Paradox Enactment: A Power-Performative View

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.