to the topic. Similarly, Mason [36], reported that the modal sample size was 20, particularly in research fields that required contextual and interpretive depth rather than generalisability. Vasileiou, Barnett [37] also argue that smaller sample sizes are justified when the participant pool is narrowly defined and selected for theoretical relevance, rather than statistical representativeness. In line with these criteria, this study used purposive sampling to select professionals who could offer thematic diversity across leadership levels, firm types, and project scales.

Hence, the study’s sample of 20 construction professionals is consistent with established qualitative guidelines and sufficient for achieving data saturation, especially given the specificity of the sector and the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation. Their input enabled the development of a nuanced and empirically grounded model of resilience that reflects the lived realities of the New Zealand construction industry.

The interviews were structured into two sections: Section A gathered background information on the participants and their organisations; Section B explored topics directly related to resilience at both individual and organisational levels.

All interviews were transcribed and analysed using NVivo 14 software, following Braun and Clarke’s [38] six-step reflexive thematic analysis process. The study followed an inductive approach to allow new themes to emerge directly from the data. Key segments were coded, annotated, and linked to analytical reflections through NVivo’s memo and node features, facilitating a comprehensive and traceable thematic analysis.

To enhance validity, the co-author independently reviewed the transcripts and any discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved through reflexive dialogue until consensus was reached. An audit trail was maintained to ensure transparency in code refinement and theme development.

Codes were organised into higher-order categories that aligned with the research questions. For example, the codes “autonomous decision-making” and “freedom to deviate from protocols” were clustered into the theme Empowerment and Autonomy, with illustrative quotes such as the following:

“We weren’t told what to do—we made calls ourselves, and that freedom made us faster” (Participant MS1). Similarly, the code “Managerial support” and “Guidance from senior officials” were grouped under the theme Leadership and Governance, illustrating how resilient leadership dynamics contribute to both individual and organisational resilience. These new factors observed were eventually compared with the existing literature to increase the trustworthiness of the findings by linking them to established theories and findings.

To improve the clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy of the manuscript, the authors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT as a language-support tool. The software was applied solely for linguistic refinement—such as grammar checking, sentence restructuring, and improving readability—without altering the substantive content, interpretation of findings, or originality of the research.

3.2. Details of the Participants

From the research data analysis, 79.7% were male and 20.3% were female. This could highlight that the construction industry is still dominated by males, but the number of females entering are steadily increasing. The data collected reflected a wide spread of construction professionals’ opinions with significant project experience. The average years of construction industry experience was 21.0 years and approximately 84% were involved in 10 or more projects over this period of time. Approximately 70.7% of the respondents had a qualification of a certificate of achievement (Level 4), certificate (Level 5), diploma (Level 6) or a bachelor’s degree (Level 7). The respondents came from the four top sectors, i.e., commercial/ retail (25.3%), residential (20.3%), industrial (19.4%) and infrastructure (14.1%).

The data collected further revealed that all the participants had a bachelor’s degree (Level 7) or higher, in which 19% of them hold a Doctoral degree (level 10) as well. The responders reflected different age groups, i.e., 25% were the most experienced ones in the age group 40–49. In addition, 19% responders were in the range of 21–30 and the remaining 56% were in between 30 and 39. The responders also hailed from diverse backgrounds of Asia, Australasia, South America, and Europe which helped us in assimilating the different ideologies and project experiences of people all across the globe. Moreover, as

Table 1. Respondents profile for interview phase.

Number	Code	Type of Firm	Designation	Experience (Years)
1	CC1	Consultancy + Contracting	Team leader	13
2	CC2	Consultancy + Contracting	Engineer	8
3	CC3	Consultancy + Contracting	Principal lead	6.5
4	CC4	Consultancy + Contracting	National Head	18
5	CC5	Consultancy + Contracting	Engineer	7
6	CC6	Consultancy + Contracting	Associate Engineer	7
7	C1	Consultancy	Project Engineer	11
8	C2	Consultancy	Director	29
9	C3	Consultancy	Project Manager	10
10	C4	Consultancy	Principal Engineer	13
11	C5	Consultancy	Engineer	5
12	C6	Consultancy	Engineer	5.5
13	C7	Consultancy	Principal Engineer	12
14	RE1	Real Estate	Vice President	16
15	RE2	Real Estate	Cost Estimator	6
16	MS1	Manufacturer and Suppliers	Site and Quality Assurance Engineer	9
17	BI1	Building and Infrastructure Development	Deputy Project Manager	8
18	CT1	Construction	Site Engineer	6
19	HR1	Human Resource	Manager	11
20	E1	Engineering	Site Engineer	5

clearly indicates that almost 30% of responders belong to firms who undertook both contracting and consultancies work, 35% were from consultancies, 10% were from real estate, and the remaining 25% were evenly distributed among manufacturer and suppliers, building and infrastructure development, construction, HR, and engineering.

4. Analysis and Discussion

4.1. Understanding of Individual Resilience and Organisational Resilience

An important point observed in the discussion was that most of the interviewees demonstrated a practical and consistent understanding of both individual and organisational resilience, aligning closely with scholarly definitions presented in the literature. For individual resilience, interviewees frequently referred to attributes such as adaptability, emotional steadiness, and proactive coping traits consistent with definitions from psychological and organisational research [25,39]. In describing organisational resilience, respondents referenced the firm’s capacity to absorb disruption, adapt under pressure, and recover operations, echoing multidimensional models of organisational resilience that emphasise adaptability, learning, and systemic coordination [18]. Their ability to articulate resilience as an evolving process rather than a static trait further confirms a conceptual maturity in how resilience is perceived and applied in practice.

Interestingly, the senior or the experienced ones along with those who have been closely working in the resilience team explained resilience in a more precise manner. For instance, responder CC1, C4, RE1, BI1, and CT1 recognised resilience as mainly dealing with the situation by growing and evolving itself. The remaining responders such as CC4, C2, and C3 responded to the question in a contextual manner, for example, resilience of organisation means to survive a fluctuating market, or a resilient organisation is the one who supports its employees by nurturing them. While these responses reflected relevant aspects, they often captured only part of the broader, multidimensional nature of resilience.

Notably, some participants perceived resilience as primarily a managerial concern. For instance, RE2 and E1 commented that such topics are more relevant to leadership than general staff. This perception may contribute to a limited sense of shared ownership, where non-managerial employees view themselves as passive recipients rather than active agents of organisational resilience. Moreover, some senior officials such as C2 and CC4 from well-established firms displayed notable uncertainty when discussing about resilience. Their responses were vague, hesitant, or deferred entirely, suggesting a gap between positional authority and preparedness on this issue.

Overall, while many construction professionals in New Zealand showed a growing and applied understanding of resilience particularly in terms of adapting to pressure and recovering from disruption, this understanding remains uneven. It is influenced by factors such as experience, role, and proximity to resilience planning. The discussions highlight the importance of broadening resilience awareness across all organisational levels, ensuring it is not siloed within leadership or specialised teams, but embedded into everyday practice. These varied perspectives among professionals highlight both convergence and confusion around the relationship between individual and organisational resilience, directly addressing RQ1.

4.2. Relationship Between Individual and Organisational Resilience

This section addresses RQ2 by identifying key individual and organisational factors that influence resilience development, along with the conditions that shape their interaction.

The interviews revealed two main dimensions, source and purpose, which carve the behaviour and response of the two resiliencies. These two dimensions can potentially explain why there is not a fixed relationship between the individual resilience and organisation resilience. The dynamic nature of both individual and organisational resilience contributes to the difficulty in drawing a clear boundary between them. This conceptual fluidity explains why scholars have arrived at differing interpretations, some viewing the relationship as direct, while others argue for a more mediated or indirect connection.

4.2.1. Source

Source refers to the fundamental factors that help build resilience for both individuals and organisations. It addresses the question, “What enables resilience?”

While describing the individual and organisation resilience, the responders pointed towards the root cause and objectives of resilience. Responder RE1 describes organisational resilience as the ability to combat any challenges within the market. This process is based on a solid foundation, and effective processes and procedures. MS1 says “Organisational resilience is like an umbrella that is built over individuals and the stakeholders. It’s their ability to adjust and respond to tough times”. Resilience is also considered as a resultant of consistent learning to improvise oneself. Having the motivation to stay ahead of the contemporaries to maintain the market position is also important for resilience. Sources of resilience include internal systems, external market dynamics, adaptability, continuous learning, and engagement of stakeholders. These are the key drivers that foster or enhance resilience and are entirely distinct from that of the individuals.

In contrast, CT1, HR1, and C7 mentioned that individual resilience originates from life experiences, traumas, and social support. This in turn determines the strength and determination of a person, shaping his/her resilience. C4 added that having the support of family or being involved in some form of hobby as a part of “me-time” is vital for resilience. It is because it prevents one from burning out and imparts more productivity.

These instances indicate that an individual’s resilience is based on their interpersonal relationships and their attitude on how they perceive the challenge and navigate through it. The central aim of resilience for individuals is to equip them to face personal and professional challenges, preserve their well-being, and keep moving forward despite difficulties. It involves personal growth, stress management, and overcoming obstacles in their careers or personal lives.

4.2.2. Purpose

The purpose highlights the objectives that resilience is designed to accomplish. It responds to the question, “Why is resilience essential?” or “What is its end goal?” The objective of organisation resilience is to guarantee that the organisation can take proactive steps to thrive in response to disruptions, including market shifts, financial challenges, or unexpected external events such as natural disasters [40]. It aims to protect its stakeholders, ensure business continuity, and sustain a competitive advantage. CC4 said “This is the ability to bounce back from adversity and to continue to grow and evolve. For this, an organisation has to be competitive and evolving.” The general notion indicated in the interview is that since resilience is about maintenance and survival, organisations can do so by being at par with the market instabilities, whereas CC6 mentions it as an ability to bounce back from adversity and to continue to grow and evolve. C5 mentioned “it’s the ability to face and deal personal and professional risks.” CC2 noted “it’s the strength and determination which shapes people’s resilience.” CC5 said “balance between one’s work life and personal life like spending time with family, kids, or if you just have hobbies can help in building resilience.” C2 mentions that “at the individual level, it’s how people cope with, or their ability to bounce back from in situations that you know might be quite stressful and to deal with a lot of change that’s kind of what resilience is, the ability to deal with quickly changing stuff in a fairly short period of time.” CT1 said “resilient people demonstrate their capability when crisis situations like you don’t have some, some planning lacking or something like that and then you overcome that by stepping up and solving some issues on site.”

4.2.3. Mutual Impact

The discussion on the importance of individuals in creating a resilient organisation showed a unanimous opinion from all the interviewees wherein they stated that organisations are made out of people and to create a resilient organisation at a higher level, there must be an individual level resilience at the lower level. Interviewees C6, MS1, and CC6 highlighted that since organisations are made up of people, and thus, having the right people in the right positions can help a lot in gaining resilience at upper levels. However, there are some conditions along with this, for instance, individuals must be trained to direct their actions towards organisation goals and achievements, or they must not have a self-centred attitude. Further, responders C5 and CC4 mentioned about organisation components such as systems, processes, procedures, culture, and governance which play a major role in channelising the resilience of employees. On the other side, responders CC2, CC3, and C1 suggested that organisations must build a culture that encourages the sets of behaviours that one needs to be able to respond to tough situations. Moreover, it is the organisation which can make individuals feel like they are being heard and that they are adding values to the system to encourage the feeling of inclusivity within the organisation. CC1 stated that “A drop can create the whole sea, so each and every individual matters, and every person has some certain skills.” The strength of individual contributes towards the strength of organisation if an individual has goals that are aligned with the organisation’s goals.

The responders unanimously supported that resilient organisations are more likely to support individual resilience as the individuals will know what to do, have confidence in recovery, and have a framework for decision-making. Resilient individuals may make an organisation seem resilient through effective action in crisis, but unless they are able to affect change at the organisation, they can only do so much as individuals. The relationship is majorly governed by organisational elements according to 62% of responders.

4.2.4. Limitation

Despite the strong connection, responders clearly stated that there is a difference between having resilient individuals and being a resilient organisation. During the interview, responders were asked to rate the dependence of individual resilience on organisation resilience; 75% of the responders rated 7 and above out of 10. Overall, all of them rated above 5, indicating a significant but not absolute reliance. CC2 clarified the reason saying “The Organisation is not reliant on a single person. Not only the strength’s of individual is the only thing that creates an organisation to survive a crisis.”

Organisational resilience is all about the processes and systems put in place to ensure preparedness, whereas individual resilience is about personal situation, mental health, relationships, etc. C4 said “as long as you know which resources to keep fair and how to get the maximum out of them, you can use any individual.” C5 highlighted that the organisation should be structured in such a way that the right people are in the right places and it is important to monitor their performance quite carefully because sometimes something can look perfect on paper but is not effective.

There is no direct relationship between the two because any policy, step, or procedure is only as good as the people enacting them. People need to be trained and practice to build their resilient-type responses. Individuals can help make organisations resilient by enacting policies, but there is no guarantee that resilient individuals will make an organisation resilient. In light of this, responders indicated several bridging factors that could link the gap between individual resilience and organisation resilience.

4.2.5. Factors Determining the Relationship Between Individual Resilience and Organisational Resilience

• Leadership and Governance

The analysis of the interviews yielded 15 main factors in association with individual resilience and organisational resilience (

Table 2. Identified codes from transcripts (Source-NVivo).

	Identified Codes	Respondent
		CC1	CC2	CC3	CC4	CC5	CC6	CC7	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	RE1	RE2	MS1	BI1	CT1	HR1	E1
1	Leadership and Governance	✓	✓	✓	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
2	Communication and Information flow							✓	✓		✓									✓
3	Team Collaboration and Trust	✓	✓		✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
4	Support System (Counselling, Peer support group)	✓				✓			✓			✓	✓		✓				✓		✓
5	Working Culture and Psychological safety					✓			✓	✓	✓		✓				✓
6	Proactive planning and scenario training			✓						✓		✓
7	Adaptive Capacity										✓	✓									✓
8	Community engagement and Connectivity	✓	✓						✓			✓
9	Continuous Learning	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓		✓		✓		✓				✓
10	Empowerment and Autonomy	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓
11	Resource/Technology Management		✓	✓	✓	✓			✓		✓				✓	✓		✓		✓
12	Shared Vision and Goal	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓		✓		✓	✓
13	Innovation and Creativity		✓							✓										✓
14	Feedback and reflective Practices			✓	✓										✓						✓
15	Mental Well-being initiative									✓				✓					✓

). Amongst all the factors, five of the factors, namely Leadership and Governance, Continuous Learning, Team Collaboration and Trust, Shared Vision and Goal, and Empowerment and Autonomy were discussed in-depth by more than half of the respondents. Figure 1 presents the distribution of interviewees’ responses across the main factors observed. The most dominating one relating to individual resilience and organisational resilience was found to be Leadership and Governance. Responders CC2, CC3, CC4, C5, and RE2 reflected on the responsibility of the leader stating that leaders lead by example which means they can create an environment of trust and comfort in the organisation which allows individuals to perform in a more efficient way. They must have the ability to influence the resilience of others; in fact, when discussing about the utilisation of non-resilient individuals, responders CC1, BI1, and CT1 explained the importance of training and development offered by leaders to develop, maintain, and promote reinforced resilient behaviours and attitudes. This, in a way, also sheds light on the role played by non-resilient individuals as almost 60% responders confirmed that everyone has a role in making the organisation and that it is mostly through the leaders, organisational policies, and the trainings which guide them to achieve the ultimate goal. This is even in line with the findings of [9,23,28] which suggested that leadership is a central enabler of both individual and organisational resilience, particularly in high-stress, high-risk contexts like the New Zealand construction industry. Sapeciay, Wilkinson [28] identified several indicators of organisational resilience, highlighting leadership as the most influential factor. Their findings suggest that the application of resilience assessment frameworks, when guided by effective leadership, can greatly enhance an organisation’s ability to navigate and recover from crises. Similarly, van Heerden, Chawynski [23] found that organisational leadership plays a key role in shaping levels of workplace stress within New Zealand’s construction sector. They argue that leadership behaviours such as open communication and creating a supportive work environment are crucial for reducing stress and fostering individual resilience among construction professionals. At the organisational level, leadership was again deemed the most impactful factor, followed closely by the work environment. Whereas at the individual level, it shapes the work environment in ways that protect mental health and providing coping support. This dual influence makes leadership a lever for aligning the two forms of resilience.

• Continuous Learning

Learning emerges as a vital connective tissue between individual and organisational resilience. Responders C5, CC6, and MS1 strongly asserted that organisations must embed a culture of continuous learning and improvement so that individuals are prepared not just to react in times of crisis but to actively bounce back and grow. This preparedness emerges from both internal reflection and external benchmarking, drawing on lessons from other organisations or international case studies to identify what went wrong and how responses could have been improved. Respondent CC5 further emphasised the importance of a learning culture that empowers individuals to adapt and encourages iterative learning, making it safe for staff to acknowledge gaps and pursue solutions. A commonly discussed point across interviews was that learning should not be static or confined to documentation. Majority of the participants thus highlighted the need for live learning mechanisms such as regular debriefs, team discussions, after-action reviews, and informal peer exchange, so that insights from past disruptions are continuously fed back into operational planning. Several responders also identified that visible leadership participation in learning activities such as post-crisis evaluations or simulations not only reinforces accountability but encourages adaptive behaviour for employees. For instance, one responder CC4 noted that when leaders openly acknowledged lessons learned from previous errors, it created a ripple effect that encouraged staff to reflect and self-correct. In addition, responders such as C1 and C3 and described how employees who had undergone structured post-event learning workshops were significantly more confident and composed during subsequent disruptions, indicating that individual resilience was strengthened through organisationally supported learning structures. Responder CC1 also mentioned that organisations with mechanisms for capturing informal learning, such as post-project feedback loops or cross-functional forums, were better at aligning day-to-day individual experiences with long-term system-level improvements.

In support, participant CC3 specified that a lack of knowledge sharing infrastructure could weaken this link; when frontline experiences were not fed upward into strategic processes, or when insights were siloed, organisations repeated mistakes and staff became disillusioned. MS1 also stated that “If I learn something that could help the organisation, but there’s no platform to share it or no one listens, it demotivates me.” This illustrates how the absence of learning pathways not only obstructs organisational adaptability but can also suppress individual engagement and resilience. Taken together, these findings underscore that learning is far more than a supportive function—it is a bidirectional bridge that enables resilient individuals to inform and shape resilient organisations, and vice versa. Without mechanisms to translate individual learning into organisational adaptation, or to cascade organisational insights back to individuals, resilience remains fragmented and shallow.

This is a supported by the literature highlighting that organisational learning acts as a vital link between individual and organisational resilience. Trainings, exercises, and scenario-based planning not only prepare staff for crises but also enhance their confidence, clarity, and responsiveness, which are core traits of individual resilience [11]. When embedded systematically, these practices elevate organisational readiness by aligning employee actions with broader crisis protocols. ResOrgs [13] further highlights the importance of capturing lessons through immediate post-crisis debriefs, ensuring that individual insights are institutionalised to improve future responses. However, as Walker’s study of the Christchurch earthquake reveals, when organisations fail to absorb and act on individual learning, it leads to frustration and disengagement, weakening overall resilience. Conversely, Wilkinson, Potangaroa [29] found that individuals with prior crisis experience could influence organisational systems effectively, especially when supported by enabling structures like pre-existing contracts. Together, these insights show that learning when shared and reinforced bridges individual capability with organisational adaptability.

• Team Collaboration and Trust

Team spirit emerged as a key relational mechanism linking individual resilience with broader organisational adaptability. Several participants suggested that individuals feel more confident, emotionally supported, and better prepared to respond to crises when embedded in cohesive, collaborative teams. For instance, CC4 emphasised that “culture, systems, and the way people work together influence how they respond to stress,” implying that shared norms and interdependence within teams create a buffer against pressure. Similarly, E1 mentioned that “in those early weeks, it wasn’t just the systems that got us through, it was everyone having each other’s back,” highlighting how peer support compensates for structural gaps during uncertainty. CC2 also noted, “when communication is strong and everyone is on the same page, the team’s energy helps carry individuals who might be struggling,” linking collective cohesion directly to individual coping. RE2 described a project scenario where “the team stepped in for each other without waiting for permission,” which not only stabilised operations but also reinforced trust among staff. Even newer employees reportedly adapted faster when placed in teams with clear communication and mutual respect, suggesting that resilience can be enhanced by team support. One respondent RE1 observed, “you learn a lot just by seeing how your teammates react under pressure, it gives you a model to follow.” In contrast, another participant BI1 mentioned that “a lack of communication between project teams made it feel like you were alone during the hard times,” which weakened morale and delayed recovery. Importantly, the benefits of strong team spirit extend beyond individual well-being. Cohesive teams are more likely to identify issues early, share workload dynamically, and improvise collectively. These aspects speed up the decision-making and maintained continuity in adverse situations, enhancing the organisation’s ability to adapt in real time. Moreover, team cohesion fosters a culture of shared accountability, enabling organisations to absorb disruption with less friction, coordinate responses with greater efficiency, and recover faster, making it a critical enabler of both individual and organisational resilience.

A growing body of NZ literature from academic studies to industry reports makes it clear that “teamwork and collaboration” are foundational to resilience at all levels. For instance, [29,41,42] clearly described that construction firms should invest in building trust and clear communication within project teams. This empowers mutual support and enables crisis planning as a team exercise. Such team-level investments pay off during crisis as construction professionals are less likely to experience burnout and are better positioned to sustain their individual resilience over time. Simultaneously, the organisation becomes more capable at responding effectively to disruption, enabling quicker recovery and improved adaptability

• Shared Vision and Goal

A consistently emerging insight from the data was that a clearly communicated shared vision, paired with meaningful organisational goals, plays a pivotal role in aligning individual actions with organisational resilience strategies. When employees understand not only their roles but also the broader organisational purpose, they are more inclined to adapt, engage, and persist through adversity. This alignment transforms individual resilience into a collective asset that enhances the organisation’s capacity to navigate disruption.

C4 captured this dynamic succinctly and stated, “A commitment to a shared vision or kind of end goal” is what enables people to pull in the same direction. The responder further explained that “leadership behaviours aren’t just about formal titles, it’s about motivating people around a common goal,” reinforcing the notion that shared purpose fosters both direction and cohesion. Similarly, RE1 emphasised the power of a unifying objective, saying “Having a goal is essential to make the company a success and this is something that made people get together and work together.” This sense of collective purpose acts as an anchoring force during uncertainty. Moreover, CC6 noted that clarity around goals plays a crucial role in enabling people to contribute meaningfully: “Do they have ongoing conversations with their line leaders? Are they clear on what they need to deliver and how they are tracking?” The responder linked resilience to environments where individuals know their targets, see their impact, and trust that their effort matters to something larger than themselves. When individuals feel their work is meaningful, they are more willing to adapt, persist, and recover in the face of disruption. This sense of alignment is what enables individual resilience to increase and eventually, become a part of a larger, systemic response.

In addition to goal clarity, many participants highlighted the emotional and motivational value of alignment. CC1 being a team lead quoted “In a crisis, people don’t follow policies, they follow purpose. When the vision is clear, they’ll find ways to contribute even when systems break down.” RE2 further reflected that “During the early COVID lockdowns, our team didn’t wait to be told what to do. We all knew the goal was to keep our clients operational. That shared aim gave us the energy to keep pushing.” These examples illustrate that shared vision is not just a strategic tool, it is an emotional driver. It reinforces intrinsic motivation, gives direction to individual decision-making, and sustains engagement when stress is high. In this way, alignment between personal and organisational purpose serves as a coordination mechanism, ensuring that autonomous, resilient behaviours contribute to rather than diverge from the organisational response.

Conversely, a lack of shared purpose can fragment resilience. E1 shared, “In my previous company, no one really knew what we were working towards. Everyone just did their own thing. When disruption hit, we pulled in different directions. This possessed a risk on our job security, leading to decreased level of individual resilience. Consequently, it also impacts organisation functioning and resilience.” This reinforces that shared vision is not optional, it is foundational for optimising individual and organisation resilience. Thus, shared vision and common goals create a framework within which individual resilience becomes organisationally meaningful. They channel effort, reduce ambiguity, and bind the organisation together during adversity. Rather than relying solely on hierarchy or policy, resilient organisations depend on their ability to generate alignment giving individuals the clarity and confidence to act, adapt, and support collective recovery. This approach is reinforced by the industry insights from resilient organisations and BRANZ, which has repeatedly emphasised that breaking down silos and uniting around common objectives is key to transforming the construction sector’s performance and resilience [43,44]. Similarly, academic articles by [28,45] have also underlined that construction firms must be prepared not only to recover their own operations but also to serve as key enablers of broader societal recovery. This dual responsibility requires an internal culture of resilience underpinned by common values and clear organisational objectives, aligning individual roles with collective outcomes.

• Empowerment and Autonomy

A strong and recurring theme across interviews was the idea that organisational resilience is not simply built through systems or leadership but is deeply dependent on the agency and empowerment of individuals at all levels. It allows individuals to make decisions, adapt roles, and respond to disruption without excessive oversight emerged as a vital mechanism that links personal resilience with broader organisational outcomes.

C2 explained from a leadership perspective, that when staff feel trusted to make decisions, such as adjusting work hours during periods of stress, they are more likely to remain engaged and contribute constructively, even under pressure. E1 stated that “There’s no such thing as ‘organisational’ decision-making, it’s always people. Resilience lies in enabling them to act meaningfully.” Similarly, CC7 observed: “You often see people stepping into the void to do what needs to be done.” In moments of uncertainty, decentralised, empowered individuals filled leadership gaps, demonstrating how autonomy supports organisational continuity when formal processes falter. MS1 added: “We were never told ‘here’s what to do’ during COVID, we had to make calls ourselves based on the big picture. That freedom made us faster.” Several participants like C4, CC1, and CT1 described how the freedom to deviate from standard procedures when circumstances demanded was essential to timely problem-solving. A senior operations manager stated: “During the supply chain crunch, our team leads didn’t wait for head office. They negotiated alternatives, restructured deliveries. That initiative kept us running.” C6 also described how “frontline staff revised their existing plans and took spontaneous decisions, they didn’t wait for approval, and it saved us days.”

When discussing about the post effects of the autonomous decisions, the participants clearly highlighted that the decentralisation is not chaotic if it is supported by clear principles and mutual trust. CC4 commented: “We had a general framework, but we were told ‘if you need to act, act.’ That made all the difference when things got tight.” Empowerment in this sense became a conduit as it allowed individually resilient behaviours (problem-solving, adaptability, confidence) to scale up into organisational advantage. Importantly, respondents noted that lack of empowerment could actually suppress resilience. In light of this, C6 reflected: “In my old firm, everything had to go up the chain. Even small issues. It slowed us down and made people afraid to take initiative.” This not only delayed recovery efforts but discouraged learning and autonomy qualities central to both personal and organisational resilience. Thus, the discussions clearly highlight that while individual resilience enables coping, it is empowerment that enables contribution. When staff are trusted to act within shared values and frameworks, their actions support not just their own adaptation, but also the continuity, flexibility, and learning capacity of the organisation. In this way, empowerment transforms isolated resilience into collective resilience, making it one of the most critical mediating factors in resilience-building across levels. Studies across both the academic and industry literature increasingly affirm that employee empowerment and autonomy are foundational enablers of resilience at both the individual and organisational levels [25,46]. Empowered individuals, those who have the authority and psychological safety to act, are more likely to engage proactively with uncertainty, take initiative, and contribute meaningfully during disruption [46]. Projects benefit from individual accountability and ownership, as they promote disciplined execution and immediate problem-solving, preventing delays and excessive costs. [29]. This link is especially important in construction, where operational complexity demands real-time, context-specific decision-making.

• Technology and Resource Management

Technology and resource systems emerge as critical enablers that connect individual resilience to broader organisational adaptability. Several participants highlighted that the pace of technological change in the construction and infrastructure sectors demands that individuals remain current and skilled to stay effective. As CC2 indicated that resilience is built through capital value and resource availability, indicating that the organisation’s investment in resources provides individuals with the tools they need to withstand disruption. BI1 reinforced this by stating that systems, processes, and organisational structures are causal factors shaping employee experience and response, suggesting that a well-resourced and strategically aligned organisation creates an ecosystem where individuals can thrive during adversity.

Additional participants underscored the role of technology in fostering real-time coordination. For instance, one respondent CC3 mentioned that “having a shared platform where we could all see updates live reduced confusion when our site was impacted,” showing how digital tools enhance clarity and control during uncertainty. Another interviewee C1 reflected that “being able to access project data remotely made me feel like I could still contribute even during lockdown,” linking personal agency directly to tech-enabled flexibility. Similarly, RE1 pointed out that “without the right procurement system in place, we couldn’t get essential materials on time,” demonstrating how resource systems directly shape the effectiveness of individual efforts. Responders C1 and C3 also noted the psychological benefit of visible resource stability. C3 stated, “when you know the tools and people you need are going to be there, it takes pressure off and lets you focus on solving problems,” showing how perceived access to resources enhances individual composure and decision-making. Conversely, CC3 added that “during one crisis, we had the knowledge, but none of the resources to act on it. It was frustrating and demotivating, leading to destabilising effect on the staffs and the organisation.”

These insights confirm that resources and technology do more than support operations, they shape the capacity of individuals to act, adapt, and connect, directly influencing how well an organisation as a whole can absorb and recover from shocks. Therefore, embedding technological infrastructure and maintaining resource readiness not only strengthens organisational resilience, but also empowers individuals to contribute meaningfully under pressure. In addition, the literature suggests that both resources and technology play a pivotal role in linking individual and organisational resilience. McManus, Seville [47] and Lee, Vargo [48] emphasise the importance of internal and external resource capacity for adaptive planning, where individual performance relies on the organisation’s ability to mobilise and support resources during crises. In the construction sector, SMEs demonstrate greater resilience when they effectively manage cash flow, resource allocation, and adopt technologies such as cloud-based systems to streamline operations [12]. Moreover, standardising and centralising data enables individuals to access critical information on vulnerabilities and resilience planning [49], while interoperable technologies enhance real-time coordination during emergency response [29]. Together, these elements facilitate a more integrated response, aligning individual actions with broader organisational capabilities.

Alongside, there were some other minor factors like communication and information flow, support system, working culture and psychological safety, proactive planning and scenario training, adaptive capacity, community engagement and connectivity, innovation and creativity, feedback and reflective practices, and mental well-being initiative.

A “vicious cycle” of skill shortage and resilience of organisation was shared by responder CC2. The responder mentioned that construction sector is facing skill shortage due to several reasons like being unable to attract people to this industry and not being able to retain the current workforce. So, when there are some resilient individuals and some non-resilient individuals in the company, the resilient ones either look for a favourable environment, supportive leader, or lucrative salary in return of their capabilities. However, when companies fail to provide that, the resilient individuals tend to look for other opportunities and try switching companies, or in some cases sector, because of the unpleasant experience. In this way, the particular company has more non-resilient individuals who stick to the same company and eventually, get promoted to higher levels or managerial positions because of their years of experience. Evidently, these non-resilient leaders are unable to carry the responsibility of guiding the company in the right direction and may often fail to utilise the true potential of resilient employees. This again frustrates the resilient individuals as they do not receive the expected empathetical approach from their leaders and organisation and ultimately, the entire process gets repeated as the resilient individuals begin changing firm or sector. This indeed is a cyclic process which does have some logical sense and serious implications. Although this was entirely based on the view and experience of the responder which is worthy of more exploration as New Zealand is undoubtedly facing two major problems with their construction sector, namely skill shortage and resilience. Therefore, further studies on finding a more concrete relation between the two problems can help researchers to find more precise ways of dealing with the two.

This process highlights that it is a reciprocal relationship whereby a supportive environment for individuals can create a resilient organisation and vice versa. Meanwhile, it is also important to recognise that organisations face external challenges, like infrastructure resilience, skill shortages, and market conditions, which they must navigate to participate effectively in this dynamic system.

4.2.6. Theoretical Linkages: Relating Key Themes to Broader Constructs

To deepen the interpretation of the identified themes, it is valuable to situate them within broader theoretical frameworks that explain how resilience emerges and operates across organisational systems.

First, the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm provides a useful lens for understanding themes such as Leadership and Governance and Team Collaboration. According to Barney [50], internal resources that are valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate form the basis of sustained competitive advantage. In this context, resilient individuals and cohesive teams can be seen as strategic resources that enhance an organisation’s adaptive capacity during disruptions [26].

Second, Systems Theory explains resilience as an emergent property of interactions among system components, rather than the sum of isolated parts [9]. This aligns with the findings that individual, team, and organisational levels mutually reinforce each other. For instance, organisational learning and psychological safety function as connective mechanisms enabling bidirectional influence—individual insights shape system-level adaptation, and system-level support enhances individual resilience.

Third, the role of empowerment and autonomy can be interpreted through the lens of Sociotechnical Systems Theory, which posits that effective performance depends on the alignment between social subsystems (e.g., people, relationships) and technical subsystems (e.g., procedures, tools). In the current study, decentralised decision-making and freedom to deviate from protocol were found to be critical for organisational continuity during disruptions, suggesting that resilient systems are those that grant agency to individuals while maintaining overarching coherence [30].

Finally, Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory explains how individuals strive to acquire, protect, and retain valuable resources such as social support, control, and self-efficacy [51]. In the construction sector, when individuals are embedded in supportive teams with access to training and well-being resources, they are more likely to maintain resilience over time. Conversely, resource loss, such as disempowerment or knowledge silos, can lead to burnout and disengagement, weakening the broader system.

By connecting these empirical insights to theoretical constructs, it becomes evident that resilience is not merely a collection of traits or practices but a dynamic capability—developed, supported, and activated through multi-level interaction. This theoretical grounding strengthens the argument for an integrated model of resilience and supports its relevance beyond the construction sector.

4.3. Integrated Resilience Model

In response to the conceptual and practical gaps identified through RQ1 and RQ2, the following models aim to conceptualise how individual and organisational resilience interact across levels in the context of the New Zealand construction sector, thereby addressing RQ3.

Based on the early literature synthesis, the current study used the integrated resilience model to conceptualise the link between individual and organisational resilience. However, as findings from the NZ construction sector emerged, limitations in the traditional model became apparent. Specifically, participants revealed a dynamic, context-dependent relationship shaped by leadership, culture, and alignment of goals. In response, the model was revised into a modified integrated resilience model (Figure 2) to account for the interaction across levels, and mediating factors. This evolution was critical to reflect the lived complexity of resilience in project-based, high-disruption sectors.

At the core of the model lies organisational resilience, defined as an organisation’s capacity to adapt to changing conditions, absorb shocks, and maintain functionality in the face of disruption. Rather than emerging in isolation, organisational resilience is sustained through the coordinated interplay of multiple critical domains, including suppliers, stakeholders, staff, and project systems. The model conceptualises resilience as a continuous, dynamic process shaped by interaction and reinforcement of multiple interrelated components. The same has been indicated by the responders of the current study. Hence, the integrated model has been modified to incorporate the new observations noted in the investigation. The data is analysed using Braun and Clarke’s [38] six-phase reflexive thematic analysis. It includes familiarisation with interview transcripts, followed by systematic coding using NVivo to identify recurring patterns of meaning. Initial codes such as “supportive leadership,” “peer reliance,” and “independent decision-making” were inductively grouped into higher-order themes including team leadership, team spirit, and empowerment. For instance, participants shared statements like “People trusted each other” and “The team covered for me when I struggled, we had a sense of trust which reduced stress and helped us cope more effectively.” These accounts illustrated how strong interpersonal dynamics within teams contributed not only to individual well-being but also to organisational adaptability under stress. In another example, participant CC6 noted, “I was encouraged to take initiative without fear of being blamed if something didn’t work,” highlighting how psychological safety and autonomy allowed individuals to act decisively—ultimately accelerating the organisation’s response during disruptive events. Such examples show that these mediating factors not only support individual coping but actively shape how resilience is transferred and amplified at the organisational level. All these observations were noted and included in the model.

The model includes dotted bidirectional line between IR and OR, symbolising a context-dependent, moderated relationship. Key organisational attributes, such as leadership style, team culture, empowerment, and learning orientation etc, do not automatically guarantee the transfer of resilience between individuals and the broader system. Instead, they function as moderators that can either enable or inhibit this exchange. When positive, these mediators act as catalysts, facilitating a reinforcing cycle in which resilient individuals contribute to organisational strength, and supportive environments further cultivate personal resilience. However, when these mediators are weak or negative—such as in environments marked by toxic leadership, rigid hierarchies, or lack of trust—the relationship may be obstructed or even reversed. In such cases, individual resilience may be undermined, and organisational systems may fail to respond effectively, despite the presence of formal resources. Recognising this conditionality is essential to understanding why resilience sometimes breaks down even in otherwise capable or well-resourced organisations.

In addition, the operational elements like staff, stakeholder, project, etc., significantly impact the development of organisational resilience [52,53,54,55]. These elements interact bidirectionally, symbolising that resilience emerges from collaborative, system-wide efforts, not just isolated actions. For example, staff influence project delivery, while supplier disruptions can impact both staff workload and stakeholder expectations. This model clearly illustrates that organisational resilience is a system-wide construct, built upon individual resilience and mediated by strategic enablers like leadership, support systems, and shared goals. It also emphasises that resilience is embedded in relational networks among people, systems, and external actors rather than residing in individuals or departments alone.

In comparison to existing resilience frameworks, such as multi-level model by Lengnick-Hall, Beck [18] and Cunha, Castanheira [56] which established individual, team, and organisation as the three levels for achieving organisational resilience. In addition, Goldschmidt, de Paiva [57] assessed organisational resilience as a combination of two elements: people and procedures, signifying the presence of two analytical levels, namely the individual and systemic levels. Tasic, Amir [58] put forth the numerous levels, individual, organisational, and environmental levels affecting the resilience of organisations. However, the proposed models lacked qualitative analysis and comparative study to back the findings with evidence. Although the models are conceptually rich at the organisational level, it, however, does not fully account for how individual-level traits and actions contribute to—or interfere with—these resilience dimensions. In contrast, the modified integrated resilience model makes several unique contributions. It explicitly emphasises the bidirectional and mediated relationship between IR and OR, acknowledging that individual capacities do not automatically scale to organisational outcomes unless activated through contextual enablers. Unlike tiered or siloed models that treat resilience at different levels independently, this model captures the recursive, cyclical nature of resilience. It also foregrounds the conditional role of mediators—like leadership, culture, and empowerment—which are often referenced in the prior literature but not structurally embedded in earlier models. This positions the framework as more practically actionable, especially for sectors where project-based teams, hierarchical variability, and environmental volatility are prominent.

Real-world examples from disaster-affected New Zealand organisations offer valuable validation for the proposed model. For instance, a case study of two organisations responding to Cyclone Gabrielle and the Kaikōura Earthquake demonstrated how resilience emerged through both individual initiative and systemic adaptability [29]. The case study included a regional consultancy which exhibited strong individual resilience via improvisation, role adaptability, and collaboration under stress, while organisational resilience was supported by leadership agility, stakeholder engagement, and decentralised structures. However, gaps in internal coordination were also noted, underscoring the importance of moderators such as communication and feedback systems. Similarly, another global construction firm, benefitted from pre-established protocols and real-time information sharing and learning procedures to harness the individuals’ capacity to act swiftly and cohesively under pressure. These field-based insights support the model’s assertion that resilience transfer between individuals and organisations is not automatic, but dependent on contextual moderators.

A hypothetical application further illustrates how the model can inform practice. Consider a mid-sized construction firm in New Zealand overseeing a post-disaster rebuild project. Faced with subcontractor withdrawal, material shortages, and workforce fatigue, the organisation’s success would hinge not solely on available resources, but on enabling conditions such as empowering site-level decision-making, encouraging cross-role flexibility, and fostering open communication channels. These interventions, grounded in the findings of this study, activate the model’s key mediators—learning orientation, empowerment, and team culture, allowing individual resilience to scale upward and contribute meaningfully to organisational recovery. Such examples highlight how the proposed model offers practical guidance for navigating real-world complexity in the construction sector.

However, an important issue that warrants deeper examination is whether the mere presence of supportive resources necessarily leads to the development of a resilient organisation. While these factors are widely recognised as foundational to resilience, their presence alone may not guarantee an organisation’s capacity to adapt, recover, or thrive amid disruption. The distinction between possessing resilience-enabling conditions and demonstrating resilient outcomes remains blurred. In other words, the relationship between these enabling resources and the realised state of resilience is not fully linear or causative. Is it valid to equate the availability of enablers such as a positive work environment, effective leadership, strong team cohesion, and organisational support systems with the actual attainment of resilience? This assumption remains contentious and thus, the ambiguity raises critical questions: What is the precise role of these resources in fostering resilience? Are they necessary but insufficient on their own? How do they interact with individual and systemic capacities to produce organisational resilience in practice? These unresolved questions form the basis for further investigation in our research, which aims to clarify how resilience-enabling factors function, interact, and manifest within the dynamic context of New Zealand’s construction sector.

5. Conclusions

The findings of the study have clearly indicated that strengthening both individual and organisation resilience can improve overall crisis readiness and decrease the impact of unexpected events. The analysis of how individual resilience contributes to organisational resilience allows organisations to develop strategies that support employee well-being to better prepare for and respond to crises. Moreover, the identified factors which can bolster organisation resilience, can be utilised by the organisations to prioritise investments in initiatives that have the greatest impact on overall resilience outcomes.

In response to RQ1, the study revealed that there is a current need to educate and develop awareness about the concept of resilience, especially amongst the junior employees because the senior management employees showed better understanding on this subject as compared to the relatively subordinate or inexperienced employees. Since the government is the major stakeholder, they can initiate bootcamps or information sessions in a fun or active manner to make it more engaging.

RQ2 was addressed through the identification of the process behind individual and organisational resilience dynamics. It suggested that both individual and organisational resilience function as per their source and purpose. The responders unanimously reported a strong co-relation between the individual and organisational resilience. The gap between resilient individuals and resilient organisations was found to be driven by factors such as leadership, team spirit, continuous learning etc.

To address RQ3, the study developed a modified integrated resilience model. This model builds on existing tiered frameworks by introducing cross-level interactive loops and highlighting mediating influences that condition the flow of resilience between levels. The model provides a practical and diagnostic tool for evaluating and designing resilience strategies in complex organisational settings such as construction. Moreover, it contributes to resilience theory by re-conceptualising the micro–macro link not as linear or automatic, but as contextually dependent and dynamically evolving. Although the model offers a valuable lens to understand the dynamic interaction between individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR), several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the model is grounded on qualitative data drawn from a specific industry context (New Zealand’s construction sector) and a relatively small sample size. Although the approach ensured in-depth and context-rich insights, it may limit the model’s applicability in the sector and generalisability across different cultures, or nations. Additionally, the mediating factors, such as leadership, shared vision, team collaboration, and empowerment, etc., were identified inductively. Their relative influence or weighting within the IR–OR relationship has not yet been quantified, which could be critical for practical implementation or policy formulation. Thus, to strengthen the model’s validity and broader applicability, future research should aim to empirically test the framework using quantitative or mixed--method approaches and targeting a broad sample size. Survey instruments could be developed to measure each construct (e.g., IR, OR, mediators) and applied across diverse organisational contexts. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) or multi-level modelling techniques could be used to assess the directional influence and strength of relationships among variables. Furthermore, longitudinal studies would help track how resilience capacities evolve over time, particularly during different phases of disruption and recovery. These approaches would not only confirm the model’s components but also provide evidence of its predictive power and practical utility.

The study offers both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it advances understanding of resilience as a dynamic, multi-level construct, highlighting that the interaction between individual and organisational resilience is neither linear nor automatic, but moderated by contextual factors such as leadership, empowerment, and learning orientation. Theoretical implications include the following:

• Re-conceptualisation of Resilience:

The study advances resilience theory by framing it not as a fixed trait at one level (individual or organisational), but as a dynamic, cross-level construct, moderated by contextual and relational factors.

2.

Bridging Conceptual Gap:

It contributes to the literature by addressing the conditional and mediated relationship between individual and organisational resilience, challenging linear or additive models and proposing a more nuanced interaction based on real-world construction sector evidence.

3.

Identification of Mediating Factors:

The study highlights specific mediating mechanisms such as empowerment, shared vision, and continuous learning that influence how resilience transfers between individuals and organisational systems, offering a more layered view than prior frameworks.

Practically, the findings provide actionable insights for construction organisations seeking to enhance resilience. The relevant practical implications of the study include the following:

• Resilience-Building Strategies:

The findings offer actionable pathways for firms to build resilience through HR interventions, including targeted training, empowerment policies, and well-being support that enable staff to act autonomously during crises.

2.

Leadership Development:

Leaders can directly shape both individual and organisational resilience by modelling resilience, reinforcing psychological safety, and creating platforms for continuous learning and decision-making at all levels.

3.

Team Culture as a Resilience Lever:

Strong team collaboration, shared goals, and trust were shown to buffer individuals under pressure while simultaneously enhancing system-level adaptability, making team culture a vital site for resilience investment. Organisations can invest in regular activities, seminar, and tasks to enhance teamwork spirit.

4.

Policy and Planning Use:

The proposed model can guide sector-wide policies in construction, offering a diagnostic framework for resilience audits, contingency planning, and inter-team collaboration during and after disruptions.

All these strategies enable the transformation of individual adaptability into collective organisational strength and vice versa.

Such ideas of targeting multiple challenges through common research and aiming to come up with robust structures will make the industry more resilient in a true sense. Eventually, it will help in planning for policies, plans, and steps that will help in utilising individual’s resilience to create a more resilient and adaptive organisation, better equipped to navigate the complexities of today’s dynamic business environment.