Modelling the relationship between individual and organisational resilience : a multi-method framework for the New Zealand construction sector : a thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Building and Construction

Abstract

The New Zealand construction industry has always been dynamic and impacted by changing environment like disasters, pandemic outbreaks, geopolitics, scientific and technological innovation. It is indeed vital for the construction organisations to be resilient, which is defined as an organisation’s capacity to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruptive events while maintaining core functions amidst such scenarios, to facilitate community and national resilience. Nevertheless, they are also fruitful in poverty reduction, employment generation and contributes to the nation’s GDP. Additionally, the resilience of the organisations is significantly impacted by its most fundamental unit, i.e., the individuals as their ideas, attitudes, and adaptive behaviours directly influence how the organisation perceives threats, makes decisions, and mobilises resources during disruption. In this sense, the resilience of individuals, which is the individual’s capacity to cope, adapt, and recover under pressure becomes a critical determinant of how effectively an organisation can respond and recover. In other words, organisations function through their people because it is the individuals who carry out the work, interpret unfolding situations, improvise solutions, coordinate actions, and drive recovery. Consequently, the quality and speed of an organisation’s response are inseparable from the resilience, capabilities, and constraints of its workforce. In line with this, the existing literature often highlights the direct and largely positive relationship between individual resilience (IR) and organisational resilience (OR). Numerous studies describe resilient employees as the micro-foundations of resilient organisations, arguing that adaptive individuals collectively enhance organisational learning, continuity, and performance during disruption (e.g., leadership studies linking employee adaptability to firm recovery). Under this view, resilient individuals are expected to aggregate into resilient organisations through mechanisms such as shared problem-solving, rapid information exchange, and mutual support. However, several other studies show that resilient individuals may or may not be positively linked to organisational resilience. Resilient individuals may cope effectively with disruption, yet their adaptive responses do not always align with organisational priorities or structural constraints and can even create inefficiencies or conflict within the wider system. For instance, the self-protecting nature of a resilient individual to manage and cope against a scenario may impact the organisational gaols negatively. Moreover, the opinions or the decisions of resilient individuals could be different from each other and may result in conflict and disturbed organisational environment. The literature, therefore, presents two competing narratives: one depicting a simple positive association, and another highlighting non-linear, complex dynamics. This conceptual ambiguity is especially pronounced in complex, multi-actor sectors such as construction, where micro-level behaviours and macro-level systems frequently misalign, leaving the mechanisms of IR–OR interaction both practically important and theoretically unresolved. As a result, the influence of individual resilience (IR) on organisational resilience (OR) remains conceptually ambiguous and empirically underexplored. It is unclear whether the effect is consistently positive, conditional, or at times counterproductive. Due to the unclear relationship, the modelling of the two entities also carries multiple possibilities and thus, carry immense potential to be explored. To resolve this ambiguity, the research investigates how IR and OR connect in practice, which conditions enable or block that connection, and what capabilities translate individual adaptation into organisational continuity. Thus, the aim of the study is to develop a multi-method framework to explore the relationship between Individual Resilience (IR) and Organisational Resilience (OR) of the NZ construction sector. To achieve the aim, the study explores 3 research objectives, including 7 research questions. The research method encompasses three reinforcing steps. First, a systematic literature review (SLR), aligned with PRISMA 2020, mapped definitions, boundaries, and theorised linkages between IR and OR and identified a fragmented evidence base that treats the two entities in isolation. The findings revealed that IR and OR are conceptually connected but remain poorly integrated, with existing studies offering competing explanations ranging from direct positive relationships to conditional or mediated interactions. This step helped in producing a preliminary analytical frame. Second, the study conducted two rounds of semi-structured interviews, using purposive sampling to reach information-rich participants. The findings showed that the IR–OR relationship is not automatic but is shaped by key mediating factors such as leadership, communication, organisational culture, empowerment, shared purpose, learning orientation, and resourcefulness. This particular step helped in resolving the complex functioning of the two entities by unfolding the key factors that act as a bridge between the two. Third, a focused group discussion (FGD) with nine senior industry experts validated and refined the emerging framework (terminology, flows, bidirectionality), improving analytical precision and practical usability. The findings confirmed the relevance of the model and led to refinement of its terminology, directional flows, and bidirectional links between IR and OR. Collectively, this triangulation led to the development of a conceptual model and elevated construct clarity, deepened contextual grasp, and increased the robustness of inferences about the IR–OR interface. The key contribution of this research lies in advancing a more nuanced and contextually grounded understanding of the IR–OR relationship. Unlike existing models that often treat individual resilience and organisational resilience as either separate constructs or as directly and positively connected, the proposed framework demonstrates that their relationship is complex, mediated, contextual, conditional, and bidirectional. A distinctive contribution of the model is its emphasis on resourcefulness as a critical mediating capability, showing that resilience is not determined solely by the availability of resources, but by how effectively individuals and organisations mobilise, adapt, and reconfigure those resources during disruption. The framework also extends current resilience thinking by recognising that the IR–OR relationship is shaped by the source of resilience, whether it emerges from individual capacities or organisational systems, and the purpose resilience is intended to serve, such as survival, adaptation, continuity, or transformation. Ultimately, the final model offers a diagnostic lens that is both conceptually robust and practically usable. It can support tools such as resilience audits, strategic workforce planning, and the integration of resilience thinking into business continuity frameworks, enabling organisations to not only assess their current capabilities but also intervene meaningfully to strengthen them. Limitations include sectoral and geographic specificity (New Zealand construction), purposive sampling with positional bias toward senior roles, and reliance on self-reported qualitative data, which may constrain generalisability and introduce perception biases. Future research should quantitatively operationalise and test the model, extend sampling to frontline/site roles, and employ longitudinal designs to track resilience dynamics across disruption and sectors/countries.