Grounded Theory Approach to Resiliency Development
1. A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFORM
AND SUSTAINABLE RESILIENCY DEVELOPMENT THEORY
by
Leslie Carol McQuilkin
Copyright 2014
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
The University of Phoenix
2. The Dissertation Committee for Leslie Carol McQuilkin certifies approval of the
following dissertation
A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFORM
AND SUSTAINABLE RESILIENCY DEVELOPMENT THEORY
Committee:
Elisabeth E. Weinbaum, PhD, Chair
Alfred Van Cleave, PhD, Committee Member
Robert Vecchiotti, PhD, Committee Member
__________________________
Elisabeth E. Weinbaum
__________________________
Alfred Van Cleave
__________________________
Robert Vecchiotti
__________________________
Jeremy Moreland, PhD
Executive Dean, School of Advanced Studies
Date Approved: December 2, 2014
3. iii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the qualitative grounded theory study was to explore organizational,
educational, and social science paradigms of the resiliency phenomenon. Analysis
focused on discovering the data that could identify traits of resilience that support the
creation of a seminal sustainable resiliency development theory that was functional
across all fields of study. The sustainable resilience development theory (SRDT)
contains eight major themes. Emergent themes were identified as perceived hardiness,
decisiveness, visionary attitude, empathy, will to thrive, emotive strength, internal locus
of control, and dedication. The degree to which each individual possessed each trait
determined the length of time spent achieving the ability to overcome adversity. Outlying
factors impacted the ability for individuals to sustain resilience. The ability to cope with
adversity on a personal level impacted the organization; likewise organizational adversity
impacted the individual ability to cope effectively with stress. More research will be
required to further refine the SRDT however the implications for positive social change
were evident throughout the investigation.
4. iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this study to the brave individuals who face adversity on a daily basis.
To have the courage to endure is in and of itself a manifestation of resilience and will
lead you to the path of overcoming if you are willing to see it through until the end.
Second, I dedicate this study to the fight my late grandparents William Frew Brown and
Mary Scott Brown fought, not with cancer but through adversity. You were and continue
to be an inspiration as your spirit lives on through my father Robert. Thank you Dad for
everything you do for us and everything you have sacrificed. Mom, I know it has been
hard being a caretaker for the ill in our family, and I find it hard to ignore your courage,
beauty and contributions; thank you Mom. Taylor and Avalon, I was there when you
were born, for if it were not by the grace of God and the innate resilience you possess,
none of us could have survived the past decade; I love you, thank you and flying hugs.
To my twin sister Jessica, I have seen so much in you that lives in me; this includes a
strong resilient nature. I want you to know I admire your fortitude and most of all I love
you. To my husband Michael, I dedicate this research, for you have seen your fair share
of adversity in this lifetime and have shown me true courage and strength in the best and
worst of times. Finally, I dedicate this research to our future daughter Isabelle; we have
loved her long before she was conceived.
5. v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There were many individual who supported, guided, and gave me the push
necessary to overcome some challenges along this doctoral journey. I needed
encouragement to forge ahead and despite the time I spent in research, the time I spent
away from family and friends I could always depend on those around me to help out. I
want to thank my committee, you are amazing. Dr. Weinbaum, my chairperson, you
acted as a beacon, guiding me and encouraging me to finish my journey. I want to thank
Dr. Van Cleave. You were the first professor I had at UoPx and you have made a
difference in my life; your mentorship from day one has changed my life in ways I can
never repay. Dr. Bob, there are no words for how hard and far you have pushed me as a
researcher. You pushed me to always ask myself the hard questions. When I searched for
honesty you were never afraid to share and because of you I am a well-developed scholar,
thank- you. I want to thank all those wonderful respondents who participated in the study.
Your stories are forever engrained in this study, and yes indeed will ultimately change
lives. Finally, to all my doctoral friends I have met along the way. Your journeys have
inspired me and have been the motivational fuel to bring this journey to its ultimate end.
Thank you.
6. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................15
Background............................................................................................................16
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................18
Purpose of the Study..............................................................................................21
Significance of the Study.......................................................................................22
Nature of the Study................................................................................................23
Research Questions and Subquestions...................................................................25
Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................26
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. ....................................................................27
Self-efficacy...............................................................................................28
Framework. ................................................................................................28
Definition of Terms................................................................................................28
Defining resilience in the educational setting............................................29
Defining resilience as it pertains to organizations .....................................31
Defining success ........................................................................................32
Defining failure..........................................................................................32
Defining adversity......................................................................................33
Defining hardiness .....................................................................................34
Defining overcome.....................................................................................35
Defining cope.............................................................................................35
8. viii
Expectancy theory......................................................................................81
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation..............................................................82
Self-determination theory ..........................................................................83
Self-efficacy...............................................................................................85
Emotional intelligence ...............................................................................85
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs .....................................................................86
McGregor’s X-Y theory.............................................................................87
Hardiness theory ........................................................................................88
Related Theories: Grief and Logotherapy..............................................................89
Cultural Bias and Resiliency..................................................................................91
Summary of Literature Review..............................................................................92
Traits of resilient individuals .....................................................................92
Threats to developing resilience ................................................................92
Research gap ..............................................................................................93
Chapter 3 Method .............................................................................................................95
Appropriateness of the Research Method and Design...........................................95
Research Questions..............................................................................................100
Geographic Location and Population...................................................................102
Sampling ..............................................................................................................103
Informed Consent.................................................................................................104
Confidentiality .....................................................................................................105
Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................................106
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................107
9. ix
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................107
Internal and external validity ...............................................................................110
Data Triangulation ...................................................................................113
Summary..............................................................................................................114
Chapter 4 Results............................................................................................................116
Descriptive Information.......................................................................................118
Demographics ..........................................................................................118
The interview process ..............................................................................119
Data Analysis: Open Coding ...............................................................................122
Data Analysis: Axial Coding, Selective Coding, and Data Triangulation...........125
Outlier respondent data............................................................................126
Themes and Subthemes........................................................................................127
Theme 1: Hardiness .............................................................................................128
Theme 2: Decisiveness ............................................................................132
Theme 3: Visionary attitude.....................................................................136
Theme 4: Empathy...................................................................................140
Theme 5: Will to thrive............................................................................143
Theme 6: Emotive strength......................................................................146
Theme 7: Internal locus of control...........................................................149
Theme 8: Dedication................................................................................152
Summary..............................................................................................................156
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................159
Introduction..........................................................................................................159
10. x
Interpretations from Literature Review and Data Analysis .................................159
Theme 1: Perceived hardiness .................................................................161
Theme 2: Decisiveness ............................................................................162
Theme 3: Visionary attitude.....................................................................163
Theme 4: Empathy...................................................................................164
Theme5: Will to thrive.............................................................................165
Theme 6: Emotive strength......................................................................166
Theme 7: Internal locus of control...........................................................167
Theme 8: Dedication................................................................................168
Fields of Practice: Organizational, Social Science, Education............................169
Research Questions..............................................................................................175
Validity and Reliability........................................................................................180
Theory Generation Process..................................................................................181
Significance to Leadership...................................................................................182
Organization.............................................................................................185
Social science...........................................................................................188
Education .................................................................................................190
Summary of Findings...........................................................................................192
Limitations...........................................................................................................195
Recommendations................................................................................................197
Outliers.....................................................................................................197
Implications..........................................................................................................199
Outliers.....................................................................................................199
12. xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Keyword Search: Number of Sources Cited by Topic and Type .........................45
Table 2 Themes Representing Practices, Behaviors, Emotions, and Skill Sets that
Support Resilience ...........................................................................................................124
Table 3 Hardiness: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the Subthemes
that Emphasized the Hardiness Response........................................................................128
Table 4 Decisiveness: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the
Subthemes that Emphasized the Decisiveness Response ................................................133
Table 5 Visionary Attitude: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the
Subthemes that Emphasized the Visionary Response .....................................................137
Table 6 Empathy: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the Subthemes that
Emphasized the Empathy Response. ...............................................................................140
Table 7 Will-To-Thrive : Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the
Subthemes that Emphasized the Will-To-Thrive Response ............................................144
Table 8 Emotive Strength: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the
Subthemes that Emphasized the Emotive Strength Response.........................................146
Table 9 Internal Locus of Control: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as
the Subthemes that Emphasized the Internal Locus of Control Response.......................150
Table 10 Dedication : Behaviors, Characteristics, and Emotions as well as the Subthemes
that Emphasized the Dedication Response. .....................................................................153
Table 11 Research Question 1: Shared Qualities.............................................................175
Table 12 Research Question 2: Coping Behaviors, Strategies, Environments, Beliefs, &
Practices ...........................................................................................................................176
13. xiii
Table 13 Research Question 3: Concepts .......................................................................179
Table 14 Research Question 4: Essential Steps of Resilience Development..................180
Table 15 Themes and Subthemes ...................................................................................195
14. xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Studies in which authors spoke of resilience or focused on resilience numbered
646,000. ............................................................................................................................19
Figure 2. Obtaining a balanced understanding of resilience involved extending data
collection beyond peer-reviewed articles to include individuals’ lived experiences with
adversity to guide grounded theory development..............................................................24
Figure 3. Goals of integrative action.. ..............................................................................48
Figure 4: A standard process to assist the researcher with identification and reduction of
bias. ................................................................................................................................117
Figure 5: The research followed a strict design and process to identify a specific
population and ultimately a sample. ..............................................................................117
Figure 6. Descriptive information regarding the respondents is separated by professional
field and gender................................................................................................................119
Figure 7. Evidence resulting from the data analysis produced a set of themes or recurring
characteristics as well as subthemes evident and consistent within each theme. ............123
Figure 8. Outliers: The outlying factors which influence the ability to overcome adversity
and sustain resilience. ......................................................................................................127
Figure 9. Data analysis procedure: from data collection through theoretical coding to
grounded theory. ..............................................................................................................182
15. 15
Chapter 1
Introduction
In viewing the human condition, the ineffable strengths individuals possessed
during manifestations of adversity have scarcely affected the various definitions of
resilience, but the significance of such strengths carries dire implications (Luthar,
Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 2001; Rutter, 1987). Scholars have grappled with the
definition and origins of resilience in conducting numerous investigations to determine if
the phenomenon is inherent, learned, or a unique blend of the two (Luthar & Cicchetti,
2000). Contrary to popular belief, resilience mirrors neither nurture nor environment
alone (Neff & McGeehee, 2010). Luthar et al. (2000) and Miller and Xiao (2007)
reported case studies in which many individuals retained the propensity for resilience and
despite an adverse environment or lack of a support community, the individual managed
to circumvent emotional collapse. Conversely, academic literature also confirmed the
opposite: those individuals who met a specified criterion for successfully engaging
resilience remained unable to thwart failure (Ogden, Minton, & Pain, 2006). Despite
having unwavering access to resources or support, the probability of emotional collapse
loomed (Ogden et al., 2006).
Beginning in the 1980s, appropriate resiliency modeling identified characteristics
supporting the ability to maintain physical and emotional health, engage life activities,
and regain or maintain the balance necessary to respond to adversity with resilience.
With this understanding, scholars began to recognize the urgency of investigating the
resilience phenomenon (Druss & Douglas, 1988). Decades of research subsequently
documented the likelihood of acquiring abilities evocative of resilience. Preserving this
16. 16
ability and sustaining resilience throughout a lifetime remained probable. Compelling
data and overwhelming scholarly consensus asserted the innumerable benefits,
applications, and significance of sustainable resiliency development.
Despite significant scholarly interest in the phenomenon, examining previous
research revealed a lack of grounded theory development in sustainable resilience, which
supported the need to conduct the study. The grounded theory study engaged a retort to
the lack of a sustainable resilience development theory or framework noted in
organizational, educational, and psychological literature. Organizations, educators, and
counselors have acknowledged the vastness of the resilient mind. Considering two
decades of academic research, investigators identified that varied approaches persist
through the identification of attributes pivotal to surviving adversity. The resilience
phenomenon reflects the capacity to negotiate, lead, and emerge an emotionally healthy
individual as a direct result of one’s choices. Many traits illustrate hardiness, and the
distinct ability to integrate these traits. One’s circumstance, will, and resolve to achieve,
epitomizes the immutable significance of resilience (Brooks & Goldstein 2003; Chu,
2008; Everly, Strouse, & Everly, 2010). Chapter 1 provides an outline that summarizes
the grounded theory study and consists of background of the problem, the statement of
the problem, purpose, significance, and the nature of the study. Following the sectional
outline, chapter one contains the research questions, theoretical framework, definitions,
assumptions, scope, limitations, delimitations, and ending with a summary of the chapter.
Background
Leadership development has seen a drastic shift over the past two decades as a
result of the resilience paradigm integration. The notion of resilience has become a more
17. 17
analytical and integrative concept to appear across a diverse set of academic fields and
aspects of life (Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2010). Two prevailing aspects have emerged out
of the varied definitions of resilience: initial recovery from imbalance and the ability to
rediscover a sustainable method of achieving healthy interactions along one’s trajectory
in life (Reich et al., 2010). The impact of the resilience ideal finds seminal beginnings
within Thomas Kuhn’s works on the philosophy of science (1962); Kuhn discussed
paradigms and paradigm shifts as it pertained to psychological development and
interpersonal dealings (Kuhn, 1962). Psychologically, mental illness and emotional
collapse have an inherent link to the inability to shift one’s paradigm when the need
arises to overcome adversity (Kuhn, 1962, Reich et al., 2010).
Scholars continued to consider the meaning of resilience and the concept of
personal resilience as an inherent attribute or a teachable trait (Gillespie, Chaboyer, &
Wallis, 2007). Gillespie et al. (2007) reexamined the research regarding underlying
meanings pertaining to the operationalization of the term resilience in the organizational,
educational, and social service academic fields. The need for construction of a valid
standard for the development of sustainable resilience occurred when a clear and coherent
understanding of resilience emerged as well as the characteristics that define this
phenomenon (Gillespie et al., 2007). Professionals in organizations, education, and
mental health recognized the importance of developing and sustaining resilience to
mitigate the effects of stress as well as to support achievement. Principal to success of
the organization, mental health, or educational institution depended on the resilience of
the individual. Individual success was achieved and sustained through short or long term
interventions (Everly et al., 2010, Gillespie et al., 2007).
18. 18
Statement of the Problem
The problem in leadership development is contemporary leadership lacks a
theoretical archetype for sustainable resilience development despite abundant literature
about other aspects of resilience (see Figure 1). As a result, development programs focus
on identifying resilient behaviors rather than teaching resilient coping skills (Jensen,
2009; Thompkins & Schwartz, 2009). According to Graham et al., (2010) emotional
hardiness is the product of self- discovery resulting in an emotional stasis and the ability
to adapt to adversity; the inability to engage resilient behaviors in any environment
inhibits the ability of an individual or an organization to reach an emotional stasis while
facing difficulty (Jensen, 2009; Thompkins & Schwartz, 2009).
The 2008 economic recession in the United States is an example of adversity that
drastically altered factors that could have mitigated emotional stress and the demand on
coping skills in the workplace. Effects of the economic recession spread worldwide
leaving billions of individuals struggling to maintain or recover their security, safety, and
well-being (Graham et al., 2010). Few experiences connected individuals on an
emotional level like the recession did. For the first time many individuals had to devise
ways to cope with income loss and emotional needs while attempting to keep their
families above the poverty line as long as they could (Graham et al., 2010). Suicides, and
murder and other criminal activity saw a stark increase as individuals discovered they
lacked the ability to cope with the added stress of an economically unstable environment
(Graham et al., 2010).
19. 19
The overwhelming majority of individuals faced or may face a violent, life
threatening, life altering, or loss trauma in the course of their lifetimes (Norris & Slone,
2013). As individuals grow older their risk of a trauma increases as they begin to
confront the loss of loved ones, illness, a life-changing event, injury, etc. Bonanno
(2004) and Hernández, Engstrom, and Gangsei (2010) discovered that individuals, such
as professionals, students, children, counselors, public service workers, and medical
professionals each possessed different abilities to cope and reacted differently to adverse
events. One can identify where an individual would be located within a range of
sustainable and effective coping behaviors (Bonanno, 2004, Hernández et al., 2010).
There are those who crumbled beneath perceived minor traumas and those who initially
thrived later succumbed to illness and depression; the aforesaid did not possess
sustainable and effective coping skills when compared to peers within a similar context
(Bonanno, 2004, Hernández et al., 2010).
2% Organizational
Resilience
3% Individual
Resilience
36% Case
Studies
28% Definitions of
Resilience
31% Miscelleneous
0% Sustainable
Resilience Theory
Figure 1. Studies in which authors spoke of resilience or focused on resilience numbered
646,000. Percentage of available studies by topic and type were identified from a 2011 search
of the Google Scholar® database search engine.
20. 20
Those who suffered and continued to thrive despite repeated hurdles and those
who seemed to remain unaffected against any trauma or challenge defined individuals
who possessed above-normal coping mechanisms when compared to peers in a similar
context (Bonanno, 2004, Hernández et al., 2010). Researchers had not identified how or
why individuals differed in these respects. More pressing was that the defining
parameters of resilience remained broad (Bonanno, 2004, Hernández et al., 2010).
Difficult, traumatic or adverse events remain uniquely subject to individual perspectives
and therefore scientific inquiry is limited to an individual’s discussion of the trauma as
reported. This perspective has lead researchers to spotlight one type of trauma versus an
abundance of diverse experiences (Bonanno, 2004, Hernández et al., 2010).
In education, teaching without proper access to theoretical constructs of resilient
behavior development may leave leaders without the ability to guarantee the availability
or achievement of instruction, coursework, and scholastic standards (Jensen, 2009;
Thompkins & Schwartz, 2009). Data from this grounded theory study helped to create a
theory for sustainable resiliency through the identification of traits common to
individuals who overcame adversity as well as the shared qualities that manifested
throughout the process (Brooks & Goldstein 2003; Brunwasser, et al., 2009; Everly et al.,
2010; Thompkins & Schwartz, 2009.). The initial populations were individuals who
overcame adversity, derived from business professionals and students attending
vocational colleges, public, private, or community colleges, and universities within the
same counties within the state of Florida.
21. 21
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to identify the shared
traits and behaviors common to individuals who have overcome adversity and to produce
a foundation and applicable construct for sustainable resilience development across the
organizational, social service, and educational fields. The primary objective of research
with a grounded theory approach is to reveal how obtained data pertains to the
development of a construct in which concepts, categories, and propositions comprise a
theory arising from the data; a grounded theory (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). As Montpetit
et al. (2010) described, resilience is a trait and a process containing attributes that abet
sustainable success against adversity. With research linking previous studies in resilience
or characteristics similar to resilience, researchers possess the potential to investigate the
creation of a sustainable resilience development theory through narrowing resiliency
definitions to an acceptable and generally applicable understanding (Montpetit et al.,
2010; Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011).
An extensive review of academic case study data spanning two decades,
interviews, and field data collection assisted with the reliable compilation, analysis, and
application of the collected data. A qualitative method was appropriate to this study
because it encouraged the creation of a formal theory for sustainable resilience
development in leadership through a systematic collection and analysis of verbal, written
research, and relevant data (Bryant & Charmaz, 2010). Paramount to successful
application of the study, the identification of assumptions, mitigation of bias, and
organization of data from a disciplinary perspective fortified the reliability and validity of
research (Bryant & Charmaz, 2010).
22. 22
Significance of the Study
For organizational leaders, the unseen and positive effects that sustainable,
resilient behaviors have on their organization exemplify the significance and urgency of
developing a sustainable resilience construct. Fundamental shifts in organizational
environments, unstable economic markets, academic pressures, and personal crises have
propelled the need for sustainable resilience development in a changing global
community (Reich et al., 2010). The concept of resilience underwent a dynamic shift in
the 2000s but definitions varied and emerging ideals revealed sustainable traits and their
influence on overcoming adversity (Reich et al., 2010). The inherent need to improve the
psychology and emotional strength of organizations, their human capital, educators,
students, and the individual revealed the need to engage research that generated the
discovery of a new theory (Kuhn, 1962; Reich et al., 2010).
U.S. Bureau of Labor data indicated in 2010 that adversity, if not handled in a
manner that reduces stress levels, cost organizations approximately $400 billion annually
as a direct result of turnover, absenteeism, workers’ compensation claims, disability, and
reduced productivity (Cigna Behavioral, 2010). Health care practitioners report that high
stress levels in the workplace cause personal health care spending to increase by 50%
compared to the employee who reports lower levels of stress (Cigna Behavioral, 2010).
Leaders in organizations that mitigate workplace stress may also find significance in the
ability of their employees, clients, or students to overcome any adverse situation that may
occur at work or in their personal lives (Everly et al., 2007). Flexible paradigms afforded
the researcher a unique and more meaningful insight to provide the scholarly community
23. 23
with a construct that can adapt to different fields of study, which far-extends the social
service, educational, and organizational concept (Ogden et al., 2006).
Nature of the Study
Recognizing the lack of a theoretical construct for sustainable resiliency
development, a qualitative grounded theory method and design was chosen to study
resilience in the educational, organizational, and social service setting in two Florida
counties. A qualitative grounded theory approach was appropriate because this inductive
research method permitted the potential creation of a sustainable resilience development
theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2010). Focused on generating an emergent theory, a
grounded theory developed from collected data; coded and analyzed for the purpose of
grounded theory construction. An extensive review of composed academic case study
data from 1990 through 2012 and purposive sampling of open-ended interviews assisted
the reliable compilation, analysis and application of collected data.
Unique to the study, the research extended beyond peer-reviewed articles for
collecting base assumptions to guide grounded theory development, and delved into
obtaining individuals’ lived experiences. Interviews permitted the collection of
sensations, emotions, and the immediacy of overcoming adversity to create a
representation of events, circumstances, and experiences providing stable and relevant
data balanced with findings from previous scholarship, as depicted in Figure 2 (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2008; Ogden et al., 2006). Using initial demographics to identify participants,
the investigation yielded discoveries that formed a foundation for creating a sustainable
resilience development theory.
24. 24
Figure 2. Obtaining a balanced understanding of resilience involved extending data
collection beyond peer-reviewed articles to include individuals’ lived experiences with
adversity to guide grounded theory development. Adapted from Trauma and the body: A
sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy by P. Ogden, K. Minton, & C. Pain (2006), New
York, NY: W. W. Norton. Copyright 2006 by Pat Ogden/Norton. Used with permission.
Data analysis procedures involved open coding and axial coding to refine the
categories and determine data commonalities, whereby assumptions were derived (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). In accordance with the guiding practices of
grounded theory, the study followed a stringent set of proven practices to develop
models, notions, specific classes, and distinctive traits obtained through a concomitant,
reproducible collection of data and analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln,
2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967/1999). The iterative nature of the grounded theory design
permitted discovery of relationships, propositions, and constructs through methods of
inductive research regarding resilience development (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The
process enabled the grounded theory to materialize through data collection and analysis
rather than beginning with pre-fabricated assumptions, and emergence of the grounded
theory expressed the resulting assemblage of data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008).
INTANGIBLE
DATA
SCHOLARLY
RESEARCH
Ideas
Relevant
Theories
Case
Studies
Images
Feelings
Sensations
25. 25
Specific to grounded theory, categories spontaneously emerged from the collected
data as well as through analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, Denzin & Lincoln, 2008;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967/1999). Once sufficient interviews produced data saturation, the
researcher had the opportunity to develop specific generalizations pertinent to
establishing theoretical constructs (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008;
Glaser & Straus, 1967/1999). The open-ended nature of grounded theory inquiry
permitted a substantial amount of data collection associated with the phenomenon
researched (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Glaser & Strauss,
1967/1999). The deductions and infusion of new concepts and ideas created the
opportunity to identify and develop the frameworks that led to a new theory.
Research Questions and Subquestions
Guided by the foundation and ideology of grounded theory research, the study
sought to identify traits that supported formation of a sustainable resilience development
theory, one primary research question, one secondary research question, and four
subquestions were put forward.
Research question 1. What shared concepts will emerge that facilitate the
development of sustainable resilience across organizational, social science, and
educational boundaries?
Research question 2. What shared traits will emerge that facilitate the
development of sustainable resilience across organizational, social science, and
educational boundaries?
Research subquestions. Four subquestions guided the study:
26. 26
1. What shared qualities were exhibited among the respondents that facilitated the
respondents’ ability to overcome adversity?
2. What coping behaviors, strategies, environments, beliefs, or practices foster
effectual resilient practices which promote the ability to overcome adversity?
3. What concepts emerge that may foster the ability for leaders to develop
sustainable resilient practices across the social science, organization and educational
fields?
4. What steps are essential to facilitate the maturity, execution and sustainability of
resilience development?
Theoretical Framework
Multiple leading theories of motivation, positive coping strategies, assessment,
stress-response, hardiness, and emotional intelligence have coexisted for decades
alongside diverse concepts of resilience. Scholars have employed those ideals to
construct valuable meaning in organizational, educational, and social applications
(Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hoge, Austin, & Pollack, 2007). Grounded theory researchers
apply theoretical frameworks to elicit an understanding of subjective phenomena
applying individual’s responses and behaviors to build authenticity (Glaser & Strauss,
1967/1999). Subjective phenomena can be abstracted into conceptual statements
regarding the relationship to the established framework and the data collected from the
individual’s experience and behavior (Glaser & Strauss, 1967/1999).
The theoretical frameworks comprised a series of theories that functioned to
illuminate the relevance of the investigational perspective and how the findings were
interpreted. Encompassing both inductive and deductive processes, the
27. 27
conceptualizations apply pragmatic investigations avoiding preconceived or prefabricated
hypotheses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The notion of resilience has persisted and evolved
for over 75 years, and experienced resurgence over the past two decades (Brown & Ryan,
2003; Hoge et al., 2007). Multifaceted, the study’s theoretical framework finds a
foundation in 1943 with the derivation of the hierarchy of needs as well as Bandura’s
theory on self-efficacy in 1977.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. First discussed in 1943, Maslow revealed that
human needs displayed a tendency to organize in a hierarchy of effectiveness in which
each need was dependent upon a lower-level need to achieve satisfaction for the next
higher need to culminate. Individual health and emotional welfare were dependent upon
specific external and internal factors; for those reasons, adversity, trauma, and several
socio-economic factors influenced one’s ability to cope and work through life issues
(Gorman, 2010; Maslow, 1943; Yeo & Li, 2011). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs acted as
a means of creating a tangible map of milestones to assist a person in achieving the most
from his aptitude or reach a state of self-actualization despite their current environment.
Studies confirmed that individual hardiness or ability to cope directly affected
one’s ability to navigate the hierarchy, likewise without an achievement of the varying
milestones of the hierarchy, the individual was less likely to maintain a resilient nature
(Gorman, 2010; Maslow, 1943; Yeo & Li, 2011). The hierarchy of needs contained a set
of evolutionary, basic human motivations rooted in survival. A complex phenomenon,
over 70 years of ensuing research suggests that the human mind possesses the drive to
endure and each person possesses that same opportunity to unveil this phenomenon with
assistance.
28. 28
Self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) described self-efficacy as the individual ability to
discover and call upon skills, and motivate oneself to perform at high performance levels
resulting in achievement. Despite circumstance, self-efficacy ultimately drives the
process that determines how the individual responds to adversity. Several factors
encompass the makeup of self-efficacy to include individual ethic, attitude, feeling, and
motivation (Bandura, 1977). Vital to success over adversity, self-efficacy effectively
changes how a person deals with adversity. Extrinsic motivations, and more
significantly, intrinsic motivations increase sustainability, dedication, and loyalty to face
challenge; permitting timely recovery.
Framework. Overlap existed among many of the theories related to resilience
(Hoge et al., 2007). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs contained components self-efficacy
and motivation. The varied paradigms and implications concerning resilience
encouraged and validated the call for additional research to advance understanding of
resilience and sustainable resilience development (Hoge et al.). Several implications
resulting from Maslow’s and subsequent scholarly research arose. Scholars suggested
that the human psyche was capable of more for as long as individuals could understand,
describe, classify, and achieve specific human motivations throughout a lifetime
(Gorman, 2010, Maslow, 1943; Yeo & Li, 2011). Significant to a positive outcome, e.g.,
overcoming adversity, adaptable paradigms drive the mitigation or elimination of the
potential for the individual to succumb to adverse situations (Bandura, 1977).
Definition of Terms
The development of a grounded theory requires a strong understanding of the
conceptions and classifications that will be studied (Creswell, 2002). Defining resilience,
29. 29
success, and failure with consistency and within the scope of the grounded theory
research is significant. Definitions may vary within the professional and personal
paradigms; a foundation for understanding is pivotal to the grounded theory investigation.
For the purpose of this research, crucial terms are defined below:
Defining resilience in the educational setting. For the purposes of this research
study, the identification of resilience as it pertains to organizational, educational, and
social services settings is substantial. Peck, Roeser, Zarret, and Eccles (2008) defined
educational resilience as the unforeseen and positive achievements acquired among
students who faced several diverse risk factors that include social, economic, and
emotional adversity. According to Peck et al. (2008), a focus on academic achievement
as a means of determining success is not enough; rather the value of sustained mental
health, and the social aspects of educational resilience are paramount to achieving the
educational resilience of youth.
Defining resilience as it pertains to the social services. Social science and
psychological definitions of resilience are similar in character: the ability to endure,
overcome, and thrive despite hardship, physically, emotionally, and socially. According
to Walsh (2002), individuals and families experience a self-motivated practice where the
individuals address adversity and develop coping methods that permit them to endure
hardships. Echterling, Presbury, and McKee (2005) discovered that despite significant
risk, accessible and supportive resources contribute to the potential of an individual to
address hindrances and sustain a resilient nature. Psychologists and neuroscientists agree
there are some people who respond to adversity in a manner that permits the ability to
thrive, whereas some who face the same adversity do not (Ogden et al., 2006).
30. 30
The answers, according to psychological research, indicate that a person’s
disposition (pre-determined by the limbic system) and experience (knowledge and
understanding) affect an individual’s ability to thrive in the face of adversity (Ogden et
al., 2006). The ability to adapt, or flexibility, makes humans unique because adaptation
requires possession of the capacity to choose how one responds to the environment and
the adversity encountered. The resulting resilience is a function of the neo-cortex, a
structure within the brain that deals with behavioral and emotional response (Ogden et
al., 2006). The neo-cortex integrates stimuli with previously obtained information
(experience and education) and derives meaning. Meaning drives the innate ability to
persevere through adversity or provides the logical thought to evoke a particular
emotional response. The phenomenon known as resilience permits individuals to develop
sustainable and continual coping processes; the processes support adaptation, survival,
and the ability to overcome (Ogden et al., 2006).
Fraught with exceptions, the mind’s ability to overcome finds hindrances and
disruptions preventing resilience. Powerful emotions can disrupt an adult’s ability to
overcome and may cause the person to regress or react in a more automatic and primitive
manner (Ogden et al., 2006). Exceptions appear throughout psychological literature;
traumatized individuals are at times least likely to identify signals within themselves and
cope with adversity while some traumatized individuals appear to possess a high degree
of self-awareness and awareness of the world around them (Ogden et al., 2006).
Darwinian theory may explain why some individuals appear to thrive while others do not.
Crucial to species survival, only those that learn to adapt may thrive in an unpredictable
and adverse environment (Ogden et al., 2006).
31. 31
Defining resilience as it pertains to organizations. Organizational resilience
has raised many questions in the leadership and organizational management fields to
consider whether a significant affiliation exists between planning for hardship and
effectual coping behaviors (Crichton et al., 2009; McManus, Seville, Vargo, & Brunsdon,
2008; Somers, 2009). Ogden et al. (2006) revealed through their studies that the more an
individual perceives futility in one’s actions, the less likely one would evoke an effective
emotional response to the adversity. Somers (2009) discovered that a relationship exists
between organizational success and resilient behavior, suggesting a shift from passive
management to a proactive emotional leadership development paradigm; the shift could
strengthen organizational resilience potentially yielding sustainable results. The
collective culture of an environment drives individual responses. Fundamental to
resilience is the ability to limit unproductive coping behaviors and to enhance the human
mind’s capability to respond in a productive manner (Ogden et al. 2006). McManus et al.
(2008) defined organizational resilience as the capacity for an organization to maintain
social perceptiveness, conditional awareness, an adaptive temperament, and the ability to
identify, confront, and manage organizationally unique susceptibility (Somers 2009).
Ogden, et al. (2006) found that organizational support through interpersonal
training to reduce boundary violations, enhance coping skills, increase the individual’s
autonomy and ability to self-regulate amidst chaos, enhance emotional safety, increases
resilience, and organizational success. An inability to apply consistent positive emotional
coping behaviors decreases the likelihood of achieving resilience amidst adverse
circumstance. Cultural barriers provide an added hurdle for many individuals where
norms dictate behavioral practice or inhibit resilience development in such organizations,
32. 32
the individuals who comprise the organization begin to become compliant and
submissive to adverse events and become repeatedly brutalized by the chaos and
immobile with their competitive markets (Ogden et al., 2006).
Defining success. Success is defined as personal satisfaction with the outcome of
a specified goal (Reich et al., 2010; Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Rutter, 2007; Sherman &
Kim, 2002). Whether the satisfaction is focused on achieving a goal or competitive
success, individuals’ understanding of success depends upon their experience with
success (Reich et al., 2010; Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Rutter, 2007, Sherman & Kim,
2002). For the purposes of this study, success was defined as either achieving a goal or
learning from the inability to achieve a goal. An example of this definition in action can
be the college student that fails an algebra test because he or she did not study, and
subsequently chooses to study for the next exam. Learning from one’s mistake makes the
failure a true success.
Defining failure. Failure, in contrast to success, has been defined as a personal
dissatisfaction with an outcome or the act of fracturing beneath stress (Reich et al., 2010;
Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Rutter, 2007; Sherman & Kim, 2002). Individuals, by
nature, define both failure and success in diverse forms. For the purposes of the study,
failure was defined as the conscious choice to give up, give in, or quit when faced with a
stressful event. An example of a true failure as defined for the study happens when a
married couple chooses divorce because they refused to learn to communicate with each
other or seek positive means to learn from their mistakes. The couple chooses to give up
rather than learn from their mistakes as a married couple.
33. 33
Defining adversity. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2005) definitions of success are
(a) a favorable outcome or (b) the attainment of a specified goal. Failure is defined as
fracturing under stress, either extreme or perceived (Success, 2005). Individuals, by
nature, define both failure and success in diverse forms. Although paradigm driven,
individual definitions of success or failure affect personal motivation to endure adversity.
Adversity can be defined as a hostile condition that affected achievement of specified
goals in a positive or negative fashion (Reich et al., 2010, Rudestam & Newton, 2007;
Rutter, 2007, Sherman & Kim, 2002). Individuals face adversity in diverse manners due
to varying coping abilities (Rudestam & Newton, 2007, Rutter, 2007, Sherman & Kim,
2002).
Quantifying adversity, the significance of a trauma, or the power of loss could be
conceived as difficult due to the subjectivity of the experience to the individual or the
organization. Simply, the impact can shift due to the coping skills, understanding,
available resilience models, and training tools. For the purposes of the study, adversity
shall be defined as a stressful time or event perceived or extreme in nature. In the
EBSCO online database more than 129,000 scholarly documents appeared defining
success, failure and adversity as a definitive parameter, revealing detailed explanations of
success, failure and adversity in relation to organizational, educational and psychological
resilience.
Beginning in the 1970s, Van Der Kolk proposed that advances in neuroscience
permitted the discovery of how the human mind processed adversity (as cited in Ogden et
al., 2006). All living creatures large and small have automated responses to inward
bound stimuli from their environment, therefore creating an expected pattern of
34. 34
reactionary behavior. The human mind has the capability beyond the primitive
reactionary response; the brain can create relationships that regulate responses based
upon observation, interpretation, organization and practiced regulation (habit) of the
activating stimulus (Ogden et al., 2006). Though capabilities exist, the mind may not
always have the ability to sustain coping abilities that are extinguishing, allowing
unacceptable behaviors over logic to exhibit in habit or impulse when extreme adversity
appears (Ogden et al., 2006).
The human mind has more of an ability to rationalize rather than eliminate
unacceptable behavior as a matter of survival (Ogden et al., 2006). Manifestations of this
reactionary response are trepidation, apprehension, despondency, vulnerability and the
inability to overcome. Human beings, genetically, have a natural drive to flourish. The
behavior results as a form of evolution and a paradigm shift is the only way to re-activate
the primal urge to thrive. Unique to the individual, the mind creates an understanding of
the world based upon experiences and knowledge. The brain makes connections between
stimuli and the interpretive segments of the brain, thereby organizing responses to the
world and the events that comprise that world. Ultimately, the individual paradigmatic
definitions of adversity, success, and failure guide the individual to the evolutionary rite
of resilient survival (Ogden et al., 2006).
Defining hardiness. Ability to endure unfavorable circumstances despite the
physical and or emotional pain has defined hardiness (Rutter, 2007; Sherman & Kim,
2002). For the purposes of this grounded theory study, hardiness was defined as the
ability to withstand a difficult event, persevering until the need to remain steadfast is no
longer present. Soldiers that endure months of harsh terrain and danger to preserve
35. 35
freedoms until they are released from active duty find the ability to focus on the goal and
deal with the stresses of combat.
Defining overcome. The term overcome has been defined as the ability to prevail
when working through an adverse situation. Psychological research has revealed that
individuals facing adversity attempt to cope in several different manners (Rudestam &
Newton, 2007; Rutter, 2007; Sherman & Kim, 2002). A variety of types of individuals
discover that the ability to overcome is straightforward; for others the ability to overcome
brings about more adversity than they had been prepared to meet (Rudestam & Newton,
2007, Rutter, 2007; Sherman & Kim, 2002). For the purposes of the study, the term
overcome shall be defined as emerging from a difficult event with success despite any
hurdles one may face. An example is the cancer patient facing months of chemotherapy
and radiation that maintains the will to thrive through such tumultuous times despite
becoming very ill and wanting to give up.
Defining cope. Coping is the inner, emotional component of managing a crisis or
adverse event (Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Rutter, 2007; Sherman & Kim, 2002). When
discussing resilience, researchers have revealed that genetic predispositions to overcome
are not the sole determining factors of success. Development of emotional management
of emotional coping skills increases the likelihood of overcoming adversity. Skills to
emotionally manage oneself in the face of intense adversity mitigate the stressors which
cause an individual to emotionally fracture beneath the pressure of the adverse event
(Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Rutter, 2007; Sherman & Kim, 2002). For the purposes of
this study, cope was defined as effective emotional management of adversity. An
appropriate example of this definition as it pertains to the study is the sexual assault
36. 36
victim who discovers new ways to manage posttraumatic stress. If the individual is
unable to manage difficult emotions, he or she seeks help from a certified therapist
instead of giving into the emotional turmoil.
Assumptions
Dissimilar from quantitative research, qualitative research does not engage or
necessitate a requisite identification of theory. The researcher in a qualitative study
collects data on a discrete phenomenon and all analyses relate to that study rather than
generalizing data. Qualitative research focuses on the respondents, their experiences,
their perceptions as well as their interpretation of the studied phenomenon. Rather than
quantifying data, qualitative research applies coding processes to provide descriptive data
for analysis.
The study required the use of technology such as e-mail, telephone interviews, as
well as a computerized secure network to keep and code data. The first assumption was
the respondents would participate fully and honestly throughout the duration of the study;
the grounded theory investigation relied upon a trust that the information shared during
the interview was true. Pivotal to the investigation, the researcher and the respondent
shared a mutual trust; the trust directed the researcher to proceed with interviews based
upon the assumption that the respondents understood their rights, role, and the
confidentiality agreement as well. The second assumption considered that the
organizational leader respondents would value and willingly contribute to the knowledge
base as well as a case study collection.
I centered researcher assumptions upon the literature review concerning human
behavior within the organizational, educational, and social science settings. It was
37. 37
assumed that all the respondents would honestly review their interview transcripts, make
corrections as needed, and approve the information before the transcript was entered into
the record. As the research advanced, I identified a third set of assumptions wherefrom I
worked under. I assumed that the respondents would share their lived experiences and
perspectives with clarity and honesty. I assumed trust was pivotal to the ability to foster
an emotionally safe environment where individuals could share information without the
fear of judgment or pain. The ability to share information candidly assisted the
respondent with feeling connected to the research and promoted voluntary information
sharing. I founded my assumptions upon the respondents understanding of their inner
strengths, weaknesses, goals as well as the goal of the study. Final assumptions within
this study indicated that respondents would (a) evolve to develop inner strengths
beneficial to their personal goals, and (b) have a clear understanding of the definitions
and goal of the study as well.
Scope
The study encompassed adversity-related methods, strategies, practices, and belief
systems engaged by organizational leaders, mental health practitioners, and students.
Identification of themes, traits, strategies, bias, limitations, and methods that specified
meaning toward the resilience phenomenon defined the essence of the study scope. Each
individual respondent must have resided within the selected counties within the State of
Florida. Selection criteria for inclusion in the study were: the individual must have stated
they have overcome adversity and willing to possess hardiness through the interview
process, are willing participants, business leaders with at least 10 years’ experience that
are willing to share their organizational case studies in a candid manner, students enrolled
38. 38
in a local community college, vocational program, or university, educators, mental health
professionals, and any individuals who work within social science, educational, or
business field.
Sample
Sampling was purposive and consisted of individuals self-identified as having
overcome adversity successfully. Respondents were college students at private, public,
community, and vocational colleges and universities, and local business leaders in select
counties within the state of Florida. According to City-Data records (2011), the selected
counties contained 14,556 businesses representing diverse fields including education,
engineering, computer science, medical, and mechanical trades. The study utilized a
purposive sampling technique; data collection ceased when data saturation had been
reached at 87 interviews. Although atypical, the large number of interviews that occurred
to reach data saturation had resulted from the diverse lived experiences of each
respondent. Due to the phenomenon studied, the purposive sample continued until the
data failed to yield substantial and new insights. Purposive sampling was most
appropriate because the study required a sample that focused upon specific components
of the research. The non- probability sample ensured that the grounded theory study
focused upon particular characteristics pertinent resilience and adversity (Guest, Bunce,
& Johnson, 2006).
Limitations
Individuals who have faced adversity may have displayed a broad and varied
range of emotion, coping strategies, behaviors, and beliefs. The potential for limitations
may have existed and were addressed through the study design, the self- reported survey,
39. 39
interviews, and observation of the intricacy of detail (Reich et al., 2010; Rudestam &
Newton, 2007). The investigator interviewed individuals who self-disclosed having
overcome adversity and the study was limited by an individual’s choice to discuss one’s
experiences openly. Adversity manifested in many forms and appeared in trauma,
illness, death, experience, brutality, poverty, divorce, and other forms of loss. The
limitations may have reduced the diverse collection of lived experience because of
individual attitudes and refusal to share precise details of the adversity they had
overcome. The delimitation of respondents’ reticence could not be resolved, but the
limitation was acknowledged throughout data collection, analysis, and by development of
mitigating actions upon completion of the study (Rudestam & Newton, 2007).
The researcher possessed the belief that resilience was teachable; however,
through research, and suspension of personal beliefs, the limitation was remedied. A
practical limitation existed within the study due to the potential for bias in purposive
sampling. The respondents were deliberately selected for the purpose of investigating the
characteristics that comprise resilience therefore the respondents were those who have
faced adversity and overcome. Purposive sampling is selective; therefore the risk of
skewing the sample due subconscious researcher bias does exist. Irrespective, the
potential limitation of the purposive sampling was minimal when acknowledged and
beneficial to the investigation of sustainable resilience development. Resilient individuals
or those that had navigated adversity and overcame could have looked toward the
interviewer for direction when they provided answers. Caution was applied and
maintained to preserve the interviewer’s impartiality during the interview. The threat of
researcher bias and the limitation were reduced through two strategies. Each respondent
40. 40
received a transcription of the interview and had the opportunity to review and change
answers and approved the transcript before the researcher began coding collected data.
The researcher employed the service of the Dedoose qualitative coding software to avoid
contaminating the coding process, mitigating biased conclusions.
Time and the sample size were limitations. The practical limitation of time
constraints created a conceptual limitation that was remedied through continuing data
collection until data saturation had occurred (Reich et al., 2010; Rudestam & Newton,
2007). Several facets encompassed the internal validity of the study. Restricted by size,
the outcome became limited due to the scope of the study, though this is a common
customary limitation of a qualitative study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The scope of the
study required purposive sampling to achieve data saturation pertinent to the research;
that process addressed the conceptual limitation.
Delimitations
The study’s initial sample population was a convenience sample in which
participants were required to meet specific criteria because of time constraints. The
scope of the study tapered to address the study’s limitations and was restricted to
interviewing individuals who had self-disclosed experiencing adversity that kindled the
events leading to overcoming the adversity. The research, therefore, did not address
those who have faced adversity and failed to overcome. The research was delimited to
social services, education, and organizational resilience, therefore research findings may
not apply to larger and more specific demographics without further study.
41. 41
Summary
The goal of chapter 1 was to present the concept of resilience and the implications
of resilience in varied settings through introducing the purpose and background of the
problem, and the nature of this grounded theory study. Reviewing research indicated a
lack of a sustainable resiliency development theory; Chu (2008) and Jensen (2009)
revealed a deficiency and varied definitions of resilience. Scholars and leaders
throughout the organization development, social science, and educational fields have
focused on the identification rather than the development of resilient coping skills which
leaves employers, social workers, and educators without a construct of sustainable
resilience (Avey et al., 2009; Chu, 2008; Miller, 2008; Jensen, 2009; Tugade &
Fredrickson, 2004). The population of the study was limited to individuals who self-
disclosed having overcome adversity, being at least 18 years old, a business leader in
Lake or Sumter County, or being an enrolled student at a private, public, community, or
vocational college or university. After conducting 87 interviews of lived experience of
adversity, responses were analyzed and coded using DeDoose® software, and then
triangulated.
Chapter 2 integrates an examination of the literature relevant to the sequence of
resilience definitions and characteristics, and the implications for understanding the traits
of resiliency across the educational, organizational, and social science fields. Varying
standards and perspectives of selected research on organizational, educational, and
psychological theory between 1940 and 2011 comprise much of Chapter 2. Topics
include resilience, hardiness, emotional development, and motivation.
42. 42
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The purpose of the qualitative grounded theory study was to explore
organizational, educational and social science paradigms of the resiliency phenomenon.
Analysis focused on discovering if the data, collected at home and abroad, would support
creation of a seminal sustainable resiliency development theory that was functional
across all fields of study. Conventionally defined as an essential coping mechanism, the
resilience concept has been applied to those individuals who, despite arduous hardships,
managed to thrive and evade the negative consequences that arose as a result of adversity
(Da Ros-Voseles & Moss, 2007; Bernshausen & Cunningham, 2001; Binet & Simon,
1908/1916; Black & Howard- Jones, 2000). According to Leipold and Greve (2009), the
resilience phenomenon is an alleviating condition that bridges both coping and growth
through perceived adverse circumstances. Previous academic studies indicated the need
to create assimilative processes that encouraged sustainable resiliency development; but
without a consistent theory, the connection between coping skills and individual growth
has remained elusive (Leipold & Greve, 2009).
Ogden et al., (2006) addressed the interpersonal impact of neurobiology when
considering the functions of trauma, adversity and resilience in relation to one’s
emotional welfare. Neurobiology, for the purpose of this grounded theory study, was
defined as the adaptive processes that the human brain engaged to function and regulate
stability in all environments. Integrating diverse systems included the social state,
psychological state, lived experiences, concepts, theories and scholarly studies to provide
43. 43
a more flexible, adjustable, motivated, and stable paradigm for encouraging the
development of resilience (Ford, 2012; Folkman, 2008; Ogden et al., 2006, Cheng, 2001).
Heading Search
The heading search consisted of 257 references comprised of 189 peer reviewed
journal articles, 3 popular works, 33 germinal/seminal works, 41 reputed academic books
and 10 academic studies. The review of current literature derived information from the
University of Phoenix library and several upstanding scholarly databases (see Table 15).
Preliminary search terms included resilience, resiliency, hardiness, educational coping,
organizational resilience, motivational theory, education, motivational theory and
leadership, motivation, coping skills, adversity, stress, organizational stress and resilient
leadership between 2007 and 2012. Subsequently, the search term criteria expanded to
include seminal research from 1940-2006 for strengthening the reliability of the study.
Chapter 2 research headings include (a) organizational, educational and social science
context, (b) historical overview of resilience, (c) awareness of the resilience phenomenon,
(d) the resilience paradigm, (e) hardiness in organizations, education and social services,
(f) theories on motivation, emotional intelligence, hardiness and stress response, (g)
related theories: grief and logotherapy, (h) cultural bias and resiliency, and a (i) summary
of the literature review. The extensive review assisted with the identification of the
characteristics and coping strategies necessary to create a foundation theory of
sustainable resiliency development across the fields of leadership, organizations, social
sciences and education.
44. 44
Organizational, Educational and Social Science Contexts
Organization. Substantiation of organizational traits and coping skills that
accounted for the ability to remain resilient through tumultuous circumstances appeared
in an array of academic studies and often revealed factors significant to all organizational
fields of study (McManus et al., 2008). While varying issues contributed to
organizational hardiness McManus et al., (2008) discovered two key factors that impact
hardiness; the two factors include primal emotional strength to the development of
supportive relationships inside and outside the organization. Overall, development of key
skills on the job increased the likeliness of resilience to include communication, financial
independence and ethic, problem solving, and positive behavior. Fostering resilience
increased the potential for achieving organizational goals, increased financial gain,
employee happiness, increased productiveness, increased customer relations and the
ability to stand out among competitors within their respective markets (McManus et al.,
2008; Hira & Loibl, 2005).
Contextually, the most significant result of a resilient organization was the ability
to rebuild after a debilitating crisis. A resilient organization survived; it managed to
thrive despite the hardships retaining some of the best people within their respective
fields. Recruiting, developing, and retaining high quality individuals who could endure
the chaos of tumultuous times was essential to the growth, financial stability, and overall
happiness of the workforce. Stress free environments developed as a result of low
turnover; low turnover was one positive result of a resilient organization (Bass, 2008,
Dickinson & Comstock, 2009).
45. 45
Decision makers affected by perpetual debilitating states as well as inflexible and
chaotic paradigms in the organization could become entrapped in a survival state far
beyond the initial adverse event, depleting the organization’s ability to overcome. The
application of impartial, logical, coherent and productive problem solving processes
allowed for a smooth assimilative organizational progression through the chaotic
experience (Holosko, 2009; Heppner, 2008; Ogden et al., 2006). General Motors (GM),
established in 1908, fell prey to adverse events 101 years later (Adler, 2009; Townsend,
Cavusgil, & Baba, 2010). Once a powerhouse in the automotive market, poor leadership
and a culture of avoidance accelerated the failure of GM in 2009 (Adler, 2009; Townsend
et al., 2010). To the shock of many investigators, six factors that had characterized GM’s
previous success were chronically ignored which perpetuated failure. Integrity,
Table 1
Keyword Search: Number of Sources Cited by Topic and Type
Topic
Peer
Reviewed
Articles
Dissertations Books
Empirical
Studies
Popular
Works
TOTAL
Adversity 5 0 2 1 0 8
Business Field 21 3 7 1 0 32
Coping Skills 9 0 0 1 0 10
Educational Field 17 6 3 2 0 28
Germinal Research 29 0 3 1 0 33
Motivation 9 0 2 0 0 11
Resilience 41 2 5 2 1 51
Social Science Field 27 0 8 2 0 37
Stress 17 1 0 0 2 20
Theory 14 0 11 0 0 25
TOTAL 189 12 41 10 3 257
46. 46
adaptation, vision, innovation, open paradigms and personal initiative marked the
successful global market domination of GM and a lack thereof marked the fall of GM as
well (Boss, 1994; Adler, 2009; Townsend et al., 2010).
General Motors declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11, reorganizing over a period
of two years because the culture and leadership had lost the skills to face tough economic
conditions (Adler, 2009; Townsend et al., 2009). Since 2009, a dynamic restructure
within the core or infrastructure of GM has assisted the organization to regain a
competitive edge in the automotive market (Adler, 2009; Townsend et al., 2010).
Redevelopment of the culture at GM created an environment in which the six key skills
supported a resilient or thriving organization in the face of adversity, therefore mitigating
previously perpetuated dynamic and debilitating states (Adler, 2009; Townsend et al.,
2010).
Education. Students’ resilience and hardiness correlates to academic
achievement and the ability to harness the motivation necessary to engage the challenges
of the educational environment. Many individuals, whether the individuals are the
educators or the students, feel obliged to position themselves to react in a particular
manner to hurdles or adversity. In the educational setting impulsivity inhibits resilient,
resilience requires a proactive approach (Peck et al., 2008; Plunkett, Henry, Houltberg,
Sands, Abarca-Mortenson, 2008; Sacker & Schoon, 2007). Challenges increase if the
student exhibits traits of a learning disability, has grown up in an educationally
disadvantaged background and has little support at home (Plunkett et al, 2008; Sacker &
Schoon, 2007).
47. 47
These hurdles did not necessarily mean the student would fail in the face of
adversity. Many of these students use these hurdles as a means of propelling themselves
into successful endeavors (Daydov, Stewart, Ritchie & Chaudieu, 2010; Peck et al., 2008;
Plunkett et al., 2008; Sacker & Schoon, 2007). Coping skills and traits such as hardiness
or resilience prevail in research concerning reduction of attrition and dropout rates and
the ability of a student to overcome personal and academic tragedy. Integrating whole-
body and perception-based systems (shown in Figure 3) affords the classroom teacher an
opportunity to link implicit and explicit memory regarding adversity with mindfulness or
whole-brain processing to promote an individual’s ability to overcome (Bernhausen &
Cunningham, 2001; Binet & Simon, 1908/1916; Black & Howard-Jones, 2000).
Ultimately the process leaves educators with the potential to develop
psychological resilience within their students. The nature of orienting students and
educators to these types of changes and opportunities requires a significant amount of
data to be collected, analyzed and applied through carefully guided actions (Blanton et
al., 2006; Bobek, 2002; Bondy et al., 2007; Blashak, 2010). Consideration of teacher
education has begun to be the focus of school districts as test scores drop, student crime
rises, and the ability for students to achieve success is hindered by societal influence
(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2006).
48. 48
Mindfulness is the ability to focus on the current moment through the processing
of physical sensations as well as emotions. Implicit and explicit memories are facets of
an individual’s long term memory or ability to recollect. Located in the unconscious
brain (reaction-based), implicit memories aid in one’s ability to perform while explicit
memories are the individual’s mindful attempt to integrate previous experiences into their
current circumstance (Blanton et al., 2006; Bobek, 2002; Bondy et al., 2007). Multiple
researchers found that educators who trained students to develop and apply the students’
explicit memories to solve problems were more likely to succeed in the academic setting.
Educators have to find innovative ways to blend the technology into the problem solving
activities to retrain the brains of their students to develop a more resilient generation
(Boyd, 2005, Breslin, 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2007; Burke, 2000).
EXPERIENCES
Conscious
(explicit
memories)
Unconscious
(implicit
memories)
AWARENESS
Mindful and
whole-brain
processing
DEVELOPMENT OF RESILIENCE
Healing
Coping
Figure 3. Goals of integrative action. Adapted from Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor
approach to psychotherapy by P. Ogden, K. Minton, & C. Pain (2006), New York, NY:
W. W. Norton. Copyright 2006 by Pat Ogden/Norton. Adapted with permission.
49. 49
Researchers had signified that school leadership faced a prevailing trend of
leaders who lacked the coping skills to overcome adversity in the educational
environment (Farmer, 2010). Communally inequitable, modern school reform and current
educational strategies left a force of leaders unable to sustain positive change or deal with
change effectively. The discovery and development of positive coping strategies,
sustainable resiliency development may assist school leaders with driving positive reform
that influence the growth of educators as well as the growth of students (Bernhausen &
Cunningham, 2001; Binet & Simon, 1908./1916; Daigneault, Cyr, & Tourigny, 2007).
Adversity tends to jeopardize one’s ability to integrate experiences intentionally
and the unconscious mind creates immediate and uncontrolled responses to adverse
events based upon implicit memories. This concept is easily explained by an individual’s
upbringing, if one is raised in an environment where danger lurks after dark then the
individual will associate bad events with the evening hour (Hayes, Strosahl & Wilson,
1999; Boyd, 2005; Breslin, 2005; Burden & Byrd, 2007; Burke, 2000). In the education
context, leaders identified that an opportunity existed with the creation and development
of resiliency programs in the academic environment. Educational leadership is taxed
with discovering innovative ways of integrating resilience lessons and opportunities into
established, mandated curriculum. With little money and leeway to stray from protocol,
strict policy restricts leadership from enacting many initiatives without state approval.
Leadership must become creative and has learned to collaborate with educators and the
community (Collison, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 1999; Combes-Malcom, 2007; Justice &
Espinoza, 2007; Mohr, Wickstrom, Bernhausen, Mathis & Patterson, 2003; Peck et al.,
2008; Plunkett et al., 2008; Sacker & Schoon, 2007). School resiliency programs
50. 50
encouraged student success academically, socially, and emotionally when implemented
and supported among educators, families, and district leaders.
Social Science. Research regarding individual resilience in human development
over 20 years has produced the understanding that the phenomenon takes on many forms
depending upon the trauma. Clients and mental health personnel alike are barraged with
stimuli from their environment; the information they must process, understand, endure
and make sense of comes in the form of an inundation rather than in a smooth endurable
pace (Lyttle, Ostrove, & Cassady, 2011; Masten & Obradovic, 2008). Resilience
encompasses the deflection of stress, and endurance, motivation, recovery and growth.
Countering deflection, sifting out too much stimuli or information may force the
individual onto a path where the person cannot respond to the crisis appropriately.
Sorting information in a traumatized state is essential, whether the adversity is
happening in the current moment or the past; orienting the conscious self to the strengths,
environment, and current needs may permit the ability to overcome. Many factors
affecting individual experiences form in the unconscious mind, influencing individual
resilience and how the individual chooses to interact with a perceived trauma (Lyttle et
al., 2011; Masten & Obradovic, 2008; Baum & Nowicki, 1998). The less flexible an
individual paradigm becomes, the less likely that the individual could consciously
(explicitly) engage appropriate coping skills to allow the implicit mind to connect past
experiences.
Connecting past experiences is significant for facilitating survival, emotionally
and physically (Ogden et al., 2006, Bar- On, 2000; Folkman & Lazurys, 1988). In
context, a resiliency theory could provide mental health practitioners with the tools
51. 51
necessary to develop resilience in their clients who do not possess the skills to overcome
a multitude of atrocities (Lyttle et al., 2011; Barbee, Antle, Sullivan, Huebner, Fox, &
Hall, 2009; Masten & Obradovic, 2008).
Historical Overview of Resilience
As early as the 1970s, resilience appeared in numerous works of academic
literature. Early definitions of resilience described the phenomena as a measure of
sustainable systems and their capability to adapt while maintaining necessary
relationships through varying disturbances (Holling, 1973; Eschelman, Bowing &
Alarcon, 2010). The definition expanded from the celled organism to include
organizational structures, emotional strength and educational phenomena. Significant to
resilience, even cell structures have learned to become hardy.
Human beings possess an advanced adaptive feature, emotional capacity. Many
individuals appear to have an inherent link to hardy behavior while many must learn;
some must have those skills supported while many live their lives under oppression and
continue to overcome (Holling, 1973; Lang & Bliese, 2009; Luther & Cicchetti, 2000;
Schwalbe, 2008). Despite the expansion of the definitions, resilience remained consistent
in definition within the defining characteristics.
The perception of resilience appears to take many forms depending upon the
individual, organizational, or educational capacity to understand or apply modifying
coping behaviors throughout chaotic experiences. The capability to become freely
acquainted with the generalizations of resilience i.e., the ability to overcome has created a
consensus among scholars (Holling, 1973; Berowitz, 1989; Bachman & Comeau, 2010).
The resulting works have created a steadfast resolve to avoid a capricious understanding
52. 52
of resilience and adaptable consideration that crosses a multitude of academic fields
(Lang & Bliese, 2009, Schwalbe, 2008; Luther et. al, 1973).
Sir Winston Churchill once stated that the key difference between humankind’s
successes and failures was perseverance that manifests itself repeatedly as resolve or the
willingness to endure (Stewart, 2007). Perseverance appears to be an historical
cornerstone of the concept now characterized as resilience. Innumerable stories and
investigations regarding perseverance have intrigued researchers and non-research
personnel alike in the pursuit of understanding the strength that some individuals
possessed in comparison to others (Jensen, 2009; Katz, Kravitz & Grynbaum, 2005;
Kato, 2012). The interest in resilience has peaked since the 1980’s through 2012 from
the layperson and professional alike. The significance of the resilience phenomenon
surpassed interest in all other popular coping techniques available because resilience
appeared impermeable to adversity. Adversity made individuals stronger and more
dedicated in their attempts to thrive (Folkman, 1997; Cheng, Yang, Jun, & Hutton, 2007;
Fisher, 2009).
History has shown the multiple natures of the human race and individuals’
capabilities. Humans are in constant conflict with their environment in all dimensions:
spiritual, physical, interpersonal, intellectual, emotional, and environmental. Often
people mystified themselves with how consistent their behaviors and interactions
remained, yet times existed in which one was able to achieve far beyond perceivable
expectations (Chenot, Benton, & Kim, 2009; Coates, 1998). From Biblical times to the
present day, humanity has been able to harness the emotional power of good nature,
dedication, and faith to construct a resolve that could overcome any hurdle despite
53. 53
incredible odds. Human nature however, led people to underestimate the strength of
resilience. The psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud suggested that the human brain works in a
consistent state of awareness and understanding, but without reasonable explanation, the
brain fails to compute the significance of exposing oneself to risk.
Awareness of the Resilience Phenomenon
Scholars sought the answer to one question: What predicts positive outcomes for
trauma survivors? The answer resounded with the development of resilience, the
sustainable method people have used to survive adversity, and reclaim and maintain a
positive quality of life. Personality indicators and individual susceptibilities determined
the intensity and sustainability of both positive and negative outcomes (Antonovsky,
1979; Reich et al., 2010). Resilience is a term that individuals and researchers may mask
with ideal concepts such as hardiness or emotional strength (Holling, 1973; Lang &
Bliese, 2009; Atkinson, Martin, & Rankin, 2009; Luther & Cicchetti, 2000; Schwalbe,
2008). Literature regarding survivors of the Holocaust, prisoners of war, victims of
violent crime, adults or children from abusive backgrounds, etc. comprised the majority
of focal studies about survival. Although often secondary, resilience or a similar concept
appeared to be a common ability of those individuals who survived hardships versus
individuals who could not overcome (Holling, 1973; Lang & Bliese, 2009; Luther &
Cicchetti, 2000; Schwalbe, 2008).
After a long-standing debate in the academic community about whether resilience
is learned or the result of genetic traits, studies have affirmed that resilience is both a
genetic predisposition and a learned trait. Psychologically, the human brain has the
propensity to retain, judge, and determine connecting significance between what has
54. 54
happened, and what actions must follow to achieve safety (Afifi, Asmundson, Taylor, &
Lang, 2010; Cohen, 2006; Zautra, Hall, & Murray, 2008). Pivotal to resilience,
adaptation in the presence of adversity is a key behavior and resilient behavior is more
common than expected. However, a false belief existed that resilient individuals did not
experience the struggles, hardships and agony that non- resilient individuals suffered.
Emotional distress frequented all individuals whether a resilient nature existed within
their capabilities or not (Kallgren & Wood, 1986; Liptak, 2005). Because resilience did
not require an innate trait to exist, a person could learn how to exhibit the behaviors and
coping skills that comprise the phenomenon.
Researchers conducted studies on twin siblings and resilience as it pertained to
bouncing back or thriving in the face of adversity. Twin studies suggested that whereas
resilience may result from a predisposed genetic trait, it may also have the potential for
development. Peak performance regarding emotional coping appeared to involve both
the physical and the emotional aspects of the human condition. Memories are triggered;
satisfying moments appeared to release a meditative state that activated both a
psychological and physiological reaction allowing adaption to the environment (Affifi et
al., 2010; Zautra et al., 2008). Academics appeared to embrace the significance of
developing resilient individuals, including leaders, through learning, whether the
academic field of study is social science, education, or the organization. While the
concepts varied regarding resilience and the methods of development were vast, the goal
appeared to move toward a behavioral system of success. An action-based system
produced more successful outcomes than passive, reactive based systems or “after the
fact” interventions (Daus & Ashkanasy; 2005; Kirkhaug, 2010; Knight, 2007).
55. 55
A grounded theory study conducted regarding shame and resilience in adulthood
(Van Vliet, 2008) discussed the emotional functions and advancement of the individual
throughout their adult life. Several implications existed within the study suggesting a
diverse set of mental health issues impacted the development of resilience when shame
interfered with daily living. Van Vliet (2008) discussed the clinical impact resulting from
prolonged feelings of indignity and shame; post-traumatic stress disorder, depression,
suicidal ideations are a few of the psychological disorders which inhibit the capacity to
engage resilient behavior. The ability to recover from the trauma of shame and re-develop
a resilient mindset became more difficult for the individual as well as for the mental
health professional to achieve. The data collected was based on the experiences of 13
respondents and their individual experiences with trauma. The researcher discovered that
self-concept, support, and a loss or sense of control influenced resilience. Based upon the
research the Shame resilience theory suggested an approach of connection with self and
others, changing ones mindset, acceptance of oneself and situation, and the ability to
understand and resist the feelings of shame. Implications for further research and
psychotherapy were discussed within the study as well (Van Vliet, 2008).
Grafton, Gillespie, and Henderson (2010) conducted a study to advance the
understanding of the resilience phenomenon as an inner force and vigor with the potential
to reduce workplace stress. The study focused upon the workplace stress of oncology
nurses and the significance of handling the day to day strain. Resilience, as the
researchers discovered, existed to some degree in each individual in an innate form
revealing the phenomenon through particular characteristics and abilities to cope. Some
individuals displayed higher degrees of resilience while others did not display high
56. 56
degrees of resilience as they faced adversity. The research concluded that innate
resilience could be advanced or brought about through extensive cognitive processes
where psychological transformation, practice, knowledge, and support are available on a
consistent basis. Without consistency, amending the effects of trauma, adversity, or
workplace stress may not be possible.
The Journal of Clinical Psychology released a study conducted in 2002 regarding
a resilience meta- theory. The theory was presented in three separate breaks; the first
break discussed the qualities associated with resilience developed through adversity such
as optimism, self- control and morality. The second break or wave investigated how the
resilient qualities could be developed or gained. Richardson (2002) proposed that there is
a biological, psychological, and spiritual connection to the development of resilience.
Adversity and change is disruptive; because adversity is disruptive, it influences more
than one aspect of life suggesting descriptive ways to reintegrate resilient behaviors into
everyday practice. The final stage or wave highlighted the varying views of the resilience
phenomenon in contemporary research. The power that drives a person to grow through
adversity and the disruption that ensues became the collective understanding.
Meaning and the sense of coherence (SOC) theory. Antonovsky (1979)
developed SOC, positing that durability of hardy behavior depended upon three elements:
comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness. Less than 40 years old, the SOC
theory provides many insightful paths to understanding how some individuals managed
to thrive through difficulties. Extensively studied, individuals who display higher levels
of SOC possess strong emotional health and are more likely to sustain resilient behavior
through extreme stressors (Antonovsky, 1979, Reich et al., 2010).
57. 57
Individuals cope with a variety of stressors in a number of ways that inherently
determine whether response to a trauma would reveal itself in the manner of less effectual
coping behaviors (Antonovsky; 1979, Reich et al., 2010). Clinical findings indicated that
individuals who have the most difficulty processing stressors lack the ability to fuse their
experiences into meaning. Researchers revealed that spirituality or religious conviction
operate as a parallel strategy to the individual capacity to derive meaning from a
challenging circumstance (Antonovsky, 1979; Floyd & Widaman, 1995; Reich et al.,
2010). The derivation of meaning remains a primary facet of overcoming adversity and
sustaining resilience. Built into the human genome is the inherent need to discover
meaning in all circumstances, good and bad. While a wide range of cognitive and
behavioral outcomes varied among survivors of trauma, the implications suggested that a
religious belief or spirituality facilitated the assimilation of sustainable resilient behaviors
and the reduction of intense emotional stress and destruction (Antonovsky, 1979; Reich
et al., 2010).
Feeling connected, a crucial factor in the development and sustainability of
resilient behavior, is how individuals process the adversity and the meaning they derive
from surviving the circumstance (Antonovsky, 1979; Bondy & Ross, 2008; Reich et al.,
2010). Otherwise known as optimism, these beliefs and behaviors, in comparison to
pessimism and feelings of hopelessness, have broad benefits which reduce the
development of coronary disease; therefore affecting individual mortality. An important
aspect of many world cultures, spirituality has been shown to aid the individual to pursue
meaning amidst adversity (Antonovsky, 1979, Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2010).
