Mapping Theoretical Perspectives for Requisite Resilience

Abstract

In increasingly turbulent environments, organizations must go beyond generic robustness and develop Requisite Resilience, the capacity to align internal variety with environmental variety to sustain core functions during crises. This study situates Requisite Resilience within organizational theory and strategic management, assessing how major theories of the firm contribute to its development. The analysis groups these perspectives into foundational/diagnostic theories, which clarify environmental, structural and institutional constraints and correspond to passive resilience frameworks, and enabling/capability-building theories, which emphasize managerial agency, resource orchestration and adaptive learning, corresponding to active resilience frameworks. Findings indicate that while foundational perspectives offer essential diagnostics, they are insufficient on their own to foster Requisite Resilience. A composite configuration provides the strongest fit: co-evolutionary views offer an integrative backbone, dynamic capabilities and organizational learning enhance sensing, seizing and acting, and resource dependence theory informs the design of permeable boundaries.

1. Introduction

Organizations today operate in environments marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity [1]. Global supply chain disruptions, rapid technological shifts, climate-related events, geopolitical tensions and pandemics have shown that crises are not exceptional anomalies but recurring features of the contemporary business landscape. In such contexts, survival and long-term performance depend not only on operational robustness or incremental adaptability, but on the strategic capacity to anticipate, absorb and transform in the face of turbulence [2,3]. This capacity is here understood as Requisite Resilience [4].

Requisite Resilience builds on the principle that only variety can absorb variety [5,6]. It refers to the ability of an organization to align the diversity of its internal responses with the diversity of environmental challenges, ensuring the continuity of essential functions. It is not a call for complexity for its own sake, but for a calibrated capacity that matches environmental demands without creating unnecessary internal disorder [7]. Too little variety leads to vulnerability, as the organization cannot cope with external complexity [5]. Too much variety risks inefficiency, loss of coherence and decision paralysis. The balance between these extremes is shaped by the interplay of structural configurations, governance mechanisms, cultural norms, and the capacity to mobilize resources across organizations, understood here in a broad sense to include firms, institutions, and public administrations [4,8].

This paper positions Requisite Resilience as a meta-capability of complex adaptive systems, distinct from but related to agility, flexibility, and robustness. It encompasses anticipation, absorption, and adaptation as interconnected stages, recognising that resilience requires both preparedness before disruption and learning after disruption [9]. It also acknowledges that crises are inherently multi-layered phenomena, involving individuals, teams, organizations, and interorganizational networks, each contributing to the overall capacity for response and recovery [10]. In such contexts, critical decisions often need to be made rapidly on the basis of fragmented, incomplete, or difficult-to-collect information.

While resilience is widely discussed in management research, it is rarely connected systematically to the theoretical traditions that explain how organizations adapt on the spot as a system [11]. Strategic management and organizational theory offer multiple perspectives that can inform how Requisite Resilience is built and sustained. These perspectives differ in their assumptions about the drivers of adaptation, the role of information and learning [10].

This study evaluates the main theoretical approaches to organizational adaptation (theories of the firm). The goal is to identify which perspectives, alone or in combination, are most conducive to developing Requisite Resilience in complex, multi-actor environments.

2. Defining Requisite Resilience as a Capability Within Complex Adaptive Systems

2.1. Requisite Resilience

Requisite Resilience refers to the capacity of an organization to align the diversity of its internal responses with the diversity of environmental challenges, ensuring the maintenance of essential functions during disruptions [4].

Requisite Resilience is not the simple accumulation of adaptive capabilities or the pursuit of maximum flexibility [5]. It is a state in which organizations possess sufficient variety, understood in the sense of Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety as the breadth of possible responses, resources, and behaviours available to address disturbances in the environment [12]. According to this principle, a system can only effectively cope with environmental complexity if its internal repertoire of responses matches the variety of challenges it faces. However, this variety must remain bounded: too little leads to vulnerability, as the organization cannot absorb shocks, while too much creates internal disorder, undermining coordination and efficiency. This balance is inherently dynamic, shifting with changes in the organization’s environment, resource base, and number of actors.

The capability is multi-level in nature. It involves individuals, teams, organizational units and interorganizational networks, each contributing distinct resources, skills and perspectives. Figure 1 illustrates the key stages of Requisite Resilience. While anticipation and prior interactions with the environment can support resilience, they are not a necessary precondition for it to occur. The process begins with sensing, which involves evaluating and interpreting unfolding events to detect disruptions and emerging threats. Once a disturbance is identified, the next phases are seizing and acting. Seizing refers to the mechanism by which a specific element of the system (such as an individual, a single organization, or a business unit) absorbs and buffers the immediate shock to ensure survival at its own level while confronting the disruption with its available options [13]. Acting, in contrast, operates at the system level and involves structural, strategic, or behavioural adjustments that enable the broader system to restore functionality and continuity. When these processes succeed, the final stage involves managing normality, which may consist either in returning to previous routines or establishing a new normal better adapted to changed circumstances.

As a meta-capability, Requisite Resilience draws on distributed decision-making, cross-boundary information flows and collaborative networks to ensure that responses are coordinated across levels and actors [7]. It is not surprising that Requisite Resilience is often associated with Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), as it shares many of their commonalities and constitutive elements. Requisite Resilience can be understood as a form of CAS that emerges as a meta-capability, either intentionally designed by its members or arising spontaneously in times of need, with or without prior interactions to build this capability.

2.2. Complex Adaptive Systems

A system can be understood as a whole composed of multiple parts, each with a specific function [14]. These functions may differ or overlap, but all components operate in alignment with the overarching goals that define the system’s purpose and justify its existence. This definition emphasizes the interdependence of the system’s elements and the coherence imposed by a shared objective. For instance, in an economic system, institutions such as markets, regulatory bodies, and financial actors may perform different roles (allocation of resources, enforcement of norms, or capital provision) but they are all oriented toward sustaining economic activity and stability [15].

To analyze any system meaningfully, several key dimensions must be considered [14], all of which are closely connected to the development of Requisite Resilience. (i) The proximity of components, whether physical, functional, or relational, influences coordination efficiency and the speed at which information and resources circulate (those factors are critical for timely adaptive responses). (ii) The function of each component clarifies how individual roles and interdependencies collectively shape the system’s capacity to anticipate, absorb, and adapt to disturbances. (iii) The shared goals of the system act as a unifying principle, aligning decisions and actions to maintain coherence during disruptions (survival in the case of Requisite Resilience). (iv) Most systems are nested across multiple levels, requiring effective coordination between subsystems to sustain adaptive capacity at higher scales. (v) Finally, the patterns of interaction, both horizontal and vertical, determine how information and resources flow, directly influencing the system’s ability to mobilize collective responses under pressure.

Complex systems, such as those associated with Requisite Resilience, are characterized by numerous interconnected and interdependent components. While connection implies the existence of direct links between elements, interconnection reflects a deeper level of mutual influence and feedback, often forming networks of circular causality. These systems do not operate linearly; instead, they exhibit emergent behaviors that cannot be fully understood by examining individual parts in isolation [16].

When complex systems are also adaptive, they possess the capacity to perceive environmental changes, adjust their behaviour accordingly, and regulate internal processes. This occurs through an adaptation loop that involves sensing, evaluating, and acting in response to stimuli. The frequency and intensity of these adaptive cycles depend on the system’s internal norms and thresholds of alert, which determine when change becomes necessary [17].

Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) are a specific category of systems that evolve in response to environmental change and learn from experience. Learning can occur through single-loop processes, which adjust actions to achieve existing goals more effectively, or double-loop processes, which revisit and potentially redefine those goals [18,19]. This capacity for learning, feedback, and self-organization makes CAS particularly relevant for analyzing organizational resilience under conditions of uncertainty and change.

In the study of CAS within the social sciences, individuals drive system behavior through their ability to interact, adapt, and learn from one another. The intensity and diversity of these interactions enable collective intelligence, self-organization, and system evolution [20].

Another key factor is the degree of interaction between a system and its environment. Some systems operate in relatively closed conditions, while others are deeply embedded in broader, turbulent contexts. The environment can range from the immediate level, such as local stakeholders, suppliers, and institutions, to the global level, involving regulatory bodies, international organizations, or worldwide crises. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, local hospitals and public health agencies shaped doctors’ real-time responses, while entities like the World Health Organization and international scientific networks influenced global standards and coordination. How organizations perceive, interact with, and adapt to these multiple environmental layers is central to their resilience and their capacity to navigate complex challenges.

Organizational systems shape resilience by constraining or enabling the autonomy of agents within them [21]. When interdependencies are dense and rigid, agents have limited freedom to respond, reducing behavioral options and often suppressing innovation, creativity, and adaptive capacity. Such conditions promote stability but at the cost of flexibility. Conversely, greater autonomy fosters experimentation, exploration, and divergent thinking, yet excessive and uncoordinated freedom can lead to fragmentation or chaos [22]. Achieving an effective balance between control and autonomy is therefore essential, as too little stifles learning and adaptation, while too much undermines coherence and collective purpose.

In organizational theory, what defines an agent is its role as a decision-making entity capable of processing information and making choices based on internal models and environmental signals [23]. Each agent interprets its environment through its own cognitive structures, which filter, prioritize, and guide actions. As shown [24], agents hold different mental models and routines, leading to divergent perceptions of the same environment, varied strategic preferences, and distinct courses of action. These cognitive frameworks act as guidance systems, setting boundaries for action, allocating attention and resources, and shaping decision-making logic [25].

Agents, however, do not operate in isolation. System evolution and adaptation depend on their interactions, particularly through exchanges of information and resources. These exchanges enable coordination, learning, and alignment, while also creating space for divergence, competition, and innovation. The quality, intensity, and structure of these interactions largely determine the adaptability and coherence of the system.

The combined effect of cognitive processes, routines, and interactions ultimately shapes the observable behavior of the system [26,27]. This behavior reveals the organization’s capacity to adapt, learn, and respond effectively to internal and external changes. Understanding how agents interpret their environment, interact with one another, and align their actions is therefore essential to grasping the mechanisms that underpin organizational resilience.

In addition to these perspectives, Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model offers a complementary cybernetic foundation for understanding CAS [28]. It explains how viability is maintained by balancing autonomy and control through recursive organisational structures and dedicated information channels [29]. By clarifying how sensing and acting can be distributed across levels while overall coherence is preserved, the model directly addresses the challenge of managing requisite variety. However, while the Viable System Model focuses primarily on the structural and informational conditions that enable a system to remain viable [30], Requisite Resilience emphasises the dynamic process by which organisations sense disturbances, seize opportunities, act to reconfigure, and manage the emergence of a new normal.

2.3. Interorganizational Interactions as a Source of Resilience

Moving from the organizational to the interorganizational level introduces new challenges and opportunities for understanding how systems adapt and build Requisite Resilience [16]. At this scale, the flows of information and resources between organizations become critical. Key questions arise [14]: How do organizations communicate and collaborate? How frequent and intense are these exchanges? Are information flows stable and reciprocal, or do they shift depending on context, power asymmetries, or situational demands?

These interactions are embedded in pre-existing relational structures such as clusters, regional ecosystems, industrial districts, or cross-sector networks. The nature and strength of these links, whether formal or informal, institutional or social, shape what information is exchanged, who participates, and how quickly systems can coordinate in times of disruption. Crises make these dynamics particularly salient [31]. Disruptions often dissolve weak ties and amplify the need for rapid coordination, yet the quality and diversity of relationships built before the crisis largely determine adaptive capacity. Organizations embedded in collaborative communities, dense ecosystems, shared platforms, or issue-specific coalitions are better positioned to sustain Requisite Resilience.

Information flows and knowledge are especially critical. In tightly knit clusters, information may circulate informally among trusted peers, while large-scale networks may rely on formal protocols and multi-tier communication channels [32]. Crucially, exchanges that involve actors across multiple hierarchical levels—from operational staff to top management—create shared understanding and collective agility [33]. When crises emerge, such distributed knowledge enhances the system’s ability to identify who knows what and who can act quickly, increasing the likelihood of an effective collective response.

Table 1. Interorganizational Resilience Table.

Element of Analysis	Example 1 (Cluster)	Example 2 (Ecosystem)	Example 3 (Crisis Coalition)
Type of Exchange	Technical know-how, informal updates	Market intelligence, coordination data	Alerts, emergency procedures
Participants	Middle managers, engineers	Executives, business unit heads	Cross-level teams, crisis response units, all willing agents
Structure of Exchange	Informal, frequent, peer-to-peer	Structured meetings, digital platforms	Ad hoc, protocol-driven
Nature of Relationship	Cooperative, trust-based	Co-opetitive, strategic alliances	Temporary coordination
Pre-crisis Embeddedness	High, long-standing community ties	Moderate, strategic interdependence	Low, assembled during crisis
Impact on Requisite Resilience	Facilitates fast, decentralized response through shared norms and trust	Enables coordinated strategic repositioning with adaptive room for maneuver	Effectiveness depends rapid mobilization capacity

maps interorganizational interactions through three examples of structures: clusters, ecosystems, and crisis coalitions. It examines five dimensions: what is exchanged (e.g., technical data, early warning signals, logistical information, best practices); who participates (hierarchical levels, functional departments); how exchanges are structured (formal or informal, routine or ad hoc); the nature of relationships (competitive, cooperative, regulatory, contractual); and the degree of pre-crisis embeddedness.

The table is directly linked to the concept of Requisite Resilience by highlighting which configurations of information exchange and participation patterns are most effective in supporting adaptive responses. Systems with multi-level, cross-functional participation and diversified information-sharing structures are typically better positioned to detect disruptions early and mobilize coordinated responses, thereby demonstrating higher Requisite Resilience.

Based on these observations, we now turn to the most influential theories of the firm and examine their relevance for CAS and Requisite Resilience. The objective is to assess which theoretical perspectives are most conducive to understanding Requisite Resilience and offer the strongest explanatory power for researchers seeking to develop further work in this area.

3. Methodological Approach

This study adopts a comparative review of major theories of the firm to evaluate their contribution to understanding and fostering Requisite Resilience within Complex Adaptive Systems. The approach proceeds by identifying and categorising relevant perspectives, interpreting their core mechanisms, assessing them with a transparent evaluation grid, and synthesising complementarities and overlaps to inform design choices for Requisite Resilience.

3.1. Identification and Categorisation

We conducted a structured identification of theoretical perspectives relevant to organisational adaptation and resilience, covering seminal contributions from the 1950s to 2025 [34,35]. We focused on major theories of the firm from economic and managerial perspectives. To develop the historical perspective, we relied on seminal books and handbooks [11,34,36], complemented with more recent journal articles. We used keyword combinations such as organisational adaptation, theories of the firm, resilience, complex adaptive systems, dynamic capabilities, resource dependence, institutional theory, organisational ecology, attention-based view, and viable system model. Inclusion was based on relevance to Requisite Resilience problems, sustained influence in the field, and clear mechanisms linking environment, organisation, and outcomes. We excluded theories whose central problematic is distant from our research focus, for example, principal–agent theory. We also took into account review papers on resilience that discuss prior theoretical traditions and followed these major theories in our selection [37,38]. For each retained theory, we kept a concise set of foundational and widely cited sources to ensure parsimony and traceability. The identified perspectives were grouped into two families aligned with our framework: foundational or diagnostic theories that clarify environmental, structural, and institutional constraints [11], and enabling or capability building theories that emphasise managerial agency, resource orchestration, dynamic learning, and distributed decision making [11]. This being noted, many of the theories we are using are today standard theories of the firm, found in current research and also in many advanced textbooks on the topic.

3.2. Evaluation Grid and Operational Definitions

For each retained theory, we extracted assumptions about the environment, the locus and mechanism of adaptation, and the implied role of managerial agency. We then mapped these elements to the stages of Requisite Resilience (Figure 1). Each author of the article did their own interpretation before sharing information with others, following similar procedures to Carton (2025) [39]. The grid we use operationalises design criteria for Requisite Resilience. Each criterion is assessed qualitatively as absent, partial, or explicit, based on mechanisms stated in the foundational sources. The grid informs

Table 2. Contributions of Theories of the Firm to Requisite Resilience.

Theory	View of the Environment	Main Mechanism of Adaptation	Role of Managerial Agency	Implications for Requisite Resilience
Organizational Ecology	Deterministic, environment selects survivors	Variation–selection–retention at population level	Minimal	Focus on passive RR: survival depends on structural fit; little capacity for strategic adaptation
Industrial Organization	Largely deterministic but allows strategic positioning	Competition driven by industry structure	Limited	Highlights external constraints but introduces strategic levers; RR depends on positioning within competitive dynamics
Contingency Theory	Adaptive, fit-driven	Structural alignment with environmental demands	Moderate	Supports RR when structures match environmental dynamism; emphasizes configurational adaptability
Neo-institutionalism	Deterministic through institutional norms	Isomorphism via legitimacy-seeking behaviours	Minimal	Ensures stability but risks rigidity; promotes RR in stable contexts but limits transformative capacity
Upper Echelons Theory	Adaptive, cognition-driven	Executive perceptions shape strategy	High	RR depends on diversity and cognitive capabilities of leadership teams; highlights bounded rationality
Resource Dependence Theory	Interdependent	Managing external ties to secure critical resources	Moderate to high	RR linked to network strategies and ability to reconfigure partnerships under uncertainty
Resource-Based View	Resource-centric, partially deterministic	Leveraging valuable, rare, inimitable resources	Moderate	Focuses on robustness via resource control but less on rapid adaptability
Dynamic Capabilities	Adaptive and process-driven	Integrating, building, and reconfiguring competences	High	Central for RR: combines robustness and agility to thrive under turbulence
Knowledge-Based View	Adaptive, learning-oriented	Creation, sharing, and exploitation of knowledge	High	RR emerges from collective learning and continuous innovation in complex environments
Dialectical & Co-evolutionary	Reciprocal causality	Mutual shaping between firm and environment	High	Explains RR as dynamic balance between structural constraints and strategic agency over time
Attention-Based View	Adaptive, cognition- and process-driven	Allocation and focus of managerial attention	High	RR enhanced when firms detect weak signals, prioritise critical cues, and mobilise timely responses
Option-Based View	Uncertainty-sensitive, flexibility-oriented	Strategic investment in future options	High	Positions RR as a portfolio of adaptive pathways; maintains optionality under deep uncertainty

and the discussion by making visible where theories act as diagnostic baselines within passive resilience frameworks and where they provide guidance for active capability building.

4. Main Theories

This section examines the main theories of the firm to evaluate their relevance for understanding and fostering Requisite Resilience within CAS. The analysis follows the categorization we introduced, distinguishing between foundational or diagnostic theories, which clarify environmental and structural constraints, and enabling or capability-building theories, which focus on developing adaptive capacities.

4.1. Foundational or Diagnostic Theories

This section examines theoretical perspectives that view the environment as the principal force shaping organizational adaptation. These approaches share the assumption that external conditions largely determine organizational survival and performance, while internal managerial choices play a secondary role [36]. Within this tradition, organizational ecology and industrial organization focus on structural constraints and competitive pressures that define industries over time. Contingency theory and neo-institutionalism, by contrast, emphasize the need for alignment with environmental demands and institutional expectations.

By clarifying the mechanisms through which the environment acts as a “selector” of organizational forms and behaviors, these theories provide valuable diagnostic tools for understanding the limits within which organizations operate. In the context of Requisite Resilience, they help identify the structural and institutional factors that constrain adaptive capacity and highlight the conditions under which passive resilience frameworks may emerge.

4.1.1. Organizational Ecology

Organizational ecology, influenced by the “structure–conduct–performance” logic of industrial organization [40], applies the variation–selection–retention framework derived from evolutionary biology [41,42]. It examines adaptation primarily at the population level, where a population is defined as a set of firms operating in the same industry and sharing similar structures or strategic behaviors in response to environmental pressures. The long-term evolution of such populations is shaped by the external environment, which determines patterns of entry, growth, and exit. Given the scarcity of external resources, survival depends on achieving the best possible fit between organizational characteristics and environmental demands [43]. Yet this fit is rarely straightforward due to the persistence of structural inertias, both internal and external, that constrain change.

From this perspective, adaptation resembles a process of natural selection, with environmental conditions dictating survival and performance prospects. Industrial structure, defined by the number and size distribution of firms, is a central determinant of competitive dynamics. To analyze these processes, organizational ecologists have developed specific constructs and methods, notably the concept of population density, which measures the number of organizations within a given population at a specific time [41].

Population density reflects the combined effects of legitimization and competition. When density is low, legitimacy is weak, making it harder for populations to attract resources, which results in low entry rates and high mortality. As density grows, legitimacy strengthens, supporting higher entry rates and lower mortality. Beyond a certain threshold, however, increased density intensifies competition for scarce resources, leading to rivalry, depletion, and rising mortality. This inverted U-shaped relationship between density and population growth remains a core proposition of organizational ecology. In extreme cases, high competition and persistent scarcity lead to dissolution, where organizations cease the routines that sustain their structure, resource flows, and member commitment [44].

The industrial organization approach [45] shares several deterministic foundations with organizational ecology, e.g., the pre-existing industrial structure in industrial organization is analogous to the ecological notion of a niche: in both frameworks, the environment prescribes the maximum profitability levels achievable by firms within a given industry. However, industrial organization also recognizes a degree of strategic agency. Porter’s framework of generic competitive strategies illustrates how firms may secure sustained advantage despite structural constraints. In this sense, industrial organization is less rigidly deterministic than organizational ecology, allowing for strategic maneuvering within environmental limits.

In the context of Requisite Resilience, organizational ecology and industrial organization provide valuable diagnostic insights. They highlight the structural and competitive forces that condition adaptive capacity, clarifying when resilience is constrained by environmental pressures rather than internal capabilities. Porter’s diamond is another example of networks that can ease collaboration in times of need. However, their deterministic orientation offers limited guidance on how organizations can actively build resilience. For this reason, these perspectives are best viewed as part of a passive resilience framework, useful for understanding boundary conditions but insufficient for designing adaptive strategies in complex, turbulent environments.

4.1.2. Contingency Theory and Neo-Institutionalism

Contingency theory focuses on adaptation at the firm level and emphasizes that the fit between the external environment and the organization’s internal structure is a primary determinant of competitiveness [46,47]. From this perspective, environmental conditions select the types of structures that firms must adopt to achieve high performance. Empirical research shows that the degree of internal differentiation in organizational structures tends to increase with the variability and dynamism of the external environment, while greater differentiation generates a corresponding need for integration, with the required level varying across contexts [47,48]. These findings support the view that there is no universally optimal way to structure and manage organizations, since the most effective arrangements depend on the specific characteristics of the environment.

There are notable points of convergence between contingency theory and neo-institutionalism [49]. While contingency theory highlights environmental dynamism as the main driver of organizational variability, neo-institutionalism focuses on how different types of environments produce distinct forms of isomorphism, or similarity, among organizations. Certain environments generate intra-industry homogeneity by compelling firms to adopt similar strategic and structural forms in alignment with prevailing norms, social values, and stakeholder expectations. This process often results in strategic and organizational conformity, even among firms that might otherwise pursue differentiated approaches.

In the context of Requisite Resilience, these perspectives provide valuable diagnostic tools for understanding how environmental variability and institutional pressures shape organizational structures and routines. They help explain why some systems converge toward similar forms when facing comparable constraints, while others maintain diversity to cope with environmental turbulence. However, these theories primarily describe adaptation as a response to external demands rather than a proactive process of capability-building. Their contribution to Requisite Resilience lies in clarifying boundary conditions and institutional constraints, making them part of a passive resilience framework rather than a source of active adaptive strategies.

4.2. Enabling or Capability-Building Theories

In contrast to foundational or diagnostic theories, which emphasize the constraining role of environmental and institutional forces, enabling or capability-building perspectives place greater weight on managerial agency in shaping organizational adaptation [50]. These approaches assume that leaders and decision-makers can actively influence strategic direction, structural design, and resource allocation, even when operating under environmental pressures. Adaptation is therefore viewed not only as a reaction to external conditions but also as a process that can be initiated, steered, and accelerated through purposeful managerial action [51].

Within this tradition, theories such as strategic choice, upper echelons theory, and dynamic capabilities explore how leadership vision, cognitive frames, and strategic intent interact with environmental contexts to determine organizational outcomes. By highlighting the role of agency and intentionality, these perspectives contribute to understanding how organizations can deliberately build adaptive capacity and develop mechanisms to anticipate, absorb, and respond to disruptions.

In the context of Requisite Resilience, these theories offer conceptual tools for designing active resilience frameworks. They explain how organizations can go beyond mere structural fit and actively shape their environment, orchestrate resources, and foster learning processes across multiple levels. This contrasts sharply with foundational theories, which mainly diagnose constraints rather than prescribe strategies for capability-building.

4.2.1. Strategic Choice and Upper Echelons Theory

In contrast to foundational and diagnostic approaches, strategic choice theory positions human intentionality and managerial agency at the center of organizational adaptation [52]. Strategic choice is defined as the process through which power-holders within organizations decide on courses of strategic action, extending not only to evaluating environmental constraints but also to shaping the environment itself and designing the organization’s structure. From this perspective, performance is seen as the outcome of managerial decision-making rather than a direct consequence of environmental pressures.

Strategic planning, in this view, begins with top decision-makers assessing the firm’s competitive position, taking into account environmental elements such as unusual events, market structures, and stakeholder expectations, while being influenced by their own experiences and assumptions [52,53]. This assessment guides the selection of organizational goals and the formulation of plans to achieve them, including investments in structure, technology, and human resources. These investments are evaluated in terms of efficiency, market responsiveness, and economic performance, creating a feedback loop in which performance outcomes inform future strategic evaluations.

Strategic choice theory challenges deterministic interpretations of adaptation by highlighting the capacity of organizational leaders to actively shape both internal capabilities and external conditions [54]. Building on this foundation, the upper echelons theory extends the focus on managerial agency by emphasizing the influence of top executives’ cognitive bases, socio-demographic characteristics, and behavioral traits on organizational strategies [55].

Drawing on the concept of bounded rationality [56], the upper echelons perspective highlights that strategic decisions are made under conditions of imperfect information, conflicting goals, and multiple possible courses of action. This makes a behavioral understanding of decision-making essential for analyzing organizational dynamics. Subsequent research has linked the composition and characteristics of top management teams to outcomes such as acquisitions, alliances, innovation, internationalization, and diversification [54].

In the context of Requisite Resilience, strategic choice and upper echelons theories contribute to understanding how organizations can actively build adaptive capacity. They highlight the role of leadership cognition, diversity, and intentionality in shaping the sensing, learning, and reconfiguration mechanisms central to resilience in complex adaptive systems. Unlike foundational theories, which diagnose structural constraints, these perspectives offer actionable insights into how firms can proactively design strategies, mobilize resources, and orchestrate capabilities to cope with environmental turbulence.

4.2.2. Resource Dependence Theory

Resource dependence theory (RDT) explains how organizations manage their interdependencies with the external environment to secure the resources necessary for survival and growth [57]. At its core, RDT posits that no organization is entirely self-sufficient; instead, firms rely on suppliers, customers, regulators, partners, and other actors for critical inputs. This dependence creates both uncertainty and potential vulnerability, prompting organizations to adopt strategies that reduce risk and increase control over resource flows [58].

According to RDT, organizations manage these dependencies by altering either their own structures or the nature of their relationships with other actors. Strategies may include vertical or horizontal integration, the formation of strategic alliances, long-term contractual arrangements, or diversification to limit reliance on any single resource provider. Dependence extends beyond material resources and includes access to information, legitimacy, and political support, all of which are critical in environments marked by complexity and turbulence [57].

More recent RDT research highlights that organizations are embedded in complex interorganizational networks where mutual dependence both constrains and enables action. Network position influences not only access to resources but also information flows, legitimacy, and the ability to shape collective norms and industry standards [59,60].

In the context of Requisite Resilience, RDT provides valuable insights into how organizations can actively manage interdependencies to enhance adaptive capacity. By orchestrating resource flows, cultivating diverse partnerships, and embedding themselves in resilient networks, firms strengthen their ability to sense disruptions, mobilize responses, and reconfigure structures when crises occur. This makes RDT particularly relevant for understanding the role of interorganizational interactions in supporting resilience within complex adaptive systems.

4.2.3. Resources, Dynamic Capabilities and Knowledge

The origins of resource and capability studies can be traced to early work highlighting that competitive advantage depends less on the mere possession of resources and more on how they are deployed within the firm [61]. Building on these foundations [62], the resource-based view (RBV) argues that while performance is directly influenced by the products a firm offers, it is ultimately determined by the resources and capabilities used to create them. Sustained performance depends on controlling resources critical for producing goods and services demanded by the market.

This perspective was advanced by emphasizing the strategic importance of intangible capabilities such as routines, skills, and collective know-how [63]. It was later formalized by proposing that competitive advantages arise when resources are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable [64]. Since resources and capabilities are heterogeneously distributed and imperfectly mobile, firms with unique resource endowments can sustain superior performance over time [65].

This resource-based logic evolved toward a process-oriented view that connects resource possession with deployment [66]. This shift led to the dynamic capabilities framework, which defines dynamic capabilities as the ability of firms to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments [67].

Knowledge has become increasingly recognized as the most critical capability for shaping organizational adaptation and innovation [68]. Firms are therefore seen as learning systems, continuously generating, combining, and exploiting knowledge to remain competitive in turbulent environments [69,70].

Recent research has focused on the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities, which unpack aggregate organizational constructs into the individual-level actions and interactions that give rise to them [71]. Capabilities are viewed as rooted in the skills, decision processes, and coordination behaviors of individuals and teams. By examining these mechanisms (such as problem-solving heuristics, communication patterns, and leadership practices), scholars provide a more granular understanding of how capabilities are built, maintained, and transformed over time [72].

In the context of Requisite Resilience, this evolution of thought is particularly relevant. The dynamic capabilities perspective highlights how firms sense disruptions, seize emerging opportunities, and reconfigure their structures and resource bases to respond effectively. Combined with a knowledge-based view, it frames organizations as adaptive systems whose survival depends on learning, collaboration, and continuous renewal.

4.2.4. Dialectical and Co-Evolutionary Perspectives

Dialectical and co-evolutionary perspectives [73,74] view the relationship between organizations and their environments as a dynamic interplay between determinism and voluntarism [75]. In this view, neither environmental forces nor managerial choice alone can fully explain adaptation. Instead, their relative influence fluctuates over time and across different stages of the organizational life cycle [76]. Organizations may at times act proactively, shaping their environment, and at other times react defensively to external pressures.

In this view, adaptation is a dynamic process shaped by the balance of power and dependency between the organization and its environment [77]. Each force—managerial intentionality and environmental constraint—serves both as a cause and a consequence of the other. Co-evolution in this perspective is understood as the joint outcome of managerial choice, environmental conditions and institutional forces [78,79]. Research has explored these dynamics through concepts such as multilevel interaction, embeddedness, reciprocal causality and historical path dependence [80].

4.2.5. Attention-Based View

The attention-based view (ABV) of the firm focuses on how managerial attention shapes organizational behaviour and outcomes [81,82]. It rests on the premise that what decision-makers notice, interpret and prioritise directly influences strategic action. Attention is defined as the noticing, encoding, interpreting and focusing of time and effort on a specific set of issues and possible responses. The ABV framework proposes that the allocation of attention within an organization is structured by three interrelated factors: the procedural and communication channels through which information flows, the situational context in which decision-makers operate, and the social and cognitive characteristics of those decision-makers [81].

In this view, adaptation depends not only on the availability of information but also on whether that information is attended to and acted upon. Because attention is a scarce resource, decision-makers rely on organizational structures, rules and routines to filter signals from the environment, which determines which issues receive priority and which responses are considered viable. Over time, these patterns of attention shape strategic direction, influencing which opportunities are pursued, which threats are addressed and how resources are deployed [83].

The ABV complements dialectical and co-evolutionary perspectives by providing a cognitive mechanism explaining how managerial intentionality operates within shifting patterns of environmental constraint and strategic choice. Whereas co-evolutionary frameworks emphasise the interplay between external pressures and organizational agency, the ABV focuses on how decision-makers selectively notice and prioritise environmental signals, and how these attention patterns shape adaptive responses. By structuring the flow and focus of information, attention allocation mediates the reciprocal influence between the organization and its environment, determining whether adaptation is proactive, reactive or inert.

This line of reasoning resonates with the option-based theory of the firm, which conceptualizes strategic investments as real options that create future flexibility under uncertainty. By preserving multiple potential paths of action, firms enhance their capacity to respond to unforeseen changes and disruptions by changing their attention (their investment) [76,84,85,86]. From the perspective of Requisite Resilience, such option-based strategies represent a proactive mechanism for sustaining adaptability in complex and evolving environments.

4.3. From Passive to Active Requisite Resilience

Taken together, these theoretical perspectives provide complementary lenses for understanding how organizations adapt within complex and dynamic environments. Foundational approaches, such as organizational ecology and industrial organization, conceptualize adaptation largely as a matter of passive resilience, where survival depends on achieving the best possible fit with environmental selection pressures and structural constraints. Contingency theory and neo-institutionalism extend this view by emphasizing alignment with environmental conditions and institutional norms, yet they still largely frame resilience as a reaction to external forces.

In contrast, enabling or capability-building perspectives such as strategic choice theory and the upper echelons approach introduce a more active dimension of Requisite Resilience, highlighting how managerial agency, leadership characteristics and strategic intent can proactively shape adaptation trajectories. Resource-based and dynamic capabilities frameworks deepen this understanding by focusing on the deliberate development, deployment and transformation of strategic assets, enabling firms to reconfigure themselves in anticipation of environmental change rather than merely reacting to it.

Dialectical and co-evolutionary perspectives integrate these positions, portraying adaptation as an evolving interplay between environmental constraints and managerial choice, where organizations continuously negotiate their positioning within broader ecosystems. Finally, the attention-based view provides a cognitive mechanism for active resilience by explaining how the selective noticing, prioritizing and interpretation of environmental signals enable timely and coordinated responses.

Together, these perspectives form the foundation for identifying which theoretical frameworks are most conducive to cultivating active Requisite Resilience within complex adaptive systems. They highlight that resilience can no longer be understood solely as a passive adjustment to external pressures but must increasingly be seen as a capability that organizations can purposefully design, strengthen and mobilize to navigate uncertainty and change.

5. Analysis of Theories of the Firm for Requisite Resilience

5.1. Mapping

The purpose of this section is to examine how different theories of the firm provide insights, tools and mechanisms that can be leveraged to build Requisite Resilience in complex adaptive systems. Requisite Resilience refers to an organization’s capacity to absorb disturbances, adapt to changing conditions and transform its structures and practices while maintaining essential functions. This concept draws on systems thinking, complexity theory and resilience engineering, and emphasises the importance of both robustness against immediate shocks and adaptability for long-term sustainability.

This subsection maps the contributions of each theory to specific dimensions of resilience, providing a comparative basis for evaluating which combinations are most conducive to resilience in complex adaptive systems. Figure 2 shows a historical evolution of the different theories and Table 2 provides an analysis.

This mapping shows that the theories of the firm contribute differently to understanding Requisite Resilience. Some, such as the resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, and strategic choice theory, offer actionable insights for developing adaptive capacity, reconfiguring resources, and mobilizing leadership agency. Others, like organizational ecology, industrial organization, and neo-institutionalism, act as diagnostic frameworks, clarifying the structural and institutional constraints within which resilience must be built. Dialectical, co-evolutionary, and attention-based perspectives bridge these roles by explaining how organizations balance environmental pressures, managerial agency, and cognitive focus to enable timely and effective adaptation.

5.2. Discussion: Evaluation of Theoretical Contributions to Requisite Resilience

The comparative analysis of theories of the firm reveals significant variation in how each perspective conceptualizes adaptation and in the extent to which it provides actionable guidance for building Requisite Resilience. While all contribute to understanding the phenomenon, they differ in their focus on constraints versus agency, stability versus transformation, and diagnosis versus prescription.

5.2.1. Foundational Perspectives as Contextual Baselines

Organizational ecology and industrial organization approach adaptation primarily through the lens of environmental selection. By focusing on structural inertia, population dynamics, and competitive constraints, these perspectives set clear boundaries for what is realistically achievable in a given context. Their analytical value lies in revealing the outer limits of adaptability, showing how factors such as resource scarcity, industrial structure, and legitimization–competition dynamics define the survival parameters of firms. However, because they largely depict organizations as reactive entities, they offer limited guidance on how to actively shape conditions for resilience. In practice, these theories are best employed as diagnostic frameworks that inform environmental scanning and scenario analysis, helping decision-makers understand the pressures and inertias their systems must overcome.

5.2.2. Enabling Perspectives as Drivers of Adaptive Agency

Enabling perspectives place managerial agency, leadership, and strategic intent at the center of organizational adaptation. Strategic choice theory highlights that decision-makers are not passive recipients of environmental pressures but can actively shape organizational trajectories by selecting goals, designing structures, and mobilizing resources. Upper echelons theory complements this view by emphasizing how the cognitive bases and socio-demographic characteristics of top management teams influence strategic orientations and adaptive capacity.

These perspectives are directly relevant to building Requisite Resilience, as they stress that resilience emerges not only from structural or environmental conditions but also from the ability of leaders to interpret signals, make timely decisions, and mobilize collective action. By linking agency to adaptive outcomes, voluntaristic theories provide practical insights into how organizations can intentionally steer their responses rather than merely react to external disruptions.

Neo-institutionalism occupies a similar position in this diagnostic role but from an institutional rather than ecological standpoint. It highlights how norms, values, and regulatory frameworks stabilize behavior and confer legitimacy, yet also create rigidity when environmental shifts require deviation from established templates. For resilience building, this perspective underscores the importance of balancing adaptability with legitimacy. Strategies that ignore institutional expectations risk undermining long-term viability, while excessive conformity to institutional isomorphism may suppress innovation and narrow adaptive options.

5.2.3. Capability-Based Perspectives as Enablers of Sustained Adaptability

The resource-based view (RBV) and the dynamic capabilities (DC) framework are the most directly aligned with the deliberate construction of Requisite Resilience. RBV establishes that sustained advantage, and by extension sustained resilience, depends on resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable. DC extends this logic to dynamic contexts by identifying the routines and processes that enable organizations to sense opportunities and threats, seize them effectively, and reconfigure resources accordingly. This capacity to orchestrate change, rather than merely withstand it, lies at the core of long-term resilience in complex adaptive systems.

The microfoundations movement within DC research adds a critical level of granularity by connecting system-level adaptive capacity to the actions, interactions, and decision processes of individuals and small groups. This perspective is particularly relevant in distributed or networked systems, where resilience depends not solely on centralized leadership but also on the capacity for adaptation at multiple nodes. Microfoundations research therefore operationalizes resilience by showing how it can be built from the ground up through individual-level competencies, incentives, and collaboration patterns.

5.2.4. Oriented Perspectives as Integrators of Constraint and Agency

Dialectical and co-evolutionary perspectives act as integrative frameworks bridging foundational and voluntaristic views. They conceptualize adaptation as the result of ongoing, reciprocal interactions between organizations and their environments, where neither environmental pressures nor managerial choices alone determine outcomes. This duality is highly relevant for Requisite Resilience, which requires the capacity to operate effectively under constraints while retaining sufficient agency to initiate change. The notion of “virtuous” and “contradictory” adaptation cycles provides a dynamic lens for understanding how resilience can either be cultivated or eroded over time, depending on the evolving balance between environmental pressures and internal capabilities.

5.2.5. Cognitive Perspectives as Triggers for Timely Adaptation

The attention-based view (ABV) introduces a crucial cognitive dimension to understanding resilience. Even when organizations possess the necessary resources, structures, and leadership, resilience may fail if critical signals are overlooked or deprioritized. ABV explains how organizational architectures, communication channels, and decision-making routines shape the allocation of managerial attention. In turbulent and uncertain contexts, sustaining attentional flexibility is essential, allowing decision-makers to shift focus between immediate operational challenges and emerging strategic threats. By clarifying how information is filtered, prioritized, and acted upon, ABV highlights the role of cognitive mechanisms in enabling timely and effective adaptive responses.

5.3. Integrating Perspectives for Requisite Resilience

From the standpoint of active resilience building, capability-based and voluntaristic theories, particularly dynamic capabilities, RBV, strategic choice, and upper echelons, provide the most direct tools for engineering adaptive capacity. These approaches are essential for designing resource portfolios, developing change-oriented routines, and enabling leadership to exercise effective judgment under uncertainty. Cognitive insights from the attention-based view complement these contributions by addressing the perception–action link, ensuring that resources and capabilities are deployed in response to the most critical signals.

Foundational and institutional perspectives, while less prescriptive, remain indispensable for mapping the terrain of constraints and pressures. They define the adaptive context within which capabilities and agency operate, ensuring that resilience strategies are anchored in a realistic understanding of environmental conditions and institutional boundaries. Dialectical and co-evolutionary perspectives further enrich this integration by highlighting how the balance between constraints and agency evolves over time, offering a process-oriented lens for navigating dynamic environments.

No single theoretical lens captures the full complexity of Requisite Resilience. Its deliberate construction requires synthesizing at least four complementary elements: environmental and institutional diagnostics, resource and capability orchestration, managerial agency and behavioral diversity, and attentional processes that enable timely and relevant adaptation. The interplay of these elements, rather than the dominance of any single perspective, provides the most fertile foundation for resilience in complex adaptive systems.

Table 3. What perspective fits best with what stage of Requisite Resilience (source: authors)?

Theory/Perspective	Core Logic/Emphasis	Grain of Analysis	Main RR Stage Supported (Anticipation, Absorption, Adaptation, Managing the New Normal)
Organisational ecology	Population-level selection; survival of forms	Industry/population	Anticipation—highlights environmental constraints and vulnerabilities
Industrial organisation	Market structure shapes firm conduct and performance	Industry/firm	Anticipation—identifies structural barriers and competitive pressures
Neo-institutionalism	Legitimacy and conformity to institutional pressures	Organisation/field	Managing the new normal—explains conformity and persistence under institutional rules
Strategic choice	Managerial discretion in shaping strategies	Firm/decision makers	Adaptation—agency and discretion guide proactive change
Upper echelons theory	Executive characteristics shape firm outcomes	Top management team	Anticipation & adaptation—cognitive traits condition weak-signal detection and action
Resource-based view	Firm resources as source of advantage	Firm	Absorption—buffers shocks by leveraging unique resource stocks
Dynamic capabilities	Reconfiguring resources to adapt to change	Firm/process	Adaptation—explicit reconfiguration for renewal
Knowledge-based view	Knowledge creation and integration as strategic asset	Firm/team	Absorption & adaptation—supports learning and knowledge application
Evolutionary economics	Routines and variation-selection-retention processes	Firm/industry	Managing the new normal—explains gradual renewal and long-term adjustment
Attention-based view	Organisational attention shapes strategic action	Organisation/decision	Anticipation—ensures detection and prioritisation of critical signals
Option-based reasoning	Investments as real options under uncertainty	Firm/project	Adaptation—guides choices under uncertainty before committing to action
Co-evolutionary perspectives	Mutual adaptation between firms and environments	Interorganisational/field	Adaptation & managing the new normal—joint adjustments with partners and ecosystems

summarises how the major theoretical perspectives reviewed in this study align with the stages of Requisite Resilience (Figure 1). Foundational perspectives such as organisational ecology and industrial organisation primarily illuminate anticipation by identifying structural constraints and environmental vulnerabilities. Capability-based and knowledge-based views contribute most to absorption and adaptation, as they emphasise the mobilisation, renewal, and reconfiguration of resources. Cognitive perspectives, notably the attention-based view and option-based reasoning, enhance anticipation and adaptation by clarifying how signals are prioritised and how strategic choices are framed under uncertainty. Institutional and evolutionary theories explain how organisations manage the new normal by embedding routines and securing legitimacy that stabilise long-term adjustments.

6. Conclusions

This study has examined how a range of theories of the firm, spanning foundational, capability-based, process-oriented, and cognitive perspectives, contribute to understanding and building Requisite Resilience in complex adaptive systems. The comparative analysis shows that no single perspective provides a complete foundation. Foundational perspectives such as organisational ecology, industrial organisation, and neo-institutionalism offer indispensable diagnostic insights into environmental constraints, structural inertias, and legitimacy pressures. Enabling perspectives, including strategic choice and upper echelons theory, highlight the role of managerial agency and behavioural characteristics that shape adaptive action. Capability-based views, including the resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, their microfoundations, and knowledge-based approaches, provide explicit guidance on developing and renewing adaptive capacity. Dialectical and co-evolutionary perspectives integrate these strands by showing how adaptation emerges from the interplay between constraints and agency over time, while the attention-based view, complemented by option-based reasoning, adds a cognitive dimension that ensures adaptive capacity is deployed in response to the right signals at the right moment.

This analysis extends prior research by linking resilience studies with strategic management and organisation theory in a systematic manner. Foundational perspectives are used as boundary mapping tools that specify constraints and inertias, while capability-based and attention-oriented perspectives prescribe how organisations can build and renew adaptive capacity. The historical synthesis clarifies the shift from deterministic views to capability and cognition-oriented views and embeds microfoundations, learning, and interorganisational interaction within the analysis of adaptation. In doing so, the paper moves the field from descriptive accounts of survival toward prescriptive designs that specify what to observe, where to intervene, and how to coordinate across levels during disturbance and recovery.

The contribution of this work is therefore twofold. Theoretically, it demonstrates that the study of Requisite Resilience benefits from stronger integration across traditionally separate research streams. Combining foundational, capability-based, and cognitive perspectives into a coherent multi-level framework enables a richer account of structural constraints, managerial agency, resource orchestration, and attentional processes. Managerially, the findings emphasise that resilience cannot be left to emerge passively from favourable environments or past successes. It must be deliberately cultivated through coordinated efforts: mapping environmental and institutional constraints, investing in resources and dynamic capabilities, structuring leadership teams to maximise cognitive diversity, and designing processes that ensure critical signals are detected, prioritised, and acted upon. Resilience building is not a one-off initiative but an ongoing capability, requiring periodic reassessment as internal conditions and external contexts evolve. The most effective strategies are those that manage the tension between stability and change: avoiding institutional rigidity while preventing overextension [88].

Limitations and Future Research

Our framework for Requisite Resilience is primarily conceptual, developed through theoretical synthesis rather than empirical testing. While this approach allows us to integrate multiple perspectives and clarify the mechanisms by which complex adaptive systems sense, seize, act, and manage a new environment (Figure 1), it also means that our claims have not yet been systematically validated in organisational settings. What happens next is to move from conceptual grounding to empirical assessment. As a first step, we will use existing cases of crisis to examine whether the proposed framework adequately captures the dynamics of Requisite Resilience. This will allow us to test the fit of our constructs, refine definitions, and develop appropriate measures before turning to other forms of data collection. Building on this, future studies should operationalise the evaluation grid, develop reliable indicators for its five design criteria, and examine how these dimensions interact in practice. Longitudinal, multi-level research designs will be especially important for capturing how Requisite Resilience evolves over time and how information flows, autonomy control balances, and coordination mechanisms shape adaptive outcomes during and after disturbances.

A second limitation concerns the scope of theoretical coverage. Although we have integrated major theories, our analysis does not include all potentially relevant approaches. What happens next is to extend the framework to additional bodies of work in management and related fields such as distributed leadership, behavioural economics, and emergent coordination in networked environments. These perspectives could refine our understanding of how Requisite Resilience is cultivated in practice, particularly in systems where authority is diffused and adaptation emerges from decentralised interactions.

A third limitation lies in the abstraction level of our propositions. By seeking generality, we may have sacrificed some of the contextual richness that specific industries, organisational forms, or governance structures can provide. What happens next is to situate the framework in sector-specific studies, comparing, for example, manufacturing supply chains, healthcare networks, and regional innovation ecosystems. Such empirical work will allow us to test boundary conditions, identify sectoral variations, and refine the framework into more actionable guidance for managers and policymakers. However, we do not consider Requisite Resilience to be an industry-specific phenomenon. On the contrary, one of its most promising developments lies in the capacity of organisations from different industries to collaborate during crises by sharing distinct resources that are critical for survival and recovery. The cross-sector mobilisation of complementary assets not only increases the pool of available responses but also creates novel pathways for adaptation that single industries could not achieve on their own. Exploring these interindustry collaborations and resource sharing represents an important next step in translating Requisite Resilience into practice.