Investigating the Connection Between Individual Resilience and Organisational Resilience

Abstract

Resilience has become a central theme in organisational research, particularly in sectors such as construction that face frequent disruption, complexity, and uncertainty. Although individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR) have been widely explored, their relationship remains conceptually fragmented and often assumed to be either linear or inherently aligned. This study, thus, examines how the IR–OR relationship has been conceptualised in the literature, explores the nature of their interdependence, and identifies future research opportunities. A reflexive thematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s framework, supported by NVivo 14 for data organisation and pattern identification. The analysis revealed gaps in how resilience is theorised and highlighted the absence of cohesive frameworks linking individual and organisational domains. In response, the study introduces three conceptual models: the stacked model, which treats IR and OR as hierarchical; the nested model, which reflects partial overlap; and the modified integrated model, indicating combined action of various factors. While this study draws on literature across all industries, the New Zealand construction sector is referenced as an illustrative example of a highly vulnerable sector where future empirical testing of the proposed models would be valuable. This research contributes to theory by reframing resilience as a relational construct shaped by numerous conditions. It also provides a foundation for future empirical studies and practical frameworks that embed resilience more holistically into organisational design, leadership development, and workforce strategy.

1. Introduction

The influence of financial crises, market shifts, political unrest, and extreme weather phenomena has been evident at all levels of society, from governments to businesses and individuals (e.g., [1,2,3,4,5,6]). To combat such shocks and stresses, the organisations are expected to enhance their resilience for survival and maintenance of their functioning. Therefore, resilience, which is the capacity to adapt and recover, has become an essential capability for sustaining organisational performance [7]. For instance, the New Zealand construction sector is exposed to earthquakes, extreme weather events, and shifting market dynamics and has therefore attracted considerable attention within the field of organisational resilience. [8,9]. Yet, despite this vulnerability, there remains limited understanding of how resilience can be systematically embedded across different organisational levels [9].

Several scholars have asserted the role of individuals in promoting organisational change [10,11]. Doe [12] argued that resilient organisations are dependent on resilient individuals who can absorb change or uncertainty and regard it as an opportunity for future development. This was in line with Mallak [13], who stated organisational resilience requires “people who can respond quickly and effectively to change while enduring minimal stress”. Furthermore, Riolli and Savicki [14] also discussed organisational resilience is “built on the foundation of the resilience of members of that organisation”. The study of Coutu [15] also revealed that the characteristics of organisational resilience are influenced by resilient individuals, indicating that both share grounds of commonalities. Thus, individual resilience can prove to be significant while analysing organisational resilience.

Though the role of individual resilience is perceived to hold significant value for organisational resilience, it does not imply that individual resilience would certainly lead to organisational resilience [16,17]. In light of this, Alliger, Cerasoli [18] stated that even a group of resilient individuals might face clashes due to differences in stress management strategies, goals, and personal characteristics. Resilient individuals may prioritise their own well-being over organisational goals, potentially leading to negative impacts on the organisation. In some cases, misalignment between individual and organisational goals can even undermine organisational resilience [19]. This complexity is particularly relevant in the NZ construction sector, where resilience-building efforts often lack an integrated approach [8,9].

Another influential perspective on the relationship between individual and organisational resilience was advanced by Home III and Orr [17], who described organisational resilience as “a fundamental quality of individuals, groups, organisations, and systems as a whole to respond productively to significant change.” Building on this view, several scholars [20,21,22,23] have conceptualised organisational resilience as a multi-dimensional and multi-level construct, shaped by an interplay of factors such as managerial resilience, group resilience, coping mechanisms, and organisational structures.

Similarly, Walker, Malinen [24] argue that organisational resilience emerges from the combined effects of resilient individuals, work practices, organisational culture, and leadership styles, underscoring the importance of interactions across different levels of resilience. However, despite these advances, there remains a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the specific role of resilient employees in fostering organisational resilience. The mechanisms through which individual resilience translates into or is mediated by organisational processes are still poorly understood. Relatively little research has systematically examined how resilience operates dynamically across individual and organisational levels [25,26], creating a knowledge gap. This uncertainty further complicates efforts to understand how individual resilience influences or relates to organisational resilience outcomes [27].

This conceptual ambiguity is especially relevant in the New Zealand construction sector, where systemic resilience is critical but unevenly embedded across organisations [8]. Despite organisations such as BRANZ and ResOrgs advocating for greater resilience, there is still limited empirical insight into how individual and organisational resilience operate together in this context.

In response to these gaps, the current study is designed as a critical and theory-building review. Its primary objective is to identify and evaluate the theoretical deficiencies in existing studies on the relationship between individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR) and to construct a more coherent conceptual framework that can guide future empirical work. Through a systematic literature review and case study analysis, the research addresses the following questions:

• How has the relationship between individual resilience and organisational resilience been conceptualised in existing literature?
• How are organisational resilience and individual resilience inter-related?
• What are the implications and future research opportunities in the domain of organisational resilience and individual resilience?

The findings of the study would introduce key concepts and approaches through various distinct models of organisational resilience and individual resilience. The model will offer in-depth insights into the significant factors that bridge the gap between individual and organisational resilience. One of the major challenges in fostering resilient organisations lies in developing a comprehensive understanding of resilience, both in everyday operations and during crisis response and recovery. To address this, the study aims to establish a more generalised framework for organisational resilience, translating theoretical insights into practical approaches. Furthermore, the findings will provide valuable guidance for organisations and decision-makers, helping them identify key focus areas for strengthening resilience at both individual and organisational levels. By emphasising the role of resilient individuals in building adaptive and sustainable organisations, the study will contribute to more effective resilience strategies and long-term organisational stability. A significant aspect of the study that is worth noting is that it demonstrates a generic and cross-sector conceptual synthesis of literature related to the relationship between IR and OR. In line with this, no sector-specific data are analysed and the references to New Zealand construction are used only as illustrative context, given its status as one of the most disruption-prone industries globally. Future work will apply and empirically test the proposed models using New Zealand construction data to validate and refine the framework within a concrete industry setting.

To achieve the overall aim of the research, the study is divided into five main sections. Section 2 reviews relevant literature on individual and organisational resilience to set a foundation for the existing research gap and relevance of the current study. Section 3 discusses the research methods followed in the study, from literature selection to data analysis. In addition, the findings, including the unaddressed gap between IR–OR, development of conceptual models, and future research opportunities, are present in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 addresses the conclusion with theoretical and practical implications.

To illustrate the logical flow of the research, Figure 1 represents the flow diagram of the current study.

The inclusion of the flow diagram is necessary as it provides a visual overview of the logical progression of the research, from the aim, research question formulation, and literature identification through to analysis and model development. It serves as a roadmap that connects the study’s aim, methods, and findings, thereby ensuring clarity and coherence.

2. Definitions and Theoretical Background

2.1. Organisational Resilience

Organisational resilience is often considered as an overarching framework that encompasses and explains a range of varied phenomena [28]. It is such a diverse concept that scholars have interpreted organisational resilience differently and thus lack unanimity on this. Currently, organisational resilience is conceptualised into three groups: outcomes, processes, and capability.

The current study focusses on the dynamic nature of resilience, which evolves over time in response to challenges. Hence, conceptualising resilience as a process emphasises on its dynamic state, which changes through learning, adaptation, and transformation. In line with this, Lengnick-Hall, Beck [16] defined “organisational resilience as 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.” It was based on the study of [29,30] which proposes that an organisation’s ability to cultivate resilience is a result of distinct capabilities, established routines, and structured processes. These elements help a firm shape its strategic outlook, take proactive steps, and foster an environment of adaptability and diversity. Moreover, an organisation’s resilience capability is deeply rooted in individual expertise, competencies, and structured processes that enable it to respond to disruptions effectively and maintain operational continuity. Scholars such as [10,21,24,31] have also supported and acknowledged this idea of organisational resilience.

This perspective effectively captures the interconnectedness between employees and organisations, emphasising how individuals influence and ultimately shape an organisation’s ability to adapt and thrive. Therefore, the present study adopts the framework proposed by Lengnick-Hall, Beck [16], as it aligns well with the research focus, offering a comprehensive basis for further exploration of this dynamic relationship.

2.2. Individual Resilience

A substantial body of psychological research on organisational resilience has mainly focused on the individual level [21,26]. This emphasis arises from the fact that individuals are inherently susceptible to psychosocial and physical challenges when faced with adversity. Those who actively seek growth and strength in such demanding situations are recognised as resilient. These individuals exhibit key traits such as optimism, self-confidence, and intrinsic motivation, which empower them to navigate hardships and emerge stronger [32,33].

In light of this, McGonagle, Beatty [34] referred to individual resilience as the “positive adaptability or ability to thrive in the face of adversity”. This definition sets the base of our current study as it focusses on adaptability, highlighting that resilience is not merely about enduring hardships but actively adjusting and growing from them. In addition, the emphasis on “adapt positively” reinforces that resilience involves constructive change rather than just survival. Additionally, the definition is generic in nature and is applicable to fields such as psychology, crisis management, and organisational studies. Unlike broader or more complex definitions, this one is concise, universal, and easy to understand, making it highly practical for both academic and real-world contexts. Moreover, this definition of individual resilience also aligns with other scholars’ ideas, such as [35,36,37], who focussed on positive adaptation and bounce-back theory.

2.3. Theoretical Evolution of the Relationship Between Individual and Organisational Resilience

Although the study related to resilience has received great momentum, it has not developed in a straight line but through a series of conceptual shifts. Such shifts reflect the changing assumptions about the nature of adaptation in complex systems. Early perspectives positioned IR as a psychological or behavioural trait, such as emotional regulation, adaptability, or coping [38,39] whereas OR is understood as a systemic capability grounded in leadership, governance, culture, and strategic agility [16,40]. Both the constructs evolved in isolation; however, scholars assumed that resilient people naturally contributed to resilient organisations [14,19] as they are the bearers of organisational actions and functioning. This assumption created a largely linear and additive view of the IR–OR relationship.

With further extensive research in this field, this assumption was contested by organisational scholars who argued that resilience is not simply aggregated from individual capacity but emerges from a wide variety of components [41]. Studies on organisational routines, leadership practices, and learning systems reframed resilience as a capability of the organisation itself [16,24]. Empirical evidence shows that resilient individuals can be neutralised by brittle organisational systems, and resilient organisations can coexist with staff burnout or disengagement [42]. This marked a turning point in the resilience literature, where resilience was no longer seen as residing only in individuals but as a multi-factor dynamic feature that organisations could design, cultivate, and maintain.

This has led to a recognition that the IR–OR link is non-linear, conditional, and context-dependent, moderated by mediating factors such as governance structures, communication flows, and psychological safety. Nevertheless, contemporary debates revolve around whether resilience should be treated as a multi-level phenomenon spanning individuals, teams, and organisations, or whether these levels retain distinct dynamics that only partially align.

Critically, this evolution reveals a shift from certainty to ambiguity. In other words, it reveals the transition from early linear assumptions to multi-level interpretations. Acknowledging these turning points is vital, as they demonstrate both the progress and the persistent fragmentation in the field. It is within this unsettled theoretical landscape that the current study positions itself, aiming to provide a more coherent framework to explain how and under what conditions IR contributes to OR.

3. Research Methods

The primary objective of this study is to develop potential conceptual frameworks that explain the relationship between individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR) by systematically synthesising cross-sector literature. The methodology was, therefore, designed to identify, screen, and analyse relevant studies to clarify the mechanisms and contextual factors that shape how individual adaptive capacities interact with organisational systems to produce resilience outcomes.

The study employed a qualitative research design, using a systematic literature review to explore and understand potential models of resilience at individual and organisational levels. As part of this review process, relevant case study evidence reported in the literature was also synthesised to enrich the analysis, rather than being undertaken as an independent case study. This approach allows for a comprehensive examination of theoretical frameworks and practical applications of resilience.

The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) helps to synthesise and interpret primary studies to gather a consolidated overview of the current state of knowledge in the field of organisational resilience and individual resilience. With the help of the inclusion as well as exclusion criteria and transparent reporting standards, systematic reviews enhance the credibility, reliability, and objectivity of the findings.

Furthermore, the case studies help in exploring real-world applications of resilience models and identifying factors influencing resilience in individuals and organisations. The cases are selected from diverse contexts (e.g., industries, crises, or geographies) to ensure a wide perspective.

The criteria for selection include the presence of resilience-building initiatives in the organisation, clear documentation of challenges faced and responses using individual resilience, and availability of data (e.g., reports, interviews, or organisational records).

Based on the findings, the study would discuss a conceptual model linking both individual and organisational resilience. This would help industry practitioners and academicians in formulating plans, policies, and strategies to safeguard construction organisations during setbacks.

3.1. Literature Retrieval and Selection

The systematic literature review has been performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020, protocol to examine the existing body of literature (Figure 2). PRISMA establishes an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations aimed at fostering transparent and comprehensive reporting of systematic reviews. This expanding set of guidelines is designed to help authors accurately report different knowledge synthesis methods (such as systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and review protocols) and ensure that every aspect of the research is transparently documented.

In line with PRISMA protocols, the scoping procedures were executed to identify and extract the most relevant articles linking individual resilience and organisational resilience in the existing literature [43]. The search strategy involved a thorough review of the most eminent and reliable databases to collect relevant articles for addressing the research question. This research chose the Web of Science (WoS) database due to its extensive coverage and reliability. Other databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar, were considered before opting for WoS. However, Google Scholar includes various materials such as books, conference papers, working papers, and unpublished materials, requiring more detailed filtration to achieve a focused and reliable result. Despite its wide coverage, the unverified quality of metadata and extraction challenges make using Google Scholar in bibliometric analysis difficult [44]. Also, extraction of results from Google Scholar in plain txt or Excel form is not available for analysis, which adds another reason for not utilising it in the current study. In the case of Scopus, the search results showed an insignificant number of papers, and most of the findings were common with WoS. Therefore, the researchers selected WoS as the most suitable search engine to base their study on.

Owing to the scope and the intricate conceptualisation of organisational resilience, the study utilised the following string using the Boolean operator to identify the relevant literature:

“INDIVIDUAL RESILIENCE” OR “EMPLOYEE RESILENCE” AND “ORGANIZATIONAL RESILENCE” OR “ORGANISATIONAL RESILENCE”.

These basic but important keywords were adopted to gather all the pertinent articles in the field of individual resilience and organisational resilience. The time range was kept between the years 2014 and 2024. The search engine utilised was Web of Science, as it includes most of the noteworthy research papers and offers built-in analysis tools for generating illustrative figures. In addition, the search results of Web of Science can easily be exported to other analysis software. The search resulted in a total of 696 papers, comprising varying scholarly articles from journal papers, conference materials, review articles, book chapters, etc., and the language section was limited to English. The gathered results were then carefully scrutinised based on their relevance.

After identifying the initial pool of articles, the next phase involved a systematic screening process to ensure that each source met predefined quality standards and was relevant to the study’s objectives. Clear inclusion and exclusion parameters were established to confirm that the selected research articles were not only credible but also directly supportive of the overall goal of developing the conceptual framework.

3.2. Quality Assessment

To ensure quality and rigour, only peer-reviewed journal articles and high-quality articles published in English were considered. The assessment initiated with scrutinising the title and abstract to check the article’s relevance. If the title and abstract did not provide enough information, the full text was assessed against the following criteria before a final decision was made. The criteria ensured that the articles met the following assessments:

• Addressed either individual or organisational resilience;
• Included empirical evidence or a clearly articulated conceptual framework;
• Provided sufficient methodological detail to enable critical appraisal.

These criteria were also essential when papers discussed related constructs such as psychological resilience or managerial resilience alongside individual or organisational resilience. In such cases, the entire article was carefully examined to determine whether these constructs were meaningfully connected to either IR or OR. Studies were included only if they provided implications for organisational functioning (e.g., team performance, workplace adaptation), individual coping (e.g., stress management), or offered conceptual insights relevant to the IR–OR relationship. If the paper did not fall into any of these categories, it was excluded from the study.

Once the identification and screening process was completed, the total studies included for the review added up to 51.

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Based on the aforementioned criteria, 51 articles were considered eligible. In addition, 14 more articles were identified using citation searching, making a total of 72 relevant and high-quality papers. These articles generally meet the following criteria:

• Original research articles from journals, conference materials, review articles, and book chapters.
• Published in the English language.
• Indexed in the WoS databases.
• Published within the timeframe of 2014 to 2024.

3.4. Data Analysis

To construct robust and evidence-informed conceptual models that could meaningfully explain the interaction between individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR), a comprehensive and multi-layered process of literature analysis and data synthesis was employed. The process commenced with an extensive retrieval of peer-reviewed academic literature from leading research databases, with search terms aligned to core concepts such as “individual resilience,” “organisational resilience,” “construction sector resilience,” and “resilience frameworks.” The researchers ensured that only empirical and conceptual studies from high-ranking (Q1 and Q2) journals were considered, ensuring the foundational material was of high scholarly rigour and relevance.

As mentioned earlier, a total of 72 articles were retrieved, which met the quality assessment and inclusion/exclusion criteria. These articles were imported into NVivo 14 for qualitative analysis. Using Braun and Clarke [45] six-phase thematic analysis approach, the data were subjected to a structured process that began with familiarisation and initial code generation. Here, each article was reviewed for its conceptual framing, resilience mechanisms, and cross-level linkages, and descriptive and interpretive codes were assigned accordingly. For example, the excerpt “Parties involved in collaboration depend on one another to contribute needed skill sets or resources” was categorised under multi-disciplinary collaboration. Within the code of team synergy and interpersonal trust, the statement “Trust between organizations can indirectly affect performance through enhanced cooperation and coordination, and it is often considered necessary for effective” was coded. Likewise, the excerpt “there is a “level transition” phenomenon from the low level to high level.” was interpreted as evidence of the step-wise transfer of resilience across levels. The phrase “The relation interaction between members can promote group resilience and organizational learning can help group to form organizational resilience.” reflects how team resilience contributes to strengthening organisational resilience within a multi-level system. Finally, the statement “resilience is a process which affected by resources and routine of organization.” was coded under access to resources, highlighting the role of organisational structures and routines in resilience development. Based on this, sixty codes were noted that captured recurring elements across the literature, such as leadership, international collaboration, project availability, stakeholder responsiveness, governance influence, etc.

Following Braun and Clarke’s [45] guidance, the codes were then grouped and refined into broader themes. Thirteen core themes were eventually identified and outlined in

Table 1. Coding framework: from initial codes to themes.

Concept Identified	Theme	Peer-Reviewed Sources
National-level coordination and emergency plan Community role in national resilience Role of individuals in governance during crisis Central vs. local authority response Integration of resilience in national policy frameworks	National Resilience	[46,47,48,49,50]
Community networks and social cohesion Informal mutual-aid systems Volunteer mobilisation Role of cultural identity and values	Community Resilience	[47,51,52,53,54,55]
Staff empowerment Delegated decision-making authority Bottom-up innovation during disruption Skills transfer from individuals to teams Employee-driven adaptive practices	Staff Role in Resilience Transfer	[21,56,57,58]
Supplier reliability and flexibility Multiple sourcing strategies Local vs. global supply chain resilience Crisis-induced supply issues	Supplier Dependence	[54,59,60]
Pipeline of projects Retained clients during downturn Long-term contracts as resilience enablers Backlog projects as recovery accelerators Reliance on government-funded projects	Project Continuity as a Resource Buffer	[56,61,62,63,64,65]
Individual-organisational recovery overlap Leadership visibility boosts staff morale Employee resilience initiatives supporting OR strategies Reciprocal learning between staff and organisation Shared crisis narratives	Overlapping IR–OR Functions	[66,67,68,69]
Leadership decision-making in crises Crisis communication clarity Distributed vs. centralised authority Ethical leadership in crisis Role modelling by leaders	Leadership and Governance	[7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]
Team synergy and interpersonal trust Peer support systems Informal mentoring under stress Multi-disciplinary collaboration Trust-building through transparency	Collaboration and Team Trust	[18,57,78,79,80,81,82]
Inter-organisational cooperation Cross-sectoral alliances Client-contractor trust Government-industry collaboration Knowledge-sharing partnerships	Stakeholder Engagement	[54,83,84,85]
Digital technology Real-time data transfer Availability of resources Innovation supporting	Access of Technology	[67,86,87,88]
Transfer of resilience across levels IR supporting team resilience Team resilience strengthening OR Multi-level system of resilience	Cascading Resilience Logic	[16,23,57,89]
Assets and cash flow On-Time salary payment Presence of financial reserve Balance between debt and profit	Financial Resilience	[5,7,90,91,92]
Rebranding strategies Public trust rebuilding	Post-Crisis Branding	[93]
Digital simulation exercises Virtual crisis scenarios Real-time adaptive drills	Simulation Tool for Resilience	[94,95]

. To ensure practical relevance, these themes were then explored against real-world scenarios described in industry case studies and practice-based literature. This triangulation enabled the research to test the empirical applicability of each theme in the context of the construction sector. For instance, themes such as “national resilience,” “staff empowerment,” and “project continuity” not only emerged strongly in the literature but were also observable in post-disaster case studies from New Zealand and similar high-risk regions. Two themes, namely, post-crisis branding and simulation tools for resilience appeared less frequently and lacked clear relevance and were eventually removed.

Based on the convergence of scholarly support and real-world applicability, a refined set of eleven themes was finalised as the foundational components of the conceptual models. These themes informed the initial sketching of three conceptual models, each designed to represent a unique angle on the IR–OR interface.

The codes mentioned in Table 1 provided the clear dataset for deeper qualitative analysis. Building on this foundation, the subsequent section presents the thematic synthesis and conceptual modelling, underpinning the relationship between individual and organisational resilience.

4. Findings and Discussion

The synthesis of the reviewed literature revealed several important patterns and conceptual insights regarding the relationship between individual and organisational resilience. The following subsections unpack these findings.

4.1. The Unaddressed Gap Between Individual Resilience and Organisational Resilience

A central theme emerging from this analysis is the persistent gap between studies of individual resilience and those of organisational resilience. Despite growing recognition that the two levels are interdependent, the existing literature continues to examine them in isolation. Hence, the following subsection will discuss this complex gap in detail.

4.1.1. Linear and Positive Relationship

Building on prior research that suggests a positive link between individual and organisational resilience [13,14], our findings confirm that resilient individuals can indeed contribute significantly to enhancing organisational resilience. Individual resilience, defined as “the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, through mental, emotional, and behavioural flexibility” [96], is frequently linked to positive organisational outcomes.

The analysis highlights that resilient individuals foster agility, adaptability, and dynamism within organisations, particularly during periods of adversity [97]. Employees with high resilience tend to maintain a positive attitude, sustain performance under pressure, and contribute actively to organisational learning [14,19,89]. In line with [69], the study observed that resilient employees enhance staff engagement and promote the formation of learning organisations, thereby reinforcing organisational resilience. Individual resilience maintains a positive attitude towards adversity and preserves their performance amidst workplace stress [21,98,99], which strengthens the resilience of the organisation. Employee resilience has been observed to have enhanced staff engagement and the formation of a learning organisation that supports organisational resilience, as observed by [69]. Tonkin, Malinen [100] argued that employee resilience is channelised in terms of workplace behaviours and can enhance organisational resilience [21]. These two levels of resilience are mutually reinforcing, which implies their significant dependence on each other. This highlights the crucial role employees play in organisational resilience. Moreover, resilient employees possess the strong core abilities to stand against crisis, and eventually, their actions and responses allow resilient organisations to possess the resilient qualities of their employees as well [101]. This notion has been in line with the multi-level structure of organisational resilience, indicating the presence of individual resilience at the core, which then channelises to group resilience and further develops to yield organisational resilience [23]. These narratives establish an explicitly linear and positive connection between the two types of resilience. Furthermore, individual resilience is not simply additive but promotes the collective processes that drive organisational adaptability.

4.1.2. Challenges in Linking Individual and Organisational Resilience

Consistent with emerging critiques in the literature [17,39,102], our findings also highlight significant limitations to assuming a direct and universally positive relationship between individual and organisational resilience. The presence of resilient individuals does not automatically result in a resilient organisation. The study identified few aspects that highlight contradiction between the two types of resilience.

For instance, team resilience plays a critical role in an organisation. However, despite being composed of highly resilient individuals, a team might encounter communication disruptions or leadership disputes, lack a unified strategy for collaboration, or have members who are hesitant to encourage or offer backup support to each other [18]. Moreover, resilient individuals may have an adverse impact on the organisations due to their self-priority nature or having a strong opinion, which may not align with organisational goals [19,97]. These findings depict that when individual resilience misaligns with organisational culture or strategy, it can become a source of tension rather than strength. Another important point is that organisational resilience comprises organisational learning [103], which is the collective result of individual learning within the organisation [27]. However, individual learning does not always contribute positively to the organisation. The employees may acquire knowledge that is harmful to the organisation or focus on survival rather than organisational advancement [104]. This process may not only hinder the resilience of organisations but may also create stress or burnout, impacting the resilience of individuals.

Thus, while resilient individuals are often discussed in the organisational resilience context, there is no consensus in the organisational studies literature on whether resilience of individuals within the organisation leads to resilience at the organisation level.

4.1.3. Meditator/Moderator of the Resilience Link

It was further highlighted in the study of Walker, Malinen [24] that rather than viewing organisational resilience as the sole responsibility of individuals, it should be recognised as an accumulated response of the work practices, culture, and leadership styles of the organisation. Numerous scholars have suggested that organisational resilience is a result of a complex interaction of several aspects at different levels of analysis [16,42,57]. Organisational resilience operates on multiple levels and is influenced by resources, routines, and processes within the organisation [105]. It spans across individual, group, and organisational levels, with its strength depending on the interactions between these levels, which are typically supported by organisational resources and established routines. At the individual level, organisational resilience emphasises how employees overcome challenges and adversity to achieve success [106]. Key characteristics like optimism, confidence [107,108], faith [109], and social network integration [110] are critical to individual resilience. At the group level, resilience is a vital organisational capability that shields teams from the negative impacts of unexpected events [111], providing psychological safety and accountability. At the organisational level, resilience is reflected in adaptive structures, improvisation, managing internal constraints, and attention to failure. Although overall organisational resilience is influenced by employee traits, social networks, resources, and structure [97], it is shaped by dynamic interactions across individual, group, and organisational levels. Resilient employees strengthen group resilience, and psychological safety within groups nurtures individual resilience. Moreover, organisational learning among resilient teams promotes resilience at the organisational level, and an organisation’s improvisation abilities foster resilience in its teams. This continuous interaction allows the organisation’s resilience to evolve over time.

At the perceptual level, cognitive resilience in an organisation refers to its capacity to detect changes and interpret unfamiliar or challenging situations. Elements such as a strong sense of purpose, core values, a clear vision, and the deliberate use of language help foster cognitive resilience, preparing the organisation mentally for unexpected hardships. The second dimension is behavioural resilience, which includes resourcefulness, agility in unexpected situations, and the development of routines and behaviours that help the organisation learn, adapt, and efficiently utilise resources during crises [16]. This involves having established routines that prepare the organisation to respond and thrive in the face of challenges. The third dimension, contextual resilience, refers to the organisation’s interpersonal networks, available resources, and supply chains that allow for swift responses to uncertainties. Deep social capital, extensive resource connections, and reliance on expertise are critical aspects of this dimension, providing a support system for managing the unknown. Cognitive resilience lays the groundwork for behavioural resilience, and individuals who develop behavioural resilience build the social and resource networks necessary for contextual resilience. Ultimately, organisational resilience functions as a multi-level, dynamic capability, integrating cognitive, behavioural, and contextual resilience into a unified model. The framework demonstrates how resilience at the individual, group, and organisational levels reinforces each other, and how cognitive resilience transitions into behavioural and contextual resilience, with each stage enabling the development of the next.

4.1.4. Conflicting Views and Knowledge Gap

Although individual resilience is often assumed to be a key driver of organisational resilience, the correlation is neither straightforward nor guaranteed. Factors such as internal conflicts, misalignment of personal and organisational goals, and ineffective communication can undermine the potential benefits of individual resilience. Moreover, a few research studies have also highlighted an indirect association between individual resilience and organisational resilience. The findings of Liang and Cao [21] showed the mediating effect of coping mechanisms and managerial resilience in bridging the gap between individual and organisational resilience. Prayag, Spector [102] also revealed that both employee and psychological resilience contribute to strengthening organisational resilience. This generates further possibility of more resilience levels or factors between the individual resilience and organisational resilience dynamics, raising questions on multi-level theory. Moreover, even the multi-dimensional theory, which is based on a multi-level system, cannot justify the negative impact of individual resilience and organisational resilience on one another. These theories have constantly focused on one level positively leading to another, whereas in reality, it is not guaranteed. Moreover, apart from team resilience (as discussed in multi-level theory), there are other forms of resilience as well, like strategic resilience [112,113], managerial resilience [21,31], psychological resilience [21,102], cultural resilience [112], and learning resilience [69,112]. It is vital to acknowledge the fact that resilience is subject to a complex interplay of many factors at various levels of analysis [97]. It is still unclear how these forms of resilience can complement individual resilience to attain organisational resilience.

Clearly, the equation between the two types of resilience seems unclear. It is because of the lack of information on the interplay and interaction process of individual resilience and organisational resilience. The literature highlights the connection between individual and organisational resilience as complex, with conflicting viewpoints among scholars. The gap in the existing theories, thus, poses questions on the mutual impact of the two types of resilience. While resilient individuals are often seen as crucial to organisational resilience, this link is not always direct or positive. These existing studies have vaguely defined the association between the two types of resilience (positive or negative), but they have not discussed what the reason behind such association is. This raises further questions like what determines the response of the two entities with respect to each other or what are the background/antecedent elements that drive the process of resilience? Another point of discussion is if both types of resilience are important for each other, as they may have adverse impacts. If there exists some form of positive link, the subsequent question is, what is the extent of this importance? Moreover, further exploration of mediating factors may potentially help in linking both the distinct resiliencies. Eventually, such discussions would unfold how both the above constructs shape and exist with each other. This will help in establishing a concrete relationship between individual and organisational resilience.

Although the present study draws on cross-sector literature, the findings hold particular relevance for the New Zealand construction sector. Existing research observes persistent gaps in understanding the multi-level and interdisciplinary dynamics of organisational resilience, as well as the contextual variables that shape the interaction between individual and organisational resilience, as Tonetto, Formoso [62] reports. Pascua and Chang-Richards [9] further highlight that New Zealand construction organisations face constantly shifting market trends and rapid technological change, yet their resilience processes remain under-investigated and lack a clear link between everyday operations and crisis response. By clarifying how individual and organisational resilience are connected, the conceptual models developed in this study provide a theoretical base that future empirical work can build on to strengthen resilience planning and practice in New Zealand construction firms.

4.2. Potential Conceptual Model

The models can help in understanding the association between the two entities. The relationship between individual and organisational resilience is often indirect and multifaceted, which makes it challenging to analyse. Conceptual models can clarify this vagueness by illustrating pathways and mechanisms. These models provide a structured framework to represent the interconnected elements and dynamics at play, making it easier to interpret the relationship.

4.2.1. Model-1

The stacked resilience model is developed on the multi-level concept of organisational resilience as proposed by [16,23,89]. The studies suggest that organisational resilience is impacted by numerous factors and mechanisms present at various levels. The stacked model was derived from codes such as national resilience, community resilience, and project continuity as a resource buffer (Table 1). These topics consistently reflected a hierarchical and additive view of resilience, where capacities at one level were assumed to accumulate into resilience at higher levels. For instance, references to national and community resilience showed how resilience outcomes were frequently presented as “layered” above individual and organisational capabilities. Likewise, project continuity was coded as a resource buffer that stabilises organisations and indirectly strengthens community and national systems. Taken together, these codes suggested that a stacked or cumulative framework best represented how much of the literature implicitly treated the IR–OR linkage: as a simple scaling-up from micro to meso to macro. We, therefore, conceptualised the stacked model to capture this dominant but often unchallenged assumption. Following this, Figure 3 illustrates resilience as a multi-layered structure resembling a building, with different levels representing national, community, organisational, and individual resilience. At the foundation of resilience lies national stability, emphasising the crucial role of policies, governance, and socio-economic security in a country’s ability to endure and adapt to crises. Above this, community resilience manifests through the collective strength of social networks, resource sharing, and local cohesion in mitigating disruptions. At an organisational level, businesses and institutions contribute to resilience by leveraging leadership, organisational culture, and adaptive strategies to maintain stability and continuity. At the highest level, individual resilience reflects personal strength, adaptability, and the ability to handle difficulties. It highlights how change and instability in lower levels can propagate towards upper levels, thereby signifying the importance of national, community, and organisational-level resilience. In addition, individual resilience, being at the top, is the most vulnerable component. Disturbance at this level may influence the course of action of remaining levels, as individuals are the ultimate bearers of work and responsibilities. Despite supportive work culture, policies, and other crucial factors, individuals may not remain compatible with the stacked model if they lack adaptability, skills, and decision-making ability. Therefore, each level has a vital role to play in achieving an overall level of resilience in the society.

The “wind of change,” increasing in force as it moves upward, symbolises the growing intensity of disruptions at the individual level, demanding greater adaptability. While lower levels provide essential stability, weaknesses at any level can create a cascading effect, jeopardising the entire system. Since individuals may exhibit diverse resilience responses, organisations must play a unifying role by aligning employees toward shared objectives through training, well-being initiatives, strong leadership, and access to essential resources. Additionally, because the top levels experience the most instability, having a solid foundation at the national and community levels is crucial to prevent collapse. For example, New Zealand’s economy faced serious instability during COVID-19 due to border closures, shifting immigration policies, and lockdowns. This led to widespread job insecurity, restricted movement, and vaccine-related concerns, causing social unrest. According to Chifan and Ipsalat [114], New Zealand ranks second globally in the Social Capital LPI Index in 2023, which evaluates the strength of interpersonal and community ties, trust in institutions, adherence to societal norms, and participation in civic life. This high ranking was reflected during the pandemic, where some communities struggled with declining trust in government policies, while others showed resilience through empathy and mutual support. Since organisations are embedded within these communities, their success was directly linked to communal strength. Supportive communities enabled businesses to survive by maintaining customer bases, adjusting wage expectations, and fostering a collaborative work culture. This created a sense of stability and resilience among employees. Any disruption at one level, whether community, organisation, or individual, can trigger a ripple effect, reinforcing the importance of stability across all sectors.

Organisations can use this framework during crises by recognising resilience as a multi-layered system. Strengthening individual resilience through mental health programmes and skill-building initiatives enhances adaptability. At the organisational level, fostering a resilient culture, refining decision-making processes, and implementing flexible strategies bolster overall stability. By actively engaging with communities, businesses can contribute to a broader support network. Moreover, businesses advocating for national policies on economic security and crisis preparedness strengthen the overall system. By applying this approach, organisations can build a robust, adaptable, and future-ready resilience strategy.

4.2.2. Model-2

The integrated resilience model (Figure 4) sets its foundation on the observation of numerous distinct studies. Liu and Yin [84] explained how organisational resilience and good stakeholder relationships set a solid stage for fostering an organisation’s reliability and flexibility, which ultimately builds organisational resilience. Qazi, Appolloni [54] found that stakeholders’ relationships affect supply chain resilience and organisational performance, showing a connected network. In addition, the skills of project staff help organisations in navigating uncertainties, unforeseen situations, and difficulties [56]. This eventually is fundamental to building project resilience and is essential for organisations to bounce back effectively from disruptions [65]. To strengthen this entire process, individual resilience is a key component that can help in achieving a resilient organisation, provided they obtain resources, a supportive working culture, empathetic leaders, etc., by the organisation [66]. The integrated model was informed by codes including leadership and governance, collaboration and team trust, stakeholder engagement, and supplier dependence. These themes did not describe resilience as additive but instead as a function of interactional processes across individuals and organisations. For example, the leadership and governance code repeatedly showed that resilience outcomes depended on how leaders mobilised and coordinated individual efforts with organisational priorities. Similarly, collaboration, team trust, and stakeholder engagement were coded as mechanisms through which resilience is co-produced between people, teams, and systems. Supplier dependence further highlighted how external relationships mediated organisational continuity, demonstrating that resilience cannot be explained solely by internal accumulation. These patterns collectively indicated the need for a model that emphasises mutual reinforcement and interdependence. Hence, the integrated model was conceptualised to reflect the evidence that resilience arises from dynamic relationships rather than hierarchical stacking. Based on the above observations, Figure 4 illustrates the concept of organisational resilience and how it is influenced by various interconnected factors, with individual resilience playing a critical role. At the centre of the model is organisational resilience, which represents the ability of an organisation to adapt, withstand disruptions, and continue operating effectively. It is supported by key components such as suppliers, stakeholders, staff, and projects, indicating that resilience is not developed in isolation but is instead a product of coordinated efforts across different domains.

A significant feature of the model is the connection between individual resilience and organisational resilience, suggesting that the resilience of an organisation is heavily dependent on the resilience of its individuals. Consequently, an organisation’s resilience is significantly enhanced when employees, leaders, and key contributors demonstrate strong problem-solving skills, adaptability, and emotional ability. Likewise, suppliers and stakeholders play a crucial role in resilience by ensuring resource availability, maintaining external partnerships, and supporting financial stability. Internally, staff and project initiatives reflect operational strength, workforce capabilities, and strategic growth. Since all these elements are interconnected, resilience is best viewed as a shared effort rather than an individual trait. The model emphasises that organisations must foster strong collaboration, adaptability, and support systems at every level to be truly resilient. This framework illustrates that resilience is a continuous and dynamic process, where different components influence and reinforce one another. By adopting a systems-thinking approach, organisations can recognise that both internal operations and external relationships contribute to long-term strength, with individual resilience as a key foundation.

For instance, when a financial crisis hits, businesses struggle due to lower customer demand, cash flow problems, and supply chain disruptions. In response, if the employees exhibit adaptability by taking on multiple roles and reducing expenses through shared responsibilities, they can significantly enhance the survival of the organisation. Strong relationships with suppliers can play a critical role in ensuring timely delivery of quality materials, preventing inventory mismanagement, and cost overruns. Furthermore, businesses must focus on securing ongoing projects, as revenue generation relies heavily on project availability. Without ongoing projects, financial stability becomes a challenge. Another important aspect is support from stakeholders, such as landlords offering flexible lease agreements or investors providing financial relief, which can help stabilise operations. Above all, individual resilience in the form of leadership, strategic planning, and collaboration can help in improving the entire interconnected network to achieve organisational resilience.

Hence, during crises like natural disasters and economic crises, organisations can apply this framework by fostering a culture of adaptability, well-being, and problem-solving. Investing in employee development, mental health support, and work–life balance strengthens individual resilience, creating a more agile and stable workforce. Additionally, transparent communication and collaboration with stakeholders and suppliers help build a robust external network. Embedding resilience into project management by emphasising risk assessment and strategic flexibility further strengthens an organisation’s capacity to navigate crises. Ultimately, this model underscores the fundamental role of individual resilience in sustaining organisational adaptability and long-term success.

4.2.3. Model-3

The concept of organisational and individual resilience has been analysed through multiple lenses in different sectors. One of the most prominent theories on organisational resilience is given by [23], focussing on the multi-level theory of resilience given by [16,89]. The levels comprise individual level, team resilience, and organisational resilience. However, it lacked one of the most important forms of resilience called public resilience, which shares a positive relationship with individual resilience, especially during post-war recovery [115]. Considering this theory, Kimhi [47] formulated another model and highlighted the relationship between three other levels of resilience, namely individual, community, and national levels. Both the theories hold significant potential and carry a huge scope for further development. Hence, the current study proposes the Nested Resilience model (Figure 5), which is developed by integrating the two findings together for a concrete and widely applicable model. In addition, the nested model emerged from codes such as overlapping IR–OR functions, cascading resilience logic, access to technology, and financial resilience. These themes suggested that resilience processes are embedded within and across levels, often with blurred boundaries between individuals and organisations. For instance, the overlapping functions code showed that individual coping strategies frequently feed into organisational routines, while organisational systems simultaneously shape individual capacity. Similarly, cascading resilience logic indicated that disruptions and responses rarely stay confined to one level but spill over in nested ways. Access to technology and financial resilience reinforced this embeddedness, as both are systemic resources that support individuals and organisations simultaneously. From these codes, it became clear that a nested conceptualisation best represents resilience as an interlocking system of micro, meso, and macro processes. This model therefore addresses the literature’s recognition that resilience is not only cumulative or relational, but also structurally embedded across overlapping levels.

The core idea of this model is based on the perspective of viewing individual and organisational resilience as distinct yet interconnected concepts. It is unlikely for an organisation to consist entirely of resilient individuals, as resilience is inherently contextual. An individual’s resilience fluctuates depending on their situation, shaped by past experiences, emotional regulation, and learned skills. Furthermore, resilient individuals may encounter challenges like stress, burnout, team conflicts, past trauma, miscommunication, or lack of managerial support, which can hinder their ability to contribute to organisational resilience. This relationship is not a straightforward cause-and-effect but rather a complex interplay. Figure 5 illustrates this through partial overlap, representing their interaction as influenced by various external factors. Additionally, achieving true resilience at a community level involves a mix of resilient organisations, resilient individuals, and non-resilient elements. Communities play a vital role in shaping the dynamic between individual and organisational resilience. Their support, needs, and demands help organisations sustain operations and continuity. By fostering close ties with the community, organisations can better understand local culture, which in turn influences their vision, strategies, and planning. In addition, a resilient nation is fundamentally built upon resilient communities, as they serve as the foundation for national stability and strength. When communities are equipped with strong policies, financial resilience, social cohesion, effective governance, and access to technology, they become more capable of withstanding economic, environmental, and social challenges. As multiple resilient communities collaborate and thrive, they contribute to a unified and adaptable society, reinforcing the nation’s overall security and sustainability. Additionally, national policies and international collaborations are most effective when implemented at the community level, ensuring that resilience is cultivated from the ground up. When communities achieve financial stability, they help in alleviating the demand on national resources, driving economic prosperity, and sustainable growth. This connection emphasises that national resilience is built upon robust local communities, making grassroots development a cornerstone of long-term national success.

The model can be applicable in case of a natural disaster or threat, as robust policies and systematic governance at the national level can ensure effective emergency response measures for communities to respond. In addition, a focus on international collaboration can help in securing aid in the form of special task forces, funds, and resources. Social engagement and financial stability can strengthen communities to support each other and receive the necessary survival materials. Moreover, the advancement of technologies can tie up all the above foundational elements through efficient information channels, early warning signals, resource mobilisation, etc. This can eventually create a resilient community with the support of national-level measures. However, a resilient community is an accumulation of individuals and communities, which includes resilient as well as non-resilient categories. All these entities are impacted by the overall resilience of the communities through mutual support, business, etc. Resilient individuals and resilient organisation are two distinct entities, which often share commonalities. Hence, the focus should be based on partial overlapping, which includes factors like adaptability, communication, collaboration, leadership, etc., to enhance this relationship. It is because no matter how resilient communities are, if resilient individuals and resilient organisations are not working for a common goal, the entire process may collapse. Hence, the core of this model needs to be strong in order to realise the process initiated by resilient nation and community. Ultimately, no matter how strong a community is, if individuals and organisations do not align with a common goal, the entire resilience framework may weaken. Therefore, the core of this model must remain strong to sustain the process initiated by a resilient nation and community, ensuring long-term stability and adaptability.

4.3. Future Research Opportunities

The review and conceptual synthesis presented in this paper have advanced understanding of the complex relationship between individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR), but they also reveal several targeted avenues for future research. Importantly, these opportunities are directly connected to the conceptual models developed in this study and to the mediating variables identified in the literature.

First, future studies should empirically validate the three proposed models—stacked, integrated, and nested resilience models—across different organisational settings and cultural contexts. While the Stacked Model conceptualises resilience as an accumulation of individual and organisational capacities, the Integrated Model emphasises their mutual interdependence, and the Nested Model frames resilience as embedded across levels. Comparative empirical studies could determine which of these models best captures resilience dynamics in specific industries, such as construction, healthcare, or critical infrastructure, and under what conditions each model is most explanatory.

Second, future research should focus on testing the mediating and moderating mechanisms identified in this review, rather than assuming a direct and uniformly positive IR–OR linkage. Leadership, organisational culture, communication quality, and stakeholder engagement repeatedly emerged as mediating factors, yet their relative influence remains underexplored. Quantitative methods, such as structural equation modelling or mixed-method approaches combining survey data with qualitative case studies, could provide clarity on how these factors shape resilience pathways. Similarly, moderators such as project delivery structures or governance arrangements may determine whether IR translates into OR in practice.

Third, further superimposition of the response of individuals, organisations and communities during, before, and post-crisis can help in understanding the scope of the models. Longitudinal studies would be particularly valuable in tracking resilience development and its influence on organisational adaptability. Additionally, studies should consider sector-specific and cultural differences for more applicable insights.

Finally, future research should move toward the development of diagnostic and assessment tools based on the proposed models. By operationalising the key constructs and mediating variables, such tools could enable organisations to measure resilience at both individual and organisational levels, monitor alignment across levels, and design interventions to strengthen weak links in the IR–OR chain. This would not only refine the theoretical models but also generate significant practical value.

In this way, anchoring future studies to the models and mechanisms identified here will ensure that subsequent work builds directly on these theoretical contributions, bridging the gap between conceptual advancement and actionable practice.

In this way, the study successfully explores all the RQs. For instance, addressing RQ1, the study challenges this linear assumption and instead reveals a contextually mediated and conditional bond. For example, while resilient employees may demonstrate adaptive behaviours during disruptions, their efforts can be constrained or neutralised by rigid organisational structures, limited decision-making authority, or weak communication systems. Conversely, organisations with robust leadership and supportive cultures can amplify individual capacities, transforming individual adaptability into coordinated organisational action. Thus, rather than being a simple, direct process, the IR–OR link is indirect, shaped by organisational, cultural, and systemic contexts that determine whether individual resilience translates into collective resilience outcomes.

Further, the coding and thematic analysis identified multiple patterns of interaction that were captured through the development of three conceptual models. This eventually answered RQ2 by proposing the stacked model, which illustrates a step-wise relationship where resilience builds progressively across levels. Additionally, the integrated model highlights mutual and dynamic interactions between individuals and organisations, demonstrating bidirectional influence. Finally, the nested model depicts overlapping and interconnected layers of resilience, recognising that IR and OR are embedded within wider systemic and community contexts. Together, these models provide a structured yet flexible understanding of the different ways IR and OR interact in practice.

RQ3 addressed the implications and future research opportunities emerging from this synthesis. The study highlights the need for empirical validation of the proposed models across different organisational and cultural contexts, including the New Zealand construction sector. Future research could examine mediating and moderating variables such as leadership, organisational culture, and stakeholder networks to refine the understanding of how IR–OR dynamics unfold. Additionally, developing diagnostic tools and sector-specific frameworks based on these models would enable organisations to systematically assess and strengthen resilience at multiple levels.

5. Conclusions

The research emphasises the sharp difference between organisational and individual resilience, referring to the need for an integrative and overarching approach to develop resilience. By critically examining the fragmented literature on IR and OR and integrating key insights into a conceptual framework, this review moves beyond a descriptive overview and provides three conceptual theoretical models that clarify how individual and organisational resilience interact. The proposed conceptual models directly focus on the research gaps identified by challenging the linear and straightforward relationship. The illustration of how leadership, governance, policies, stakeholders, and community resilience can mediate or moderate this relationship, the models offer a more nuanced and realistic account of how resilience is built or constrained in practice. Moreover, the models contribute to bridging the micro–macro divide in resilience research. Rather than treating individual and organisational resilience as separate or additive concepts, the models conceptualise them as dynamically interlinked. The stacked, integrated, and nested frameworks reflect how resilience evolves through interaction across levels. This aligns with multi-level theories of organisational behaviour but extends them by embedding resilience-specific pathways derived from literature-based synthesis and empirical insights from contextual case studies.

The key theoretical contribution of this study lies in the development of the conceptual framework that integrates individual and organisational resilience within a single analytical model. By synthesising fragmented literature, the model clarifies the mechanisms through which individual capabilities and organisational systems interact to produce resilience outcomes. It challenges the common assumption that resilient individuals automatically create resilient organisations, and instead demonstrates that the IR–OR relationship is complex, non-linear, and multi-dimensional.

Emphasising the need for an integrative framework, the models propose that organisations should formulate strategies that promote individual resilience while remaining consistent with community and national goals. Such practical contributions have an immense impact on policy development and strategic planning because they can help leaders create more successful interventions for workforce well-being, engagement, and productivity. Furthermore, the development of these aspects of resilience is critical for improving crisis management and business continuity, allowing organisations to deal more effectively with uncertainties.

While this study provides important theoretical insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the conceptual models developed are based solely on a systematic synthesis of existing literature, without direct empirical validation. This limits the ability to generalise or test the models in real-world organisational contexts. Second, although the review was rigorous, it relied on articles published in English and indexed in a single database (Web of Science), which may have led to the omission of relevant non-English or non-indexed studies. Third, the study is generalised in nature and does not analyse sector-specific data. Therefore, its application to this context remains theoretical at this stage. Finally, despite the depth of thematic synthesis, the qualitative coding process is interpretive in nature and may be influenced by researcher judgement, which future studies can address through inter-coder reliability checks and triangulation.

Building on these limitations and the findings of this study, several targeted research opportunities emerge. Future research should empirically test and validate the stacked, integrated, and nested models proposed here across different organisational and cultural contexts to determine their applicability and explanatory power. Mixed-method approaches, including surveys, interviews, and longitudinal case studies, could be particularly valuable in capturing the dynamic evolution of resilience over time. There is also scope to examine mediating and moderating variables such as leadership, organisational culture, communication structures, and stakeholder networks that shape how individual resilience translates into organisational outcomes. Furthermore, future work may test these models, offering an opportunity to contextualise and refine the frameworks in a high-risk, multi-actor sector. Finally, developing diagnostic tools and metrics based on these models could bridge the gap between theory and practice, enabling organisations to assess and strengthen resilience at multiple levels in a systematic way.