In the ever-changing landscape of modern business world, organizations encounter numerous challenges that can greatly affect their ability to function smoothly, weaken their structure as well as performance and can even be a threat to their survival. (Hepfer & Lawrence, 2022). With increasing complexity and organisations being interconnected, such adversities have become more frequent in occurrence and also more intense and varied. (Boin, 2009; Eshghi & Larson, 2008). Managing these disruptions has in-fact become a key aspect of an organization’s core functions alongside overseeing their sales and profits.

How organizations respond to adversity, however, is a critical determinant of their success or failure. Many Organisations in such turbulent times might collapse, few might emerge relatively unscathed or others might even depict a better performance. The question therefore is how some organisations strive even when faced with such adversities while others perish. The scholarly literature refers to this “maintenance of positive adjustment under such challenging circumstances (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003; Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007, p. 3418) as “resilience”.

Organizational resilience is defined as “the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions such that the organisation emerges from these conditions strengthened and more resourceful” (Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007 p. 3,418). This unique capability of an organization creates a notable competitive edge that aids in its durability and long-term success (Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007; Williams et al., 2017). The extant literature surrounding organizational resilience is developing and has become a prominent idea in line with the ongoing series of uncertainties and disruptions that organizations face. Majority of the existing research studies concerning resilience emphasize large firms and their characteristics. Studies should concentrate on resilience of small and medium sized businesses. Therefore, a universal solution or management approach for building resilience is not suitable for SMEs. (Sullivan-Taylor & Branicki, 2011).

Organizational resilience has been associated with a wide range of antecedents due to its widespread application; these include financial resources, information systems, technology orientation, information sharing, social capital, flexibility, redundancy, innovation, leadership, external support from relationships and the surrounding context, collaboration, and numerous intangible and tangible resources and capabilities like successful planning, individual self- control, and cognitive skills (Linnenluecke, 2017; Shela et al., 2023). Amongst these, social capital and psychological capital are found to have a significant impact on the resilience of an organisation.

Despite the progress made, there are notable gaps in understanding the individual and relational factors that foster resilience and how these interact with one another. As for instance, both psychological capital and social capital have been identified as key determinants of resilience; their effects and the degree to which they influence the recovery and adaptability of SMEs have yet to be thoroughly investigated.

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is one of the most important constructs of positive organizational behaviour and was introduced by (Luthans 2002) into the organizational realm. It is defined as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development” (Luthans et al., 2006).

Psychological Capital is associated with four dimensions (Luthans, Youssef, Avolio):

1. Self-efficacy: It refers to confidence that an individual has in his abilities to succeed in difficult situations
2. Hope: It refers to perseverance towards goals and if necessary, redirecting the paths towards goals in order to succeed
3. Optimism: It refers to having a positive attribution towards success in present as well as future
4. Resilience: It refers to an individual’s ability to sustain and even bounce back when faced with any adverse circumstances

The above four dimensions are collectively abbreviated as HERO (Luthans, 2002; Luthans and Youssef, 2004).

Studies linking the concept of psychological capital and Organizational Resilience are extremely significant in context of organisations facing any adverse circumstances (Prayag, 2018). These concepts are not only relevant in the context of organisations facing changes that are sudden such as crisis but also is relevant if the organisation is facing incremental changes resulting due to business continuity (Hall et al., 2018; Lew, 2014; Prayag, 2018).

Due to heightened uncertainty, the growth as well as sustainability of an organisation is significantly dependent on the psychological capital (Luthans, 2002). (Fang et al., 2020) in their recent study investigated the impact that psychological capital of owners/ managers of budget hotels have on the organizational resilience in the Covid-19 context. In such small businesses, the recovery of business is highly dependent on the psychological resilience and other facets of PsyCap of the entrepreneur (Ayala & Manzano, 2014; Bullough & Renko, 2013; de Vries & Shields, 2006). Yet another study concludes of a probable relationship between psychological resilience and psychological capital owing to the finding that the mindset of small business owners significantly impacts the small business resilience (Ates & Bititci, 2011; Doern, 2016; Prayag et al., 2020).

Extant literature also emphasizes the scarcity of studies linking psychological capital and organizational resilience specially in the context of small enterprises in the tourism sector (De Vries and Hamilton 2016). There exist no such studies linking the relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational resilience specially in the Indian context (Pathak & Joshi, 2020)

The concept of social capital though has been considered to have emerged from the field of sociology; recent research indicates its application in the domain of management as well. (Storberg 2002).

Social Capital has simply been defined by Putnam (1995) as “the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other”. Lin (2001) however defines social capital as “the resources that are embedded in one’s social networks or the resources which can be accessed or mobilized through ties in the networks”. (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014b) defines social capital as ‘networks and resources available to people through their connections to others”

In most simple terms, social capital is about the goodwill that is created through relationships within the social networks. (Fandiño et al., 2019).  As an organizational asset, social capital stimulates performance from individual to organizational as well as inter-organizational levels.  Studies concerning social capital in organizational studies have been found to have an impact on factors such as employee performance as well as their physical and mental health (Gao et al.,2014; Kang et. al.,2015). Social Capital is an important factor supporting firm’s resilience when faced with a crisis (Martinelli et. al 2018)

Existing studies have increasingly examined the connection between the various social capital dimensions and resilience in various contexts such as post-disaster recovery (e.g., Cox and Perry, 2011; Aldrich, 2012; Jia et al., 2020), supply chains (e.g., Johnson et al., 2013; Polyviou et al., 2019), communities (e.g., Aldrich and Meyer, 2014; Brewton et al., 2010), and individuals (e.g., Santoro et al., 2020). Thus, extant research substantiates the fact that social capital can be a strategic resource in order to achieve resilience. (Wulandhari et al., 2022b)

Existing literature includes studies on the influence of social capital on resilience, this research is just emerging (Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2022) and researchers point to the need for more studies to be undertaken to study these relationships (Chowdhury et al., 2018b). Due to the complexity in the relationship between these two constructs, (Lee, 2019) in-fact suggested the need to undertake more research focusing on the influence of social capital on resilience.

There is still no clarity as to how social capital be deployed by organisations in order to build capabilities that lead to resilience (Wulandhari et al., 2022b).

Although the studies linking the relationship between psychological capital and organizational resilience and studies linking social capital and organizational resilience are still evolving, no systematic literature review linking these relationships exist in extant literature. Though there exists a number of literature reviews in the domain of organizational resilience (e.g. Williams et al., 2017; Linnenluecke, 2017; Barasa et al., 2018; Ruiz-Martin et al., 2018; Ali and Geolgeci, 2019; Hillmann, 2020; Vakilzadeh and Haase, 2020); they mainly focussed on the different conceptualization, measurement, the various drivers, barriers and the theories associated with organizational resilience research.

Given the dynamic nature of the relationship between organizational resilience and psychological capital and social capital, as well as the likelihood that these concepts will become mainstream, the current paper seeks to address the following research question: What is the state-of-the-art in terms of research linking organizational resilience and psychological capital and social capital? In order to recognize its highest relevance to the subjects under evaluation and the lack of such work in the body of current research, this systematic literature review concentrates on the SMEs. In order to give future researchers useful information, a bibliographic coupling analysis is especially conducted to map out the connections between the articles. A bibliographic analysis is also conducted to capture the trends of these studies. In order to expand on the current understanding, the gaps in the literature are finally examined, along with potential directions for further study.

In order to conduct the current systematic literature review, the steps as given in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) protocol have been adhered to (Liberati et al., 2009). The protocol is well-known and extensively utilized across various fields because of its thoroughness and the capacity to enhance the precision of the review so conducted (Pahlevan-Sharif et al.,2019) and minimize the biases of researcher (Haque et al., 2021). Therefore, the PRISMA procedure was used in this work to create a comprehensive systematic literature review.

Search Strategy and selection criteria

The identification of the most relevant articles that link psychological capital, social capital and Organizational resilience has been carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 protocols.

To identify the relevant literature concerning the research topic, a thorough search was conducted in various online databases like Scopus, Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO Host), Web of Science, as previous studies (Siachou et al., 2021) indicate these are the most comprehensive scientific databases in the domain of business studies. Although a thorough effort has been undertaken to include as many articles as possible, the current research does not assert the completeness or thoroughness of the selected databases.

Owing to the fact that the conceptualization of Organizational resilience is complex and has wide coverage, different sets of keywords were used and queried across all the three selected databases using Boolean operators “AND” and “OR”. The keywords used for each database are summarized in Table-1. The scope of the keyword search was restricted to the title, abstract and keywords of the articles.

Figure 1. PRISMA framework of study selection process

The initial search yielded 75 results in Scopus, 66 results in EBSCO (Business Source Ultimate) and 44 results in Web of Science. The search was subsequently limited to the fields of business, management and social sciences, including inter-disciplinary social sciences covering the period 2008-2025. The year 2008 has been taken as the beginning point due to the notable rise in scholarly interest around this year regarding topics related to resilience. (Korber & McNaughton, 2017).

The types and sources of documents were limited to articles and journals, respectively, and only documents in English were obtained. At this point, a total of 144 articles was retrieved; 53 from Scopus, 44 from Web of Science, 47 from EBSCO (Business Source Ultimate). To enable a more systematic review and thorough quality evaluation, all these records were subsequently exported to a Microsoft Excel file.

Table 1: Search Protocol

Quality Assessment

The original articles published in Academic Journals have been included in the current review so as to ensure quality of the conclusions and inferences drawn. These journal articles are believed to be the most reliable and authentic sources with comparatively superior quality due to their stringent peer-review process (Saad et al. ,2021). As per Kraus et al. (2020), verification through an academic process adds reliability to the articles and thus makes them suitable for inclusion in a systematic literature review

As an initial step, a thorough reading of the abstract was made to remove irrelevant articles quickly. For cases where the abstract did not provide complete clarity w.r.t inclusion in the final analysis, a review of complete paper was done so as to ensure a thorough purification of the articles. This initial step led to the exclusion of 63 articles from a total of (144= 53 Scopus, 44 WOS, 47 EBSCO) articles exported from the three databases. A total of 81 articles were then checked for duplicates. Checking the duplicates ensures that the articles are not counted twice. 47 articles were finally chosen for inclusion in the review after removing all the duplicates as illustrated in the PRISMA diagram above.

While there are no specific guidelines regarding the exact number of articles for a systematic literature review, Paul and Criado (2020) suggested that using 40 to 50 or even more documents may be appropriate based on their significance and the researcher’s discretion. Therefore, a total of 47 articles chosen for the present review appears appropriate.

Eligibility and Inclusion

On the basis of justification provided in the sections discussed previously, 47 articles have been considered suitable and thus have been included in carrying out the process of qualitative synthesis as well as bibliographic coupling.

These articles chosen for inclusion are characterized by following parameters:

• Original articles published in journals
• Related to the field of Business and Management
• Published in the either of the following databases: Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO Business Source Ultimate
• Publication Date: Between 2008-2025
• Published in English language

These articles focus and provide insights on the various relationships between psychological capital, social capital and organizational resilience and thus help in answering the research question.

Qualitative Analysis:

After finalizing the article selection in the Microsoft Excel database, descriptive analyses were undertaken to capture key patterns in the literature. These analyses examined the distribution of publications over time, the outlets in which they appeared, the countries contributing to the field, citation trends, and the types of research and methodological approaches adopted. To map the intellectual structure of the domain, a bibliographic coupling analysis was conducted using VOSviewer software (van Eck & Waltman, 2010), which enabled the clustering of publications and the identification of thematic linkages across studies. The resulting clusters were analyzed to highlight the dominant themes and research trajectories (Suchek et al., 2021). Building on these findings, research gaps were identified, potential avenues for future scholarship were outlined, and the limitations of the present study were acknowledged.

Descriptive analysis

The descriptive analysis result of all the 47 articles provides a comprehensive overview of the literature linking human capital and organizational resilience. The annual distribution of publications is depicted in Figure 2, which illustrates the trajectory of research output over the period 2011–2025. In the initial years (2011–2017), scholarly interest in the intersection of psychological capital, social capital and organizational resilience remained relatively modest, with only one or two publications per year. A gradual increase is observed beginning in 2018, followed by a more pronounced rise after 2020. The year 2022 marked a significant surge, with seven publications, indicating growing recognition of the topic within academic discourse. Although a slight decline was recorded in 2023, the trend quickly recovered in 2024, which witnessed the highest number of publications (11), suggesting a peak in scholarly attention. In 2025, the number of studies slightly decreased to eight but still reflected a comparatively higher output than the earlier years.

Figure 2: Distribution of publications by year

Figure 3 and Figure 4 presents the distribution of citations according to the publication year, highlighting the temporal impact of the research outputs. The data show that the highest number of citations was received by publications from the year 2019, with a peak of 816 citations, indicating a significant academic influence during that period. This is followed by 2022 and 2018, which received 557 and 473 citations respectively, suggesting a sustained level of scholarly interest in the work published during these years. Publications from 2021 also contributed notably, with 360 citations. In contrast, earlier years such as 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2017 show relatively lower citation counts, with 2013 being the most cited among them (166 citations). A sharp decline in citation numbers is observed for recent years (2023–2025), which is likely due to the limited time available for newer publications to accumulate citations. Overall, the figure indicates that research published between 2018 and 2022 had the highest visibility and impact within the academic community.

Figure 3: Publication year and citations

The table 2 presents the top ten most-cited articles related to organizational resilience, showcasing their impact through citation count, publication year, and journal outlet. The most highly cited article is “The resilient retail entrepreneur: dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters”, published in 2018 in the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, with 256 citations. This is followed closely by “Better than before: the resilient organization in crisis mode” (2018) and “SMEs navigating COVID-19: The influence of social capital and dynamic capabilities on organizational resilience” (2022), with 217 and 205 citations respectively. Notably, COVID-19-related studies occupy several top positions, indicating a surge in interest around organizational resilience in the context of global crises. Articles published in 2022 and 2021, such as those focusing on supply chain resilience and psychological capital in tourism, have also garnered substantial attention despite their recent publication, suggesting their high relevance and timely contribution. Furthermore, earlier influential works, such as the 2013 study on interorganizational relationships and disaster resilience (166 citations), continue to hold academic value. Overall, the analysis highlights that research emphasizing dynamic capabilities, social capital, and crisis response—particularly in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), tourism, and supply chains—has been most impactful. This trend underscores the growing scholarly focus on resilience strategies in the face of natural disasters and pandemics.

Table 2: Top cited journals

The distribution of publications by country, as shown in Table 3, highlights the global contributions to research on organizational resilience. China ranks first with 8 publications, indicating a strong research focus on resilience in the Chinese context, possibly driven by the country’s exposure to diverse economic and environmental disruptions. Malaysia follows with 6 publications, reflecting an active academic interest in resilience, particularly within Southeast Asia. The United States and India each contributed 3 publications, showcasing their engagement in this research area from both developed and emerging economy perspectives. Other countries, including Thailand, Indonesia, and Israel, each produced 2 publications, suggesting growing regional interest in resilience-related studies. Meanwhile, Nepal, Italy, and the United Kingdom had 1 publication each, representing a more limited but notable contribution to the field. Overall, the data indicate that research on organizational resilience is increasingly international, with a strong presence from Asian countries, and emphasize the importance of contextual and regional perspectives in understanding and developing resilience strategies.

Figure 4: Distribution of source title and frequency of citations by articles

Table 3: Distribution of articles by country

Figure 5 presents the distribution of research types and methods adopted in the reviewed studies. The findings reveal a clear predominance of quantitative approaches, with 21 studies employing this method, underscoring the strong orientation toward measurable and statistical analysis. Qualitative methods are the second most frequently used, represented in 10 studies, reflecting the importance of exploratory and interpretive inquiry. Conceptual research (4) and literature reviews (5) appear in smaller proportions, yet they contribute meaningfully by offering theoretical insights and synthesizing prior work. Mixed-method studies, though valuable for integrating perspectives, remain underrepresented with only 3 occurrences. This distribution suggests that while diverse methodologies are employed, the field remains heavily skewed toward quantitative designs.

Figure 5: Distribution by research types and methods

Analysis of Bibliographic Coupling

Bibliographic coupling analysis was performed manually and using VOS Viewer on all 47 articles, following van Eck and Waltman's (2010) approach, to investigate intellectual linkages across studies and identify the dominant research themes connecting psychological capital, social capital and organizational resilience. All documents, regardless of citation count, were examined to ensure that recent publications were captured, as over 68% (32 out of 47 articles) occurred within the time span chosen. Excluding these contributions based on citation frequency may have resulted in the absence of developing ideas that shape contemporary discourse (Suchek et al., 2021). The study yielded four separate clusters, as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, which indicate both theme consolidation and fragmentation within the area. Certain clusters reflect well-established lines of study that serve as the foundation for the literature, whilst others are underdeveloped, indicating conceptual gaps and prospects for future research. The uneven distribution also reflects a methodological and theoretical bias, with some perspectives receiving disproportionate attention and integrative or interdisciplinary methods being overlooked. This disparity emphasizes the need for future research to extend beyond prevailing paradigms, connect with underappreciated facets of human capital and resilience, and develop more holistic approaches. The following sections look at each cluster's thematic focus and scholarly contributions, while Table 3 contains a full breakdown of the publications within each cluster / theme.

Table 3: Summary of articles by Clusters

The first cluster focuses on the intersection of risk management, legitimacy, and entrepreneurship, emphasizing how businesses and individuals negotiate high-risk and disaster-prone environments. This field of research emphasizes the importance of dynamic capabilities, legitimacy-building mechanisms, and psychological preparation when organizations adjust to shocks such as terrorism, natural catastrophes, or pandemics. For example, Sarfraz et al. (2023) show how organizational support and rewards, together with risk propensity, promote expatriate adjustment and resilience in terrorism-risk situations. Similarly, Martinelli et al. (2018) emphasize the importance of resilient retail entrepreneurs in exploiting dynamic talents to adjust to natural disasters, whilst Herbane (2019) defines strategy renewal in SMEs as an indicator of adaptive capacity. Mzid et al. (2019) go on to show that family capital increases the resilience of family enterprises by providing legitimacy and social embeddedness. Recent contributions, such as Chong and Malakhova (2024), broaden this approach by establishing psychological and social capital as interdependent resources in post-COVID hotel recovery. This cluster emphasizes the concept that resilience is not just based on internal capabilities but also on external legitimacy and stakeholder trust, emphasizing the multi-level aspect of organizational resilience.

Figure 6: Bibliography coupling network

The second cluster emphasizes psychological capital (PsyCap) as a critical resource for creating organizational and entrepreneurial resilience, notably during the COVID-19 crisis in the tourism and hospitality sectors. PsyCap, which includes hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, emerges as an important protective factor against stress and uncertainty at both the individual and organizational levels. Several studies demonstrate this dynamic: Elshaer et al. (2024) and Jalil et al. (2021) show how coping strategies mediate the link between PsyCap and small tourism organization resilience, whereas Rizvi and Nabi (2023) show that corporate social responsibility initiatives can improve employees' PsyCap, fostering collective resilience. Pathak and Joshi (2021) establish the joint significance of life satisfaction and PsyCap in organizational resilience, and leadership styles are identified as essential antecedents in shaping PsyCap, as illustrated by Njaramba and Olukuru (2025). Khandelwal and Khanum (2017) present a larger analysis of trends in PsyCap research, emphasizing its importance. This corpus of studies contributes to a better understanding of PsyCap as a personal resource and organizational lever that may be developed through leadership, CSR, and focused training interventions. The findings highlight PsyCap's disruptive potential in service-driven companies, where people capital is critical to recovery.

Social capital is highlighted as a crucial factor in determining organizational and economic resilience in the third cluster, which is the largest in this analysis. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that social capital—which is characterized by networks, trust, and interorganizational ties—allows for the mobilization of resources, cooperation, and legitimacy both during and after crises. Resilience is considerably increased by social capital, both internal and external, according to empirical data. For instance, Marshall and Schrank (2019) demonstrate how local networks aided small company recovery during Hurricane Katrina, while Liu et al. (2024) and Ervina and Agoes (2022) demonstrate how social capital in the hotel and restaurant industries enabled recovery during COVID-19. In a similar vein, Pongtanalert and Assarut (2022) and Ozanne et al. (2022) emphasize how social capital and dynamic capacities work together to promote SME adaptation.

Figure 7: Diagrammatic representation of clusters (Author’s own compilation)

Longitudinal research such as Doerfel et al. (2013) give light on how interorganizational networks emerge in the aftermath of a crisis, whereas de Brito et al. (2022) and Baral and Stern (2011) emphasize the significance of human and social capital in marginalized groups' resilience. Conceptual frameworks, such as Tanner et al.'s (2022) herringbone framework, combine psychological and social capital to present a more complete picture of resilience resources. Overall, this cluster enhances multi-capital theory by presenting social capital as a dynamic mechanism that interacts with other resources to shape adaptive capability.

The last cluster examines integrated and networked perspectives on resilience, highlighting its configurational and multi-level character. This body of literature emphasizes that resilience is not the result of a single cause, but rather of a combination of managerial practices, human capital, absorptive capacity, and network architecture. Li et al. (2023) use a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to demonstrate that many configurations of governance and resources can lead to resilience, emphasizing the notion of equifinality. Oo and Rakthin (2022) highlight the importance of absorptive ability and networks in recombining knowledge during disruption, whereas Nikookar and Yanadori (2022) outline management antecedents that are crucial for preparing supply chains for future disruptions.Furthermore, Wilson (2016) emphasizes the importance of human capital techniques in organizational turnaround after bankruptcy, while Anwar et al. (2023) present a multi-level analysis of resilience in early enterprises. Taken together, these studies improve resilience research by embracing complexity and configuration, changing the conversation away from linear cause-effect explanations and toward understanding resilience as an emergent outcome of interdependent interactions. This integrated lens emphasizes the necessity for a portfolio of techniques rather than relying on solitary practices, broadening both theoretical and practical perspectives on resilience-building.

DISCUSSION

When taken together, the four clusters provide a multi-capital, multi-level concept of resilience. Cluster 1 focuses on the relationship between risk, legitimacy, and entrepreneurial adaptation; Cluster 2 emphasizes psychological capital as an individual and organizational lever; Cluster 3 emphasizes the importance of social capital and networks; and Cluster 4 combines human capital, absorptive capacity, and configurational approaches. Across these clusters, resilience emerges as a dynamic process shaped by varied yet interconnected resources operating at multiple levels and situations. This synthesis highlights significant theoretical advances, such as the need to conceptualize resilience as a multi-capital construct, to acknowledge the contextual specificity of resilience mechanisms (e.g., sectoral or shock-specific), and to embrace methodological diversity ranging from network analyses to configurational methods. Collectively, these findings indicate that future research should concentrate on longitudinal, multi-actor, and multi-capital designs, while practitioners should adopt holistic resilience methods that combine psychological, social, and human capital with organizational skills.

Limitations of the study and future research directions

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that provide opportunities for future research. First, the bibliographic coupling analysis is limited by the sample of publications included; while it captures key themes across recent literature, it may underrepresent emerging work in niche domains or non-English sources. Future studies could expand the dataset to include broader geographies and interdisciplinary contributions.

Second, although the cluster analysis reveals conceptual linkages, it does not fully capture the temporal evolution of resilience research. A longitudinal bibliometric study incorporating co-citation or co-word analyses could complement the current findings by tracing how resilience themes develop over time and in response to major global crises.

Third, methodological diversity within the identified clusters poses challenges for synthesis. Many studies rely heavily on cross-sectional survey data, which limits causal inference and the ability to generalize findings across contexts. Future research should therefore adopt longitudinal, experimental, and multi-level designs to test resilience mechanisms more robustly.

Fourth, the literature to date often emphasizes the positive role of psychological and social capital, with limited attention to their potential downsides, such as groupthink, over embeddedness, or resilience trade-offs across stakeholders. Investigating the dark side of resilience mechanisms represents a fruitful direction for theory development.

Finally, while the clusters highlight firm- and community-level perspectives, there remains limited integration of institutional, policy, and global supply chain perspectives. Future research should explore how resilience is shaped not only by organizational capabilities and networks but also by the broader regulatory and societal environment.

This bibliographic coupling analysis provides a structured overview of how organizational resilience scholarship has evolved around four distinct yet interconnected thematic clusters: (1) risk, legitimacy, and entrepreneurship, (2) psychological capital and tourism under COVID-19, (3) social capital and economic resilience, and (4) integrated resilience and networks. Together, these themes reveal that resilience is not a monolithic construct but an emergent capability shaped by the interplay of multiple resources — psychological, social, human, and organizational — that operate across individual, firm, and community levels.

The findings highlight several key insights. First, legitimacy and risk management remain critical for firms navigating uncertain environments, with entrepreneurial adaptation and family capital serving as resilience-enhancing mechanisms. Second, psychological capital emerges as a vital lever for sustaining organizations during crises, particularly in human-capital-intensive industries such as tourism and hospitality. Third, social capital is shown to be a cornerstone of economic resilience, enabling collaboration, resource mobilization, and adaptation through networks and community ties. Finally, integrated and configurational approaches underscore the complexity of resilience, emphasizing that no single factor is sufficient; rather, resilience arises through combinations of antecedents such as absorptive capacity, managerial practices, and supply-chain preparedness.

By synthesizing these clusters, this study contributes to resilience scholarship by advancing a multi-capital and multi-level perspective, showing that organizational resilience is simultaneously psychological, social, and structural. For practitioners, the analysis underscores the importance of adopting holistic strategies that combine dynamic capabilities, psychological resource development, and network building, while policymakers are encouraged to design interventions that strengthen not just individual firms but the relational and institutional ecosystems in which they operate.

Managerial and Policy Implications

The findings of this study offer several practical implications for managers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers seeking to enhance organizational resilience. First, organizations should prioritize legitimacy-building and dynamic capability development to navigate high-risk or uncertain environments. Practices such as transparent communication, stakeholder engagement, and proactive reputation management can safeguard trust and ensure organizational continuity during crises. Second, fostering psychological capital (PsyCap) among employees emerges as a critical resilience strategy, particularly in human-capital-intensive sectors such as tourism, hospitality, and services. Interventions such as resilience training, coaching programs, and leadership development can enhance hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and adaptability, which in turn strengthen organizational recovery. Third, the cultivation of social capital and networks is essential, both within and beyond the firm. Managers should actively develop bridging and linking ties with suppliers, industry peers, local communities, and professional associations to facilitate knowledge sharing, resource mobilization, and collaborative problem-solving during disruptions. Fourth, resilience should be approached as a portfolio of interdependent strategies, integrating human capital, absorptive capacity, managerial practices, and supply-chain preparedness, rather than relying on isolated interventions. From a policy perspective, governments and regulatory bodies can strengthen resilience ecosystems by supporting knowledge-sharing initiatives, SME collaborations, crisis-preparedness programs, and psychological well-being initiatives. By adopting this holistic approach, organizations and policymakers can not only ensure survival during crises but also leverage disruptions as opportunities for strategic renewal and sustained competitive advantage.

1. Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2014). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269.https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299
2. Angeles, I. T. (2024). Resilience, self-efficacy, openness to change, and innovativeness of MSME owners: A Quantitative-Qualitative Integration Before, during, and After the COVID-19 crisis. The South East Asian Journal of Management, 18(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.21002/seam.v18i1.1464
3. Anwar, A., Coviello, N., & Rouziou, M. (2021). Weathering a Crisis: A Multi-Level Analysis of Resilience in Young Ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(3), 864–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211046545
4. Babaloee, Alireza & Zarandi, Hamid & Kamyabi, Mitra. (2025). Development of a Structural Model for Predicting Organizational Performance of Bank Employees in Western Tehran Branches Based on Career Path Resilience and Psychological Capital: The Mediating Role of Professional Ethics. International Journal of Innovation Management and Organizational Behavior. 5. 176-183. 10.61838/kman.ijimob.5.1.18.
5. Banu, R., Soundararajan, G., Wahaibi, M. a. A., & Salman, M. (2024). A study on critical internal drivers of organizational resilience: evidence from Oman SMEs. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-024-00416-1
6. Baral, N., & Stern, M. J. (2011). Capital stocks and organizational resilience in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Society & Natural Resources, 24(10), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2010.495372
7. Ben-Hador, B., & Yitshaki, R. (2025). Organizational resilience in turbulent times—social capital as a mechanism for successfully adapting human resources practices that lead to resilience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2025.2470306
8. Ben-Hador, B., & Yitshaki, R. (2025b). Organizational resilience in turbulent times—social capital as a mechanism for successfully adapting human resources practices that lead to resilience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2025.2470306
9. Bhaskara, G. I., & Filimonau, V. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational learning for disaster planning and management: A perspective of tourism businesses from a destination prone to consecutive disasters. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.011
10. bibliometric mapping”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009
11. Chong, K. L., & Malakhova, Y. (2024). Psychological capital and social capital: Resilience building in the post-pandemic hotel industry in Malaysia. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 24(1), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2024.2405793
12. Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., & Patwardhan, V. (2024). The bright and dark sides of the relationship between relational capital and organizational resilience: the moderating role of human capital. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2024.2400720
13. Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., Orchiston, C., & Spector, S. (2018). Postdisaster social capital, adaptive resilience and business performance of tourism organizations in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 58(7), 1209–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518794319
14. Daouk‐Öyry, L., Afiouni, F., Ghazzawi, R., & Alhaffar, H. (2025). The role of HRM in Building Resilience: The relationality imperative in Times of War. Human Resource Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12597
15. De Brito, R. P., Lenz, A., & Pacheco, M. G. M. (2022). Resilience building among small businesses in low-income neighborhoods. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(5), 1166–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2041197
16. Doerfel, M. L., Chewning, L. V., & Lai, C. (2013). The Evolution of Networks and the Resilience of Interorganizational Relationships after Disaster. Communication Monographs, 80(4), 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.828157
17. Duchek, S. Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Bus Res 13, 215–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
18. Elshaer, A. M., Khalifa, G. S. A., Guirat, R. B., Bulatovic, I., El-Aidie, S. a. M., & Marzouk, A. M. (2024). Managing stress and building resilience in tourism and hospitality Entrepreneurship: the power of psychological and social capital. Journal of Tourism and Services, 15(28), 89–115. https://doi.org/10.29036/jots.v15i28.601
19. Ervina, E., & Agoes, A. (2022). The critical role of social capital in hotel Business resilience. Jurnal Manajemen Dan Agribisnis. https://doi.org/10.17358/jma.19.2.288
20. Fandiño, A. M., Formiga, N. S., & De Menezes, R. M. (2019). Organizational social capital, resilience and innovation validation of a theoretical model for specialized workers. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 137–152.https://doi.org/10.1108/jsma-05-2018-0041
21. Fang, S., Prayag, G., Ozanne, L. K., & De Vries, H. (2020). Psychological capital, coping mechanisms and organizational resilience: Insights from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, New Zealand. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100637
22. Haque, A., Fernando, M. and Caputi, P. (2021), “Responsible leadership and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review, integration and propositions”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 383-408, doi: 10.1108/APJBA-11-2019-0243.
23. Hepfer, M., & Lawrence, T. B. (2022b). The Heterogeneity of Organizational Resilience: Exploring functional, operational and strategic resilience. OrganizationTheory, 3(1), 263178772210747. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221074701
24. Herbane, B. (2018). Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic renewal in SMEs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 31(5–6), 476–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541594
25. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Reviewof Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
26. Jalil, M. F., Ali, A., Ahmed, Z., & Kamarulzaman, R. (2021). The mediating effect of coping strategies between psychological capital and small tourism organization resilience: Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic, Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.766528
27. Jia, X., Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., & Chowdhury, M. M. H. (2020). The role of social capital on proactive and reactive resilience of organizations post-disaster. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 48, 101614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101614
28. Khandelwal, P., & Khanum, F. (2017). Psychological Capital: A Review of Current Trends. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(1), 86–101. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26536439
29. Kim, S., & Chandrasekhar, D. (2024). Harnessing social capital for Post-COVID-19 resilience: A study of Asian businesses in New York City. Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x241276127
30. Korber, S., & McNaughton, R. B. (2017, November 29). Resilience and entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1129–1154. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-10-2016-0356
31. Koronis, E., & Ponis, S. (2018). Better than before: the resilient organization in crisis mode. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-10-2016-0124
32. Li, M., Cheng, S., & Lu, M. (2024). Impact of information technology capabilities on organizational resilience: the mediating role of social capital. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03951-0
33. Li, Q., Zhang, X., & Zhang, W. (2023). Organizational resilience and configurational conditions from the perspective of emergency: a FSQCA approach. SAGE Open, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231158057
34. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J. and Moher, D. (2009), “The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. e1-e34, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
35. Liu, L., Yang, L., & Yan, K. (2023). The power of clans: How social capital sheltered firms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Economics Letters, 229, 111224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111224
36. Low, M. P., & Cheah, J. (2024b). Reimaging, reallocating, and repositioning organizational resources with the inclusion of employee-centered CSR for organizational resilience. Human Systems Management.https://doi.org/10.1177/01672533241300868
37. Low, M. P., Cham, T., & Ramayah, T. (2025). Deciphering organisational resilience through a confluence analysis of PLS-SEM, necessary condition analysis, and combined importance-performance map. Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02112-y
38. Martinelli, E., Tagliazucchi, G., & Marchi, G. (2018b). The resilient retail entrepreneur: dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 24(7), 1222–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-11-2016-0386
39. Mzid, I., Khachlouf, N., & Soparnot, R. (2018). How does family capital influence the resilience of family firms? Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0226-7
40. Nikookar, E., & Yanadori, Y. (2021). Preparing supply chain for the next disruption beyond COVID-19: managerial antecedents of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(1), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-04-2021-0272
41. Njaramba, F., & Olukuru, J. (2025). Surviving a crisis: A multilevel model of leadership styles, employees’ psychological capital and organizational resilience. PLoS ONE, 20(2), e0318515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318515
42. Oo, N. C. K. K., & Rakthin, S. (2022). Integrative review of absorptive capacity’s role in fostering organizational resilience and research agenda. Sustainability, 14(19), 12570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912570
43. Ozanne, L. K., Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., & Mollenkopf, D. A. (2022). SMEs navigating COVID-19: The influence of social capital and dynamic capabilities on organizational resilience. Industrial Marketing Management, 104, 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.04.009
44. Pahlevan-Sharif, S., Mura, P. and Wijesinghe, S.N.R. (2019), “A systematic review of systematic reviews in tourism”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 39, pp. 158-165, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.04.001.
45. Pathak, D., & Joshi, G. (2020). Impact of psychological capital and life satisfaction on organizational resilience during COVID-19: Indian tourism insights. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(17), 2398–2415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1844643
46. Pham, L. D. Q., Coles, T., Ritchie, B. W., & Wang, J. (2021). Building business resilience to external shocks: Conceptualising the role of social networks to small tourism & hospitality businesses. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.06.012
47. Pongtanalert, K., & Assarut, N. (2022). Entrepreneur Mindset, Social Capital and Adaptive Capacity for Tourism SME Resilience and Transformation during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 14(19), 12675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912675
48. Reniati, R., Susantyo, B., Irmayani, N. R., Sabri, F., & Widiastuti, W. (2024). The influence of leadership strategies and social capital on the business performance and resilience of Indonesian MSMEs. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02254-8
49. Rizvi, Y. S., & Nabi, A. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and psychological capital during the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from India. Social Responsibility Journal, 19(8), 1379–1396. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-05-2022-0224
50. Sarfraz, M., Nisar, Q. A., & Raza, A. (2022). Expatriates’ adjustment and performance in risky environments: the role of organizational support and rewards, risk propensity and resilience. Personnel Review, 52(4), 1126–1145. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-05-2021-0309
51. Seville, Erica. (2009). Resilience: Great Concept but What Does it Mean? Tephra. 22.
52. Shela, V., Ramayah, T., & Hazlina, A. N. (2021). Human capital and organisational resilience in the context of manufacturing: a systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(2), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-09-2021-0234
53. Shepherd, D. A., & Williams, T. A. (2022b). Different response paths to organizational resilience. Small Business Economics, 61(1), 23–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00689-4
54. Siachou, E., Trichina, E., Papasolomou, I., & Sakka, G. (2021, October). Why do employees hide their knowledge and what are the consequences? A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 135, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.031
55. Suchek, N., Fernandes, C.I., Kraus, S., Filser, M. and Sj€ogren, H. (2021), “Innovation and the circular economy: a systematic literature review”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1002/bse.2834.
56. Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Branicki, L. (2011, September 15). Creating resilient SMEs: why one size might not fit all. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5565–5579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563837
57. Tanner, S., Prayag, G., & Kuntz, J. C. (2022). Psychological capital, social capital and organizational resilience: A Herringbone Model perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 78, 103149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103149
58. Torres, A. P., Marshall, M. I., & Sydnor, S. (2018). Does social capital pay off? The case of small business resilience after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12248
59. Vakilzadeh, K., & Haase, A. (2020). The building blocks of Organizational Resilience: A Review of the empirical literature. Continuity & Resilience Review, 3(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/crr-04-2020-0002
60. Vallet‐Bellmunt, T., Del‐Corte‐Lora, V., & Martínez‐Fernández, M. T. (2024). Do we have to choose between economic or environmental performance? The case of the ceramic industry cluster. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 5815–5836. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2890
61. van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2010), “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009 0146-3.
62. Liu, T. -M. Choi, X. Niu, M. Zhang and W. Fan, "Determinants of Business Resilience in the Restaurant Industry During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Textual Analytics Study on an O2O Platform Case," in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 71, pp. 10427-10440, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3187986.
63. Wilson, R. L. (2016). Organizational resilience as a human capital strategy for companies in bankruptcy. Work, 54(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162302
64. Wulandhari, N. B. I., Gölgeci, I., Mishra, N., Sivarajah, U., & Gupta, S. (2022b).Exploring the role of social capital mechanisms in cooperative resilience. Journal of Business Research, 143, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.026
65. Yang, Y., Khatibi, A., & Tham, J. (2025). The impact of employee-oriented social responsibility on enterprise resilience mediated by employee psychological capital among small and medium enterprises. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i4.3647
66. Zheng, Q., & Lin, J. (2024). Corporate social responsibility: an enabler of organizational resilience. Management Decision, 62(6), 1905–1923. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-06-2023-1018