Although not usually considered to be so, resilience is closely related to power relations. These relations can be codified not only as three-dimensions, after Lukes (1974, 2005), but also as three types (power over, power to, power with). There are both positive and negative power implications of resilience in organizational terms, which we explore systematically, while pointing to some of the paradoxical implications of some organizational ways of striving to be resilient. Further, we explore four distinct cases of problematic (or, at least, problematic uses of) resilience, relating to its potential ‘dark side’. First, we underline how resilience can be presented as a ‘service’ offered by organizations to employees. Second, resilience can be a (delusional) product of even well-intentioned managerial agency that drifts towards narcissism. Third, resilience can be instrumentally proposed – and used – as a façade to artificially protect an organization or cover its dysfunctions. Fourth, resilience can morph into sheer rhetoric where words and deeds are not aligned. Finally, we consider follower resilience as an antidote to bad leadership.
Clegg, Stewart; E Cunha, Miguel Pina; Giustiniano, Luca; Rego, Arménio. (2026). Resilience through a power lens. In Maria Laura Frigotto, Rómulo Pinheiro (Eds.), Organisational Resilience: Interdisciplinary Insights (pp. 37-58). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Isbn: 978-1-83608-973-5. Isbn: 978-1-83608-972-8. Isbn: 978-1-83608-974-2.
Resilience through a power lens
Luca Giustiniano;
2026
Abstract
Although not usually considered to be so, resilience is closely related to power relations. These relations can be codified not only as three-dimensions, after Lukes (1974, 2005), but also as three types (power over, power to, power with). There are both positive and negative power implications of resilience in organizational terms, which we explore systematically, while pointing to some of the paradoxical implications of some organizational ways of striving to be resilient. Further, we explore four distinct cases of problematic (or, at least, problematic uses of) resilience, relating to its potential ‘dark side’. First, we underline how resilience can be presented as a ‘service’ offered by organizations to employees. Second, resilience can be a (delusional) product of even well-intentioned managerial agency that drifts towards narcissism. Third, resilience can be instrumentally proposed – and used – as a façade to artificially protect an organization or cover its dysfunctions. Fourth, resilience can morph into sheer rhetoric where words and deeds are not aligned. Finally, we consider follower resilience as an antidote to bad leadership.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
REVISED STEWART_CHAPTER Power lens 23.04.24_rpML.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Documento in Pre-print
Licenza:
DRM (Digital rights management) non definiti
Dimensione
313.15 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
313.15 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



