Organizational Resilience: Key Factors to ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ overcome and survive a Business Crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Learnings from a family owned business in Crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Támara Piedrahíta Seifert ​ ​ ​ ​

Main field of study - Leadership and Organization ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Degree of Master of Arts (60 credits) with a Major in Leadership and Organization ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Master Thesis with focus on Leadership and Organization for Sustainability (OL646E), 15 credits ​ ​ Autom 2017 ​ ​ Supervisor: Hope Witmer, Ph.D ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1 Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the unconditional support of my family, Susi, Evaristo, Palma and Macarena, and my swedish family, Luz, Markus, Victoria and Isabella. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

I would like to give thanks to Malmö University for accepting me as a student in its Master program: Leadership for Sustainability. It has been challenging and extremely rewarding. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

One year has passed and this programme provided my academic development with immensely valuable knowledge. Thank you to all professors who guided me through this process, specially to Hope Witmer who acted as a mentor and guided this study as an advisor. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

I would also like to thank Susi Panadería and all interviewees who participated; without their openness and collaboration, this research would not exist. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Finally I would like to thank Ken Townsend, Grace Uribe and Sara Lee for their great and valuable comments during the whole research process. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This thesis is dedicated to my parents. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

2

3 Abstract BACKGROUND: Organizations are not prepared for crisis and are vulnerable to disruptive changes. SMEs, and organizations in general, are key elements of our society and need to learn how to be resilient, in order to be sustainable. A case study was used to explore key organizational resilience factors to overcome a business crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ OBJECTIVE: Explore through the theoretical lense of organizational resilience, how the studied SME was lead and organized during crisis towards a sustainable business outcome. With the aim to present learnings and recommendations for organizational resilience and sustainability. THE CASE: Business crisis, generated by a fire, consumed 90% of the production plant of an SME (Small and Medium-sized Enterprise) in Colombia. This SME (Susi Bakery) managed to ​ recover completely from the crisis in 7 months. Different perspectives of the stakeholders across the bakery’s network were analyzed to understand the strategy of this SME, to overcome the crisis and be resilient. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ METHODS: Single case-exploratory case study, with in-depth semi-structured interviews to different stakeholders across the Bakery’s network. A theoretical framework in organizational resilience was built and used to answer the research questions: What are the factors that make the analyzed SME (Susi Bakery) a resilient organization? What moved key stakeholders towards engaging the recovery of the business crisis? The analysis of the collected data is based on phenomenography, since stakeholders present different subjective perceptions. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION: Organizational resilience’ theory explored through the case of an SME in Colombia. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ CONCLUSIONS: Resilience strengthens the capabilities to adapt and see disruptive changes as opportunities. Organizations can learn to be resilient through the development of resilient business models' and their enabling factors. Currently, 11 enabling factors for organizational resilience can be found in resilient business models theory: Adaptability and innovation, Motivation, Diversity, Collective efficacy, Effective communication, Loosening of control, Sustained relationships, Minimize layoffs, Financial slack, Competence and Acceptance. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3 Additional enabling factors were found in this case: Leadership, Reciprocity and Reputation. There is a research gap regarding the relations and causalities of the resilient enabling factors, and the relationship between organizational resilience and business crisis management. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Keywords: Organizational resilience, business crisis, leadership, networks, SME. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4 Index Acknowledgements 2

Abstract 4

Index 5

1. Introduction 8 ​ ​ 1.1 Context 8 ​ ​ Figure 1: Line of thought 9 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.1.1 Organizations within sustainable development 9 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.1.2 Resilient organizations towards sustainable development 10 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.1.3 Resilient SMEs 10 ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.2 Complementary concepts 10 ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.2.1 Sustainable development 10 ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.2.2 Triple bottom line 10 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.2.3 Crisis 10 ​ ​ 1.2.4 Organizational resilience 11 ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.2.5 SME 11 ​ ​ 1.3 Susi Bakery, one SME that overcame business crisis 11 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.3.1 Small family owned business, Susi Panadería 11 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 2: Organizational structure 12 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.3.2 The crisis 12 ​ ​ ​ ​ Picture 1: Susi Bakery, before and after. Source: www. facebook.com/susipanaderia 14 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.4 Motivation 14 ​ ​ 1.5 Purpose 14 ​ ​ 1.6 Research questions 15 ​ ​ ​ ​ 2. Theoretical framework 16 ​ ​ ​ ​ 2.1 Organizational resilience 16 ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 3: Organizational resilience research 17 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2.2 Theoretical focus: resilient business models 18 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 4: Supply chain 19 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2.3 Eleven enabling factors in resilient business models theory 20 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1. Adaptability and innovation 20 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2. Diversity 21 ​ ​ 3. Effective communication 21 ​ ​ ​ ​ 4. Loosening of control 21 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5. Sustained relationships 21 ​ ​ ​ ​ 6. Minimize layoffs 21 ​ ​ ​ ​ 7. Financial slack 22 ​ ​ ​ ​ 8. Collective efficacy 22 ​ ​ ​ ​ 9. Competence 23 ​ ​ 10. Motivation 23 ​ ​

5 11. Acceptance 23 ​ ​ Table 1: Enabling factors 24 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3. Methodology 25 ​ ​ 3.1 Research approach and inference 25 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.1.1 Single case study 25 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.1.2 Exploratory approach 26 ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.1.3 Inductive process 26 ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 5: Inductive process 27 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.2 Epistemology and Ontology 27 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.3 Research design 28 ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.4 Role of the researcher 28 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3.5 Limitations 28 ​ ​ 3.6 Ethics 29 ​ ​ 4. Methods 30 ​ ​ 4.1 Data Collection 30 ​ ​ ​ ​ 4.1.1 Selection process 31 ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 6: Relationship-Stakeholder model 32 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4.2 Data analysis 33 ​ ​ ​ ​ 4.2.1 Building a theoretical frame 33 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4.2.2 Data analysis 34 ​ ​ ​ ​ 4.3 Validity and reliability 35 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5. Findings 36 ​ ​ 5.1 Findings using the eleven enabling factors found in resilient business models theory 36 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.1. Adaptability and innovation 36 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.2. Motivation 37 ​ ​ 5.1.3. Diversity 37 ​ ​ 5.1.4. Collective efficacy 38 ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.5. Effective communication 39 ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.6. Loosening of control 40 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.7. Sustained relationships 40 ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.8. Minimize layoffs 42 ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.9. Financial slack 42 ​ ​ ​ ​ 5.1.10. Competence 43 ​ ​ 5.1.11. Acceptance 43 ​ ​ 5.2 Additional resilient enabling factors found in common and recurrent themes within the data. 44 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Leadership 44 Reciprocity 44 Reputation 44

6. Discussion and conclusions 45 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 7: Gap between Organizational resilience and Business crisis 47 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

6 References 50

Appendix 54 1 Interviews 54 ​ ​ Semi-structured interview: 54 ​ ​ 2. Susi Bakery, about the company 54 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Table 2: Additional information for the case 57 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

7 1. Introduction ​ ​ Our society has developed through organizations and these are the basic structure of our society, providing us the capacity to develop (Tolbert & Hall, 2009). Understanding that organizations are key for societal change and development, reinforces the necessity of moving organizations towards sustainability in order to shift towards societal sustainable development (Gunasekaran & Griffin, 2011). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

More specifically, organizations like small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) “are the backbone of the economy (...) and continue to dominate, as the core of economic growth” (Gunasekaran & Griffin, 2011:5489-5490). However, SMEs are not prepared for unexpected events (Gunasekaran & Griffin, 2011; Spillan & Hough, 2003) and rapid changes, which represent the reality of our current society (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) risking their survival. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Based on this issue, this study explores a successful case, of overcoming a business crisis, through the lens of organizational resilience theory. Arguing that, for an SME to be sustainable and last in time, it needs to be resilient to overcome a business crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This document is structured as follows: first, this document presents the context, together with complementary concepts for this study in order to provide a common ground for the reader and the study. Then, it describes the case of Susi Bakery, that will be analyzed later in this study. This section also presents the motivation, the purpose and the research questions for doing this study. ​ ​ ​ ​

Second, Section 2 presents the theoretical framework used to analyze this case. This section guides the reader through the available theory that was organized and put together to analyze the case, and produce the conclusions and recommendations derived from this research. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Third, Sections 3 and 4 present the methodology and methods used to build the research and collect the data, used to explore and analyze the case. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Fourth, Section 5 introduces the findings and analysis of the collected data through the theoretical lens of organizational resilience presented in section 2. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Finally, in section 6 the discussion for further research and conclusions for practical recommendations are presented. In the last sections of this document, the reader can find the references that support this study, together with the appendix that provides additional information about the case and this study. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.1 Context ​ ​

This section explains the context of this research presenting the line of thought followed to develop this study. It starts by presenting in a simple manner the concept of sustainability. Then migrates to the importance of organizations for a sustainable societal development and ends presenting the importance of learning about how organizations can be resilient, and how the chosen case can help add to resilient business models’ theory (See the line of thought in a graphical presentation below). ​ ​ ​ ​

8

Figure 1: Line of thought ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.1.1 Organizations within sustainable development ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Sustainability is a contemporary topic and today is highly debated. Together with the establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals 2017 (SDGs 17), the global international associations are uniting efforts towards the shift of our development to a sustainable one. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Sustainability is often understood as “environmentally friendly” practices, but the common definition leaves behind key aspects of this complex concept. Many organizations and corporations communicate their efforts related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and usually these are focused on social and environmental responsibility (Werther & Chandler, 2011). However, during this research, sustainability is understood by integrating the definition of sustainable development presented by Werther and Chandler (2011) and the triple bottom line model (Elkington, 2004). First, sustainable development is defined as “ development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 41). Second, sustainability, from a triple bottom line model perspective, has three interconnected and interdependent topics: social, environmental and economic responsibility (Elkington, 2004). In other words, for an organization to be sustainable, theory suggests a balance of this three topics and acting responsible regarding the impacts of their actions (Werther & Chandler, 2011). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As mentioned before, sustainability is a complex and broad concept; this study will focus on sustainability from an organizational perspective. Since organizations are the basic structure of our society and provide us the capacity to develop (Tolbert & Hall, 2009), it is necessary to build organizations that are sustainable, in order to reach a sustainable development. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

9 1.1.2 Resilient organizations towards sustainable development ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In today's reality characterized by rapid change, “organizations face increasingly complex and incomprehensible environments” (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003:99)”. Therefore, they need to learn how to cope with unanticipated changes (Williams et al., 2017; and Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) in order to be sustainable over time. Drastic changes can compromise the survival of the organization by provoking business crisis. Organizations can adapt to the environment and have a better chance to overcome a business crisis, by developing characteristics of organizational resilience (Williams et al., 2017; Linnenluecke, 2017; Gittell et al., 2006; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; and Hamel & Valikangas, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Organizational resilience is defined as “the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions” (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003:95), and the capacity to bounce back and recover from adversity (Linnenluecke, 2017). This is how organizational resilience can guide the exploration of how organizations are able to respond and recover fast from adversity (Linnenluecke, 2017; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.1.3 Resilient SMEs ​ ​ ​ ​

As mentioned before, SMEs play a relevant role in the economy and societal development. But, in general, they are not well prepared for dealing with unexpected events (Gunasekaran & Griffin, 2011; Spillan & Hough, 2003). This shows that there is a need for learning ways of how SMEs can be prepared to overcome unexpected change, and with it be sustainable over time.

With this in mind, this study focuses on the case of one SME that successfully overcame a business crisis reaching a sustainable outcome of financial equilibrium. The section 1.3 presents the Susi Bakery case that will we analyzed throughout this study. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.2 Complementary concepts ​ ​ ​ ​

This section presents concepts that are complementary and useful to understand this study. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.2.1 Sustainable development ​ ​ ​ ​

Sustainable development is defined as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 41). ​ ​ ​ ​

1.2.2 Triple bottom line ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The triple bottom line model (TBL), has three interconnected and interdependent topics: social, environmental and economic responsibility (Elkington, 2004). It represents in a visual and simple way the definition of sustainability; in the sense that shows sustainable development as a balance between the economy, the people and the environment. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

10 1.2.3 Crisis ​ ​

The concept of crisis is defined in this study as a synonym of catastrophe, defined as “an event causing great and usually sudden damage or suffering. A large-scale disaster” (Hagen et al., 2013:1063).

1.2.4 Organizational resilience ​ ​ ​ ​

Resilience is the positive adaptability of a system and capacity to overcome quickly the negative effects of change and risk exposure or to resist damage (Hagen et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015), while retaining the essence of the system’s structure, function and identity; while becoming stronger and more resourceful (Walker et al., 2004; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). In other words, resilience refers to the capacity of a system to bounce back to equilibrium after being displaced (Hagen et al., 2013), responding with speed and determination (Bell, 2002). Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) suggest that resilience are processes and dynamics that lead to the creation or retention of resources in a “flexible, storable, convertible, and malleable” way, as a result resilient organizations can successfully learn and cope with unexpected situations and perceive challenges as opportunities (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). (This concept can be found in a more detailed description in section 2). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.2.5 SME ​ ​

Small and Medium size Enterprises (SMEs), are companies that employ between 50–200 1 people (Gunasekaran & Griffin, 2011) and have assets valued between 501-5000 minimum Colombian wages (MinCit, May 2017). SMEs “are the backbone of economy in many countries (...) and continue to dominate as the core of economic growth and therefore, their resilience is critical to be competitive in the global market of the twenty-first century” (Gunasekaran & Griffin, 2011:5489-5490). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.3 Susi Bakery, one SME that overcame business crisis ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.3.1 Small family owned business, Susi Panadería ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Susi Panadería, which translates to Susi Bakery, is an SME family business, in the food ​ ​ ​ industry located in Medellín, Colombia. This bakery was founded thirty years ago by a German entrepreneur, born in Colombia. The owner founded the bakery after returning to Colombia, having completed her studies in pastry and bakery in Germany. Through the years, the company grew and with it, the complexity of the administrative and managerial processes. This is when, the husband of the owner gradually started to get involved in the development of the bakery, to later join the organization as the CEO (joined in 2002) (this information was gathered throughout the interviews and the company's online resources). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The bakery sells its products at a national level through the main supermarket chains, but the only production plant is located in the city of Medellín. It also has direct contact with its customers through their shops; open in two different commercial malls. The company has had a transformation, regarding the focus and strategy of the products, starting with artisan bread and cakes to packaged healthy snacks and premixes for restaurants and hotels. Their

1 Salario Mínimo Mensual Legal Vigente (SMMLV). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 11 commercial promise is selling products free of conservatives and chemicals, “products that taste delicious, and are natural and good for you” (Susi Bakery, 2015). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The bakery has been given several recognitions for the quality of its products, and more recently was given an innovation prize for the best innovation concept in the city (see Appendix 2). ​ ​

Up to June 2016, the company employed 45 persons and had total assets valued between 2 501-5000 minimum Colombian wages (MinCit, May 2017), which qualifies it as an SME (as 3 stated by the Colombian ministry of commerce and industry ). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The organizational structure of the company (June 2016) can be observed in the figure below (Figure 2). ​ ​

Figure 2: Organizational structure ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.3.2 The crisis ​ ​ ​ ​

On August the 3rd 2016, at 2am the owner and CEO were called to be informed that the production warehouse of the bakery was burning. The firemen’ report was that 90% of the warehouse, together with machinery and office furniture had burned and was not able to be recovered.

The owner and CEO, together with the management team, contacted the employees and informed them about the fire. That same morning at 7am, most of the employees were outside the (now burned) building confused and uncertain of what would happen next. The CEO informed the employees that they were welcome to work, once they would know how they would manage the situation, and also invited them to make a decision (regarding staying or leaving) based on their priorities. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2 Salario Mínimo Mensual Legal Vigente (SMMLV). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3 Colombian ministry of commerce and industry (MinCit): http://www.mipymes.gov.co/publicaciones/2761/definicion_tamano_empresarial_micro_pequena_medi ana_o_grande 12

Different meetings started to occur, during the next days, with different stakeholders of the bakery (insurance, some suppliers, employees, service providers), and were focused on deciding what to do next and how to handle the crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The three first steps that were taken after the fire, were on insurance management (acquaintances with knowledge about insurance were contacted), communication strategy (direct, through phone and mail, with main customers and clients, and through social media to the community of consumers), and production infrastructure (1. Reconstruction of the warehouse, 2. Search for suitable location to produce while reconstructing). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Unexpected external persons, friends and family started contacting the bakery and offering help in different forms of resources. Stakeholders such as suppliers, customers and consumers showed support in different ways: some service providers stopped charging for their services during the crisis, suppliers expanded the debt quota for the bakery, clients improved and renegotiated payment agreements, external persons across the country donated all types of resources (desks, computers, money, office furniture, etc), and consumers posted pictures in social media with the products of the bakery together with messages of hope and appreciation. (Appendix 2; Table 2 provides links with additional information about the case). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

7 Months later, on March 3rd. 2017, Susi Bakery was celebrating the opening of the rebuilt production warehouse and the end of the business crisis (see picture below and Appendix 2, Table 2). This case is considered a success story because, only 10 days after the bakery experienced the fire, it was producing; even without having their own warehouse available to produce. It did not get out of business after losing 90% of its production infrastructure, and 1 year after the fire, it was selling through new commercial channels and having night shifts (given the big size of the orders). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

13 The picture below shows the burned warehouse in 2016 and the reconstructed warehouse in 2017.

Picture 1: Susi Bakery, before and after. Source: www. facebook.com/susipanaderia ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.4 Motivation ​ ​

After experiencing in an active way the business crisis and the process of recovery of Susi Bakery, and being able to observe how stakeholders got involved in the process of overcoming the crisis, and repeatedly hearing people commenting that it was a special case, the researcher was curious to explore and understand through a leadership for sustainability perspective, the factors that made it possible for the Bakery to overcome this crisis and have a better understanding of why stakeholders wanted to help. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1.5 Purpose ​ ​

To explore the Susi Bakery case, through the lens of organizational resilience, in order to understand the characteristics that allowed this SME to achieve a resilient outcome towards a sustainable business. Consequently, provide practical insights and contribute to existing theory.

14 1.6 Research questions ​ ​ ​ ​ - What are the factors that make the analyzed SME (Susi Bakery) a resilient organization? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ - What moved key stakeholders towards engaging the recovery of the business crisis? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

15 2. Theoretical framework ​ ​ ​ ​ 2.1 Organizational resilience ​ ​ ​ ​

In order to understand the concept of organizational resilience, it is necessary to trace back the development of this concept within business management research, together with the different research lines that have developed through time. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Organizational resilience has developed as a concept in business and management research since Staw et al. (1981) and Meyer (1982) started analyzing how organizations could respond to external unexpected threats, that would trigger processes that would represent the survival or not of the organization (Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This approach to organizational resilience, as a response to external threats, remained unexplored up until after the 9/11 attack, which unfolded new interest on analyzing the effects of external threats (see figure 3 below). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

After Staw et al. (1981) and Meyer´s (1982) first approach to organizational resilience, technological development within organizational processes represented an increase in complexity, that often led to business crisis. This context promoted research in organizational resilience focused on business crisis generated by internal mistakes or failures (Linnenluecke, 2017). Within this research focus, the line of internal organizational reliability developed, together with two main theories: High Reliability Organizing and Normal Accident Theory. These theories analyze how the accumulation of various operational mistakes can escalate into high consequence events and business crisis (Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Organizational resilience research is highly context-dependent and it has developed depending on the current context (Linnenluecke, 2017). Researchers agree on that the theories and perspectives have been developed in a fragmented way, presenting various definitions and approaches to theory (Williams et al., 2017; and Linnenluecke, 2017). With this in mind, it is clear that the 9/11 attack brought with it renewed interest in analyzing the effects of external unexpected threats for business crisis, adding three new lines of thought to the existing organizational resilience theory. ​ ​ ​ ​

In the figure below, one can observe the development of organizational resilience research represented in a simple figure. This figure shows the focus of research though time, within organizational theory (top of the figure), and it presents in a visual manner, the meaning of business crisis originated by internal or external factors (represented by the thinner arrows coming from inside the organization as internal factors, and the thicker arrow as external threats affecting the organization). As can be noticed, one key event represented a total shift-back on the research focus to external threats, the 9/11 attack (see figure 3 below). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

16

Figure 3: Organizational resilience research ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Three main lines of thought, within organizational resilience theory, developed after 9/11: (1) employee strengths, (2) adaptability of business models and (3) resilient supply chain design (Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​

These lines of research focus on (1) the importance of psychological capital for positive organizational behavior (consisting of hope, efficacy, optimism and resilience), together with three resilient characteristics (acceptance of reality, propensity to make a meaning of an adverse situation and the ability to “make do” with whatever is in hand) in order to bounce back from setbacks (Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (2) The need for organizations to be adaptable in order to cope with disruptive changes, and the role of enabling conditions (such as broader information processing, loosening of control and utilization of slack) to overcome challenging situations (Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (3) Design principles, as elements of resilience, such as flexibility, adaptability, redundancy, diversification, access to timely information, improved collaboration, speed and agility. Also focused on the findings that a company can respond to disruptions through flexibility and redundancy (Linnenluecke, 2017). And highlights the collateral benefits that resilience generates and the ability to turn disruptions into opportunities (Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

17

As mentioned before, resilience in organizational theory has evolved depending on the contextual circumstances, and therefore it has different definitions depending on the approach (Linnenluecke, 2017). It has been understood as a fixed set of organizational characteristics or traits (either the organization is or is not resilient), as a dynamic process (a set of adaptive processes and learned skills that can be acquired and activated to avoid and overcome crisis) and as an outcome (a state that is or not achieved after a crisis) (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

For this study, resilience is understood as a set of characteristics that an organization builds throughout its operational life, before experiencing a disruptive change, that can be tested when experiencing a crisis. It is also a process that can be followed to overcome a crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Finally, organizational resilience it is also understood as a result: When achieving financial equilibrium after experiencing a business crisis, an organization can be labeled as resilient. It is important to note that after overcoming a business crisis and being a resilient organization, there is no insurance for that organization to survive when facing a different business crisis. Nevertheless, the organization is more resilient than before, by learning from previous crisis (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

2.2 Theoretical focus: resilient business models ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As can be noticed from the previous subsection (introduction to organizational resilience), organizational resilience is a broad concept with different focuses that have developed different theories and definitions; there is a generalized agreement in the research community, that organizational resilience research still needs to work on integrating its different concepts and definitions (Linnenluecke, 2017; Sutcliffe & Vogus 2003). With this in mind, it can be understood that in order to have a clear theoretical focus for the analysis of this case, one of the previous presented research lines was chosen as the main theoretical lens to analyze the Susi Bakery case. The fact that the theoretical lens focuses on one line of research, does not mean that the other four research lines within organizational resilience will be ignored, these will be taken into consideration in the discussion section. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Given the nature of the Susi Bakery case of an external threat risking the survival of the organization, the theoretical area of research in which this thesis focuses, is within the after 9/11 research lines. As explained in the section 1.3, the business crisis of Susi Bakery was originated by an external threat (fire), which leaves the focus on internal threats outside our theoretical frame. ​ ​

The fire affected directly the Bakery’s production area, with of course consequences for the whole system, but did not have a direct impact on the employees (this can be observed in Figure 4). An example of business crisis that affected the employees directly is the mining accident in Chile (2010) where the miners (employees) experienced being stuck in the mine because the infrastructure of the mine was threatened4. This is why, the line of research on employee resilience is not the main focus of this theoretical framework. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In the same line of thought, the fire that provoked the business crisis of the bakery did not affect directly the other structures in the supply chain; contrary to an external threat where a

4 Chile mining accident 2010, CNN: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/13/world/americas/chilean-mine-rescue/index.html ​ ​​ ​​ ​ 18 whole area or supply chain might be affected. This is why, the line of research about resilient supply chains is also not the focus of this theoretical framework. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

On the contrary, the line of research about resilient business models provides an accurate approach to explore the case. When experiencing the business crisis, the bakery used as a strategy the implementation of drastic changes in its business model in order to overcome the crisis (see a graphic description below in Figure 4). This will be analyzed in more detail in the next sections of this document. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Figure 4: Supply chain ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Resilient business models ​ ​ ​ ​

The main focus of the theoretical framework for this thesis, is within the line of research on adaptability of business models, in other words, resilient business models. "Organizations are better able to cope with a crisis when (...) they have business models that fit the needs of the existing competitive environment" (Gittell et al., 2006:301). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This line of research focuses on “understanding how companies adjust, adapt and reinvent their business models in an ever-changing environment” (Linnenluecke, 2017:12). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Within this line of research, there are several authors that have had specially influential publications. The main influential studies within resilient business models are the ones from Meyer (1982), Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003), Hamel and Valikangas (2003), and Gittell et al. (2006) (Linnenluecke, 2017). Organizational resilience is defined, within resilient business models and with reference to Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003), Weick et al. (1999) and Wildavsky (1988) as (a) “the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions” (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003:P. 95), (b) the ability to bounce back from untoward events, and (c) the capacity to maintain desirable functions and outcomes in the midst of strain (Linnenluecke, 2017).

These influential publications present the theory that in order to be a resilient organization, enabling factors should be present (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Through the different studies, the authors present organizational resilience as a set of enabling factors that characterize resilient organizations from non-resilient organizations (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Enabling factors can be understood as characteristics that allow an organization to face disruptive challenges and reach resilient outcomes (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Hamel & Valikangas, 2003; Gittell et al., 2006; Linnenluecke, 2017). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 19

The main propositions, conclusions and theories from the above mentioned influential publications were used to build the theoretical framework for analyzing the Susi Bakery case. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The enabling factors discussed in the above mentioned publications, are defined below and can be observed in Table 1. It is important to notice that the enabling factors in section 2.3 were found in theory after carefully exploring the most influential publications within resilient business models theory (Table 1 presents the four publications that were intensively explored to build the theoretical frame, together with the enabling factors found in each study), and were then put together by the author, in order to build a theoretical frame that would provide enough theory to explore and analyse the case (more detailed information about the process of building the theoretical framework can be found in section 4.2). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

2.3 Eleven enabling factors in resilient business models theory ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This section presents and explains the eleven resilient enabling factors found in resilient business models theory. It is important to note that these enabling factors can be defined and understood differently in other disciplines or research areas; this is why this section explains each factor, understood under the umbrella of resilient business models theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As mentioned before, it is relevant to notice that these resilient enabling factors are the result of intensively exploring the most influential publications within resilient business models theory (presented in the study made by Linnenluecke, 2017). These publications do not specifically focus on presenting a holistic picture of the resilient enabling factors within resilient business models, rather each of them focuses on specific areas and development of resilient business models theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Nevertheless, these studies present the main findings in theory related to resilient business models and provided enough information for building a useful theoretical frame to analyze the Susi Bakery case. The author of this thesis suggests for further research, building a holistic and integrated theory for resilient business models. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1. Adaptability and innovation ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

These two enabling factors are presented through the different studies with different names, but having the same meaning. After exploring the different definitions and approaches of the studies, it was concluded that the enabling factors pointed at the same characteristics, this is why adaptability and innovation are defined together, but keeping both names as one enabling factor.

A resilient organization has a dynamic, constant and continuous capacity to positively adapt to current circumstances and to recombine and place resources in new ways to a “broad range of turbulence" (Linnenluecke, 2017:12, referencing to Hamel & Valikangas, 2003). This capacity develops over time through flexible and convertible processes (such as product innovation, strategic decision making and creating alliances with partner firms) that allows organizations to learn how to cope positively with the unexpected (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Hamel & Valikangas, 2003; Gittell et al., 2006). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

20 2. Diversity ​ ​

Diversity in groups, understood as people that are experimentally broad, come from diverse sets of knowledge, experiences and backgrounds, promotes resilience through developing capabilities to innovate (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003), by being better at combining existing resources into novel combinations, key to adapt to new unexpected situations and deal with complexity; in the sense that members are able to grasp and see variations in their environment from their analytical perspective and expertise. The group's capacity to deal with complexity is influenced by diversity in group members. (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Hamel & Valikangas, 2003). As evolutionary and systems theory argues, "the larger the variety of actions available to a system, the larger the variety of perturbations it is able to accommodate" (Hamel & Valikangas 2003:11). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3. Effective communication ​ ​ ​ ​

Effective communication processes is key for respectful interaction and are necessary to accelerate, mediate and enrich exchange of information, and capabilities of broad information processing in diverse groups (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4. Loosening of control ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Permits individuals with specific knowledge, be given decision making authority (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) and decentralized decision making (Hamel & Valikangas 2003), necessary for promoting fast and innovative action (Hamel & Valikangas 2003) in moments of high uncertainty.

5. Sustained relationships ​ ​ ​ ​

Sustained relationships are positive relationships in the organization that facilitate the transfer of knowledge, enable cohesive responses to overcome disruptive changes in innovative ways, develop commitment and productivity, and alleviate the achievement of coordinated action between organizational members (Gittel et al., 2006). Sustained relationships can be promoted and influenced by managers, who can act as role models, and who provide environments where group members feel they can exercise behaviors of creativity and judgement (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​

Sustained relationships are challenged during moments of crisis, as can be noticed below (enabling factor #6). Sustained relationships are tightly related to avoiding layoffs during crisis. In moments of crisis, managers influence sustained relationships by avoiding layoffs (Gittel et al., 2006). As mentioned before, for an organization to recover from adversity, human skills are critical. This combined with compromised employees, who understand that transformational projects lead to transformational opportunities for personal growth, organizations to experience transformational opportunities, during crisis provided by compromised employees (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

6. Minimize layoffs ​ ​ ​ ​

A current reaction of organizations that go through crisis is to fire people in order to cut costs (Gittell et al., 2006). This response might alleviate costs in the short term, but as Gittell et al. (2006) found in their study about 9/11 airline crisis, layoffs risk damaging the relationships

21 needed for a long term recovery. "By avoiding layoffs, these organizations maintain or even strengthen human relationships, creating coping resources that enable organizational members to respond cohesively to the crisis in innovative ways" (Gittell et al., 2006:324) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ However, it is not sufficient to want to avoid layoffs during crisis, resilient organizations have resilient business models that are able to financially sustain short term losses and avoid personnel reductions. ​ ​ This keeps and strengthens positive employee relationships (sustained relationships) during moments of crisis (Gittell et al., 2006). Providing "employee security is essential for achieving sustained innovation and productivity that benefit both employees and stockholders" (Gittell et al., 2006:305, referencing Kochan & Osterman, 1994). Additionally, there is evidence that "most organizations experience deteriorating profitability, product and service quality, innovation, and organizational climate after downsizing" (Gittell et al., 2006:304, referencing to Cameron, 1998). ​ ​ ​ ​

7. Financial slack ​ ​ ​ ​

From another perspective, financial slack, as presented by Gittell et al. (2006) referencing Meyer (1982) "slack resources work as organizational shock absorbers” (Gittell et al., 2006:304) smoothing the impact of unexpected disruptions. "Retaining cash to cover immediate financial pressures and maintaining low debt levels, thereby allowing the firm to finance longer term expenses, are key elements in preserving relational reserves in a firm" (Gittell et al., 2006:319). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Meyer (1982) and Gittell et al. (2006), conclude that accumulating resources (including financial and human resources) builds resilience by helping absorb the impacts of disruptive changes and by helping preserve relations over time (Linnenluecke, 2017). A key characteristic of resilient business models is the capacity to accumulate financial reserves (financial slack). Having financial slack and low debt levels allows flexibility when trying new business strategies, experiments and innovation, and develop competence (another key enabling factor, read below) (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003; Gittell et al., 2006). Additionally, it helps preserve social relations during critical times (Gittell et al., 2006), for example as explained in by Gittell et al. (2006), not having enough resources to sustain and provide security to employees results in layoffs, affecting the social capital of the organization and its capacity to recover from crisis. Having low levels of debt allow the organization to acquire new debt to get through periods of high uncertainty (Gittell et al., 2006).

8. Collective efficacy ​ ​ ​ ​

Collective efficacy, also known as "performance under adversity" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:102). It is an enabling factor for organizational resilience as it promotes "a group's shared belief in their conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the actions required to overcome adversity" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:102, referencing Bandura, 1998; and Wood & Bandura, 1989). "Collective efficacy materializes from individual's perceptions of the group's functioning" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:102-103) and is the result of "interactive and coordinative dynamics among team members" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:103, referencing Bandura, 1998). Collective efficacy is an enabling factor, because it influences the amount of effort that each group member puts into the overcoming the crisis (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003) and for "how long the group will persist when collective efforts fail to produce quick results" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:103). Promoting collective efficacy by "enhancing the ability to

22 rapidly process feedback and flexibly rearrange or transfer knowledge and resources" leads to resilience (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:104). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

9. Competence ​ ​

Based on past research in organizational resilience, competence is defined as the ability to learn and learn from mistakes. It is suggested that group members who are adaptable and "are oriented toward seeking out challenges and opportunities to learn" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:101) are more resilient, since they perceive mistakes as "a natural part of competence-building" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:101), persist through hard times are "more readily to tackle failures" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:101) and come up with more innovative solutions. As Vogus and Sutcliffe (2003) propose, groups who have competence have the ability to positively adapt and "handle the complexity of dynamic decision environments" (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003:101) and be motivated to persevere. Additionally, organizations with competence learn from past experience and are better prepared for later experience (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003). ​ ​

10. Motivation ​ ​

When individuals experience success and feel that their experiences allow them to grow and build competence and self-efficacy, their motivation system is mobilized. Additionally, when they perceive that they have the capability to act, group members are drawn to better coping with each other (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

11. Acceptance ​ ​

Acceptance means to realize and accept the current situation of change or crisis as it is, and take action, rather than denying it. By taking action it is meant to adopt completely new strategies and processes to overcome the disruption. When acceptance is missing, managers deny the situation of crisis, putting on hold the needed work to renewal, increasing the cost for recovering and overcome crisis (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

23 Table 1: Enabling factors ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Research Organizational resilience ​ ​ topic

Focus of External threats Internal threats ​ ​ ​ ​ research development

Lines of Resilient business models Employee Resilient supply ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ thought resilience chains within research topic

Main authors Meyer 1982 Sutcliffe and Hamel and Gittell et al. 2006 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Vogus, 2003 Valikangas 2003 ​ ​ ​ ​ Enabling -Adaptability -Adaptability -Adaptability -Adaptability factors (main -Competence -Diversity -Diversity -Financial slack ​ ​ focus per -Financial slack -Broader -Loosening of -Sustained ​ ​ study) information control relationships processing -Financial slack -Minimize layoffs ​ ​ ​ ​ -Effective -Sustained communication relationships -Loosening of -Innovation control -Acceptance -Financial slack ​ ​ -Collective efficacy ​ ​ -Innovation -Motivation -Competence

Result: Adaptability and innovation, diversity, effective communication, loosening of Enabling control, sustained relationships, minimize layoffs, financial slack, collective factors found efficacy, competence, motivation, acceptance. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ in theory, used to analyze the case *Note: the areas in grey were not further developed in this table, in order for the reader to be able to follow the white boxes, with a line of thought in form of top-down. The left column presents the label of each line of the table. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

24 3. Methodology ​ ​ In order to make judgements and conclusions about the empirical facts, a defined methodology was chosen to conduct this research (6 & Bellamy, 2012). Methodology, for this study, is defined as “how to proceed from the findings of empirical research, to make inferences about the truth, or at least the adequacy, of theories” (6 & Bellamy, 2012:1). In this line of thought, this section provides the description of the used methodology and its limitations, together with the ontology and epistemology, and the ethical approach. It is worth noting that, the methodology is complemented with the next section about methods. Section 4 provides a detailed description of the used methods to undertake this study. These two sections (3. Methodology and 4. Methods), are necessary to accomplish the research and analysis of the case (6 & Bellamy, 2012). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3.1 Research approach and inference ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This master thesis has an inductive research approach, following an iterative process, and is conducted as an exploratory-single case study. This subsection presents the explanations and arguments that led to use of this methodology for studying this case. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3.1.1 Single case study ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The case study methodology was chosen, because is a form of social science research (Yin, 2014) and is the preferred method when (1) the research questions are what questions and the ​ research aims to develop hypothesis and propositions for further research; as can be read in the introduction section of this document, the research questions of this study begin with what, and section 6 presents findings and recommendations for further research. (2) When the researcher has no control over behavioral events; one of the main characteristics of this case is that it happened unexpectedly and the reactions and behaviors of the individuals and organizations involved during the process, were spontaneous and not premeditated. To illustrate, it is not likely that a company would want to provoke a fire leading to business crisis, in order to analyze the behaviors of key stakeholders. Therefore one can conclude that there was no control over the behaviors and actions of the people involved, but these could be observed and described. Finally, (3) the main focus of the conducted study is a contemporary phenomenon; this case took place six months before the research started, therefore can be understood as contemporary (Yin, 2014). Additionally, because of the unusual nature of this case, a single case study provides the advantage to focus in one case and explore in depth the unusual case (Yin, 2014). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The fact that the researcher had the uncommon opportunity to experience the business crisis and have an active role within the organization, provided her with access to the data, and also be able to observe closely the recovery of the company. This is one of the arguments for the researcher to chose spending all available resources in this one case, rather than exploring several cases and doing a multiple-case study. Additionally, the lack of published research and information about similar cases, would have complicated the procedure of multiple cases (Yin, 2014; 6 & Bellamy, 2012). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Finally, the “essence of a case study is to illuminate a decision: why they were taken, how they were implemented and with what result” (Yin, 2014:15), with this and the research questions in mind, it can be argued that a single case study is a useful methodology to achieve the main purpose of this thesis (see section 1.5). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 25

3.1.2 Exploratory approach ​ ​ ​ ​

The type of inference of this study is mainly exploratory. This approach was chosen over a descriptive approach, because the first one focuses on exploring the event in order to understand the behaviours and achievements of agents, rather than focusing on describing the situation (Yin, 2014). Nevertheless, a descriptive approach was used in different moments of the research, in order to develop the study and provide an understanding of the case. Regarding the option of doing an explanatory approach, the aim of this research is not to prove existing theories with observable behaviors, but to explore the observations and support them with existing theories (Yin, 2014). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The possibility of using different available research methodologies was taken into consideration, but was finally dropped, since this case is not a historical event (is a contemporary event), and is not an experiment, since the context and the behaviors are not controlled by the researcher. In other words, the exploratory case study methodology was chosen over other options, because of the features described before that allow in-depth exploration of complex social phenomena (Yin, 2014), and for also allowing the researcher to “focus on a case and retain a holistic and real-world perspective” (Yin, 2014:4). These characteristics accurately filled the needs to answer the researcher's curiosity regarding this case.

3.1.3 Inductive process ​ ​ ​ ​

This research is developed through an inductive process, as recommended by Bryman and Bell (2003), when conducting a qualitative study. This type of research process was key to explore in depth the case, starting with observations and migrating towards theory. It also follows an iterative process that can be observed in the spiral timeline shown below, built with the aim of describing in a graphic way the inductive and iterative process followed in this study (see figure 5). ​ ​

This research started by observing the unusual case. From observing the behaviors and outcomes of the stakeholders involved in the business crisis of the company, the curiosity of the researcher led to preliminary research questions, followed by a preliminary data exploration.

In order to avoid the lack of scope or generality of the inductive process (Patel & Davidson, 1991), a pre-data-collection literature review was made and complemented during the data-collection and analysis process. The focus of the preliminary literature review was in business crisis management and later migrated to organizational resilience theory, which provided more useful information to understand the Susi Bakery case. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The next step in the process was related to designing the interviews to collect the data and the reinforcement of the preliminary theoretical framework. This led to a revision of the research questions and to building the theoretical framework. Which allowed building a data collection process (through interviews) that complemented the research questions and the theoretical framework, leading to phrasing the conclusions and learnings of the conducted study (Bryman & Bell, 2003) (see figure 5 below). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

26

Figure 5: Inductive process ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As it can be noticed in Figure 5, the spiral has two main returning axis, theoretical framework development (x axis) and research questions review (y axis). The corners of the model represent the different phases of the research, such as data exploration, data analysis, conclusions and learnings. ​ ​ ​ ​ The whole research process gravitates around the middle square that represents the Susi Bakery case. ​ ​

3.2 Epistemology and Ontology ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Ontology and epistemology are the philosophy of science; they frame and expose the way we obtain and understand knowledge and reality (6 & Bellamy, 2012). With this in mind and considering the different philosophical perspectives and how they influence the conclusions deriving from analysis (6 & Bellamy, 2012), this research takes mainly a realistic position. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ A realistic position claims that “there are facts which are not directly observable about social phenomenon” (6 & Bellamy, 2012:60), but in order to be able to conclude and learn about these facts, it is necessary to infer “about things that we cannot observe” (6 & Bellamy, 2012:60). The truthfulness or not about the inferences, depends on “how well they conform with those facts” (6 & Bellamy, 2012:60). The development of our understanding about unobservable things, is accomplished by carefully building and empirically examining theories and models (6 & Bellamy, 2012). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Having a realistic position, the ontology of this study claims that the truthfulness of knowledge is neither absolutely true nor false, it depends on the context of the study. As 6 and Bellamy (2012) explain, there are facts that are not directly observable about social phenomena, but it is possible to draw conclusions and make inferences about them, by carefully, progressively and empirically exploring them through the lens of theories and models. This is how, through observation and inference, knowledge can be acquired. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 27

Given the characteristic of direct observations, of being partial (not covering the whole reality), the acquired knowledge is an approximation to the truth and therefore, provisional. With this is mind, knowledge needs constant research to develop, from the theories and concepts, and their relations with empirical findings (6 & Bellamy, 2012). In other words, this research makes inferences from observable behaviors and facts (behaviors observed during the case and facts obtained through the interviews and available data), based and framed in theory and concepts (organizational resilience theory was chosen as the theoretical framework for this thesis) (6 & Bellamy, 2012). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3.3 Research design ​ ​ ​ ​

This subsection explains the process under which this study was developed. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The structure of this paper follows a more traditional structure (starting with an introduction to the case and key concepts, problem discussion, description of the methodology and methods, continuing with the data analysis and finishing with main conclusions, learnings and follow up questions for further research), but internally follows a circular structure influenced by the inductive process described in the previous section (see figure 5). As described before, this study is conducted as an inductive, exploratory case study; where the exploratory-inductive process affects the whole structure and findings of this research, because of its characteristic of not knowing precisely in forehand the results of the research (6 & Bellamy, 2012). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Some processes took place simultaneously, this is related to the iterative process followed in this research, that influences the evolution of the research process when advancing in the process itself. For example, the preliminary literature review influenced the building of the data collection process; and the preliminary data collection process influenced the building of the theoretical frame, in the sense that it provided information about which line of thought would provide enough theoretical knowledge to explore and understand the case. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3.4 Role of the researcher ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The researcher experienced in an active way the process of recovery of the business crisis of Susi Bakery, due to the close relationship of the researcher to the organization. This allowed access to detailed information (organizational structure, stakeholders, resources, etc) and a deep exploration of the case through the theoretical lens of organizational resilience. Due to this close relationship, the researcher was specially careful (see sections 3.5 and 3.6 below) with the research process and welcomed recommendations and processes generally accepted by the research community. This was done in order to deliver relevant, useful and valuable findings for theory and further research. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3.5 Limitations ​ ​

Several limitations should be taken into consideration. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ First, one limitation of working on one single case, is that the conclusions and learnings are limited to the chosen case and generalizations on a single case can bring complications (Yin, 2014). However, it can be argued that the relevance of this study, relies in the exploration of this particular case, allowing to spend all resources in exploring in depth an unusual case (Yin, 2014). This case, analyzed through the lens of resilient business models adds to the understanding of organizational resilience; which is also valuable and contributes to research (Yin, 2014). ​ ​ 28 Second, as with most research, it is important to acknowledge the possibility of introducing bias into the study, from the researcher's point of view and its’ close relationship with the organization (as mentioned before). Third, the time limitation is considerable, given the amount of available information and the complexity of the case. Fourth, further research is suggested in order to find a more clear relationship between business crisis management and organizational resilience. Fifth, research in organizational resilience is context-dependent, and therefore the available research is fragmented and limited to exploration of past events. Finally, this research takes as the unit of analysis the company with the business crisis, and it does not focus on how the environment and culture affected the behaviors of the stakeholders; this can be a focus for further research. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

3.6 Ethics ​ ​

In order to provide a high quality case study, the researcher strived for the highest ethical standards as recommended by Yin (2014) and Silverman (2011). Some of these recommendations and procedures are: not plagiarizing nor falsifying information, being honest, accepting responsibility for this paper, keeping up with related research as well as ensuring accuracy and following general research methodologies recommended by the scientific community. The researcher was also aware of the ethical pitfalls and took care of treating all interviewees in the same way and not abusing possible vulnerabilities of the interviewees (Silverman, 2011). ​ ​ ​ ​ The researcher wants to emphasize with this section, the awareness of the importance of her values and ethics when doing research (Silverman, 2011). This subsection illustrates the commitment of the researcher to ethics and values in an explicit way, and they were present in every stage of every process and during the whole study. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In order to avoid the tendency to stick to a preconceived position and not tolerating contrary evidence, the researcher presented preliminary findings to its mentor and several colleagues of the master course, that were open to discuss the topic and data (Yin, 2014). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Finally, regarding the close relationship of the researcher to the unit of analysis, the researcher took special care of handling the data in a consciente state of awareness regarding possible bias.

29 4. Methods ​ ​ Understanding methods, as an appropriate set of techniques to create, collect, code and analyze the data (6 & Bellamy, 2012), this section describes these processes, used to answer the above mentioned research questions. Additionally, this section presents the procedures that support the validity and reliability of this research. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4.1 Data Collection ​ ​ ​ ​

Based on case study research recommendations made by Yin (2014), qualitative data was gathered. Qualitative data allows the analysis of in depth interviews (Yin, 2014) with key stakeholders and actors present during different periods of the business crisis. And, as stated by Blaikie (2003), collected data in the form of words, allows researchers to draw meaningful propositions in the social sciences, without the need to translate from words to numbers and vice versa. For this specific case, qualitative data was chosen over quantitative, because of the nature of the research questions, which focus on the different perspectives and experiences of the stakeholders during the crisis. In order to avoid misunderstandings and lack of reliability of the collection and analysis of the data, a structured strategy was built as a process for the study.

The primary source of data are in-depth, semi-structured interviews (See Appendix 1) conducted with relevant stakeholders of Susi Bakery (see Figure 6 below) that lasted 50 minutes on average. ​ ​ ​ ​

All interviews followed the interview structure presented in Appendix 1. The design of the interviews is comparative, in the sense that each interviewee answers the same questions and describes the same case study, but having alternative descriptions or explanations (Yin, 2014). And also followed a flexible structure, providing guidance for both, the interviewer and the interviewee during the interview, but was not a fixed questionnaire. In other words, based on the answers provided by the interviewees and the development of the interview itself, and given the unique perspectives and roles of the different interviewed stakeholders, the researcher asked additional questions in order to gain insights about specific comments or observations made by the interviewee. This means that, the content and questions of the interviews did vary during the process, depending on the answers of the interviewees and the judgement of the researcher to go deeper in certain topics during the interviews. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The interviews were conducted using online communication technologies, such as Skype and FaceTime and were video recorded, making it possible to gather data coming from Colombia (interviewees) while being stationed in Sweden (interviewer). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The language used during the interviews was Spanish. Only the main, most relevant parts of the interviews (selected by the researcher), together with the context, were transcribed and translated to English. In order to gather high quality data, the interviews were conducted in moments and places where the interviewees expressed to feel comfortable and where they had access to internet and a computer with Skype or FaceTime. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Regarding the anonymity of the interviewees, each interviewee was asked about their preference and consent for using the data. Additionally, the general process and purpose of the thesis was presented to the interviewees; this was also done in order to create a trust environment where the interviewee could share experiences in a comfortable-safe way (Yin,

30 2014). All interviewees agreed to proceed with the interviews and be recorded via screen recording. The parts of the interviews where the interviewee asked to be anonymous were kept anonymous and the information was used in the analysis in general terms. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4.1.1 Selection process ​ ​ ​ ​

The selected interviewees were mapped out using the following Relationship-Stakeholder model (see Model 1 below). This model was created by the author of this thesis, inspired in the stakeholder model from Werther & Chandler (2011). This selection of interviewees was complemented by asking the different previously identified stakeholders about the key players 5 during the crisis (snowball sampling ). This model also helped avoid the limitations of snowball sampling, that could limit the selection process. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ After identifying the main stakeholders of the bakery during the crisis period, the prospective interviewees were contacted, and one hour interviews were scheduled. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Using snowball sampling, employees were asked to identify Key Resilience Actors (KRA), within the pre-fire supply chain, to be interviewed. These were actors that were part of the pre-fire stakeholder structure of the Bakery and that played a key role to overcome the crisis event. Due to excess of actors involved in the process, employees were asked to rank the KRA according to relevance during different stages of the recovery process. In a second round of interviews, pre-fire-KRA were asked to point at recovery-KRA (key actors to overcome the crisis, that were not present in the day-to-day Bakery activities before the crisis) and be ranked by level of relevance for resilience of the Bakery. Finally, based on observations of the researcher, additional KRA were suggested and were ranked by relevance for the bakery’s recovery, by the previously selected KRA. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Finally, the selected KRA were contacted and all agreed to participate in the interviews. By the end of the process, 14 KRA were interviewed. All participants were Colombian. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In total, 14 interviews were conducted within one month time (April-May 2017), 8 months after the date when the fire generated the crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Interviewees were selected in a way that assures to have different stakeholder levels with different perspectives in the context of the Bakery’s case (see Model 1). This is based on the assumption that if the system is resilient, all organizational stakeholders will describe similar resilient characteristics of the organization (Witmer et al., 2015). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5 “The method yields a study sample through referrals made among people who share or know of others who possess some characteristics that are of research interest” (Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981:141). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 31

Figure 6: Relationship-Stakeholder model ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The Relationship-Stakeholder model presented above, was created for this study and shows three levels of stakeholders. The smallest circle, in the middle, represents the interorganizational stakeholders; such as the owner, the manager and employees. The manager was separated from the employees, based on the general descriptions made in the interviews, that pointed out that this division should be taken into consideration. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The second circle, is divided in three parts and one sub-ring. The three parts are the suppliers, competitors and clients. The clients section is divided into direct and corporate clients, since the organization has clients that buy directly for own consumption (direct) and other that use the products as part of their value offer (supermarkets, restaurants, etc). The sub-ring represents a division between general public and friends family and fools (FFF), a term used in entrepreneurship, that indicates the relevance of these type of relationships for entrepreneurship, social innovation and doing business in general, in order to be successful (Kotha & George,2012; and Praszkier & Nowak, 2012). This division was made in order to illustrate that within the sections of clients, suppliers and competitors there are external persons, not directly related to the organization, and FFF. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The concept of Friends, Family and Fools (FFF) relates to the main resource mobilization channel within entrepreneurship, and shows that the first step for resource seeking is in the first “relational ring”, such as friends, family and colleagues (Kotha & George, 2012). FFF influences the quality and quantity of resources that an individual can mobilize (Kotha & George, 2012). ​ ​

32 The third ring of the model, represents the different organizations, networks and associations (A&N) that the bakery is part of. The A&N vary in the type of members depending on the focus and goal of the network. These include strengthening the industry (producers in the same industry: competitors), creating stronger supply chains (diverse suppliers) or social networks with various interests that bring together competitors, clients and suppliers. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Finally, the frame represents the external context (environment or ecosystem) where the culture of the country, the current trend in the market, etc are represented. The frame is not part of the core study, but plays a role for the analysis and recommendations stated in the findings section. For further research, it would be interesting to make a closer and deeper analysis regarding the context. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The final sample of interviewees consisted of 14 stakeholders, with 10 men and 4 women. 30% Of the interviewees were part of the inner circle of the Relationship-Stakeholder model (figure 6), 40% were part of the second circle of the model and 30% represented stakeholders from the outer circle of the model. All interviewees were colombian and lived in the city where the Bakery’s production is located. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4.2 Data analysis ​ ​ ​ ​

The collected data was analyzed to answer the research questions (6 & Bellamy, 2012) presented above, in section 1.6. This analysis is based on the 4 strategies presented by Yin (2014): relying on theoretical propositions, working the data from the ground up, develop a case description, and examining plausible rival explanations. In order to have a complete analysis of the available data, a combination of these strategies was built. Additionally, and as explained before in section 3.1.3, an iterative and inductive processes provided enough flexibility to welcome unexpected findings during the exploratory research (Yin, 2014). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4.2.1 Building a theoretical frame ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Following Yin (2014), the process of analyzing the data started first by building the theoretical ground (Yin, 2014), in other words, it started by building a theoretical framework that would act as a lens to analyze the data of the case (the theoretical framework is available in section 2).

As briefly mentioned in section 2.2, the theoretical frame was built based on the findings from Linnenluecke (2017); from her study titled “Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of Influential Publications and a Research Agenda” regarding the most influential studies within resilient business models theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The studies from Meyer (1982), Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003), Hamel and Valikangas (2003), and Gittell et al. (2006), presented results and contributed to theory from research in literature and case studies. These studies provided different results that pointed out several enabling factors within resilient business models theory. As can be noticed in Table 1, not all studies had all enabling factors, but all enabling factors, used to build the theoretical frame for this case, were found within those studies. Additionally, it is important to know that not all enabling factors were defined in the same way throughout the suggested publications, and some were named differently across those publications, but had the same definition. Nevertheless, the researcher carefully explored, organized and put together the suggested

33 enabling factors, introducing them with the definition used for this research and presented in section 2.3. ​ ​

Once the theoretical frame was built (with the current available theory on resilient enabling factors, within resilient business models theory) and the data was carefully explored, the analysis of the collected data of the Susi Bakery case started. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

4.2.2 Data analysis ​ ​ ​ ​

The collected data, in form of recorded videos, was organized using an explanation building, ​ which is a specific type of pattern matching technique (Yin, 2014). First, the interviews were transcribed6. Then relevant quotes and phrases were written on separate pieces of paper (post its) in order to explore the data on a deep level and find common themes and recurrent topics. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

After finding numerous topics and themes, the researcher went back to the transcribed data and labeled the transcriptions with the enabling factors found in theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

It is important to notice that these two processes, of (1) exploring the data and finding common themes, and (2) building a theoretical frame, were parallel and complemented each other (this is part of the iterative process described before). After completing these two processes it was possible for the researcher to label and organize the transcribed data into the theoretical frame built for this thesis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This process of data analysis was done, by exploring possible links that lead to the explored phenomenon, and following a process of a series of iterations (Yin, 2014). According to Yin, (2014), the most common way of exploring the linkages, is through narrative form supported by theoretically significant propositions. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Finally, the researcher organized the sorted data under each of the eleven resilient enabling factors found in theory (see section 2.3) and analyzed the results. This technique allowed the analysis of the case and the building of an explanation (Yin, 2014). As can be seen in section 5.2, the common and recurrent themes provided enough insights for the researcher to notice that there were three additional resilient enabling factors that were not present in resilient business models theory and were necessary to analyze the case. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In order to avoid the sensitivity of drifting away, during this process, from the main topic of research (being one of the dangers of using this technique), the researcher used the research questions during each iteration and before presenting models to build a reliable frame of analysis.

It is relevant to know that, the technique of time series was not used to analyze the data. The main reason for this decision, is that the researcher’s interest was to focus on the reasons that motivated stakeholders to collaborate, contrary to the role of time. For further research and analysis of the impact of the crisis on the business, this would be an interesting choice, to analyze the transformation of the Bakery through time and analyze the impact of the crisis on the later performance of the business. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

6 The transcription of the interviews was done using Excel, Microsoft Office to store the data. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 34 4.3 Validity and reliability ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In order to provide a high quality research, two aspects were taken into close consideration when collecting and analyzing data: validity and reliability (Yin, 2014). Following this premise, the way the research was built and conducted, together with its limitations, is explained in detail in Section 3 of this document (Methodology), together with the processes related to the data creation, collection, coding and analysis in this section (section 4. Methods). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Regarding validity, it is defined as the extent to which sound inferences can be made from the collected data (6 & Bellamy, 2012). The aim of being aware of this concept, is the possibility to apply the necessary measures to avoid the introduction of systematic biases into the study (6 & Bellamy, 2012). For example, by being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the study, the argumentation for the findings can be done in a more accurate way (6 & Bellamy, 2012; and Silverman, 2015). Additionally, the literature used during this study was collected using the scientific databases of Malmö University’s Library and Google scholar, which validated the sources of information. Regarding additional data, its relevance, accuracy and origin were taken into consideration. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Regarding reliability, it is defined as the degree of consistency with which measures are used (6 & Bellamy, 2012). Defining and describing the key concepts used in this study, together with following a clear guide on how to design, collect and analyze the data, were ways to ​ increase the reliability of this research (6 & Bellamy, 2012). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

35 5. Findings ​ ​ This section presents the findings of analyzing the collected data of the Susi Bakery case, through the lens of enabling factors within resilient business models’ theory (see section 2.3). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As mentioned before in section 4, the data was gathered and explored in a pre-analysis phase, allowing the researcher to identify common and recurrent themes. The second phase of the process was to use the theoretical frame with the eleven enabling factors and use them to explore the previously identified common themes. After analyzing the data through the theoretical enabling factors (section 5.1), additional resilient enabling factors were found and analyzed (see section 5.2). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1 Findings using the eleven enabling factors found in resilient business models theory ​ ​

5.1.1. Adaptability and innovation ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As explained in theory, adaptability and innovation is an enabling factor that develops through time, meaning that in order to adapt in moments of crisis, the organization must have had past experience in adapting to new situations. This was supported by data when interviewees expressed that the market in which this company operates is highly competitive and that "Susi is always improving and changing processes and practices, as well as products and exhibition strategies". One can conclude that by constantly adapting to new market conditions and renewing strategies, the company had experience in adapting, and by doing so, it had developed the enabling factor of adaptability, key for organizational resilience, and resilient business models. Additional data evidenced the fact that one year before the crisis, the company had won an innovation price, as the best innovation plan in the city in 2015 (See Appendix 2). ​ ​

From the collected data, it could be observed that the organization has the enabling factor of adaptability and innovation. The interviewees described that the organization changed its plans and strategies, having a positive attitude, in order to face to the new situation and the new priorities: "The crisis gave them (referring to the organization) the opportunity to do things in different ways", "Employees embraced new responsibilities that evolve from the crisis, and they did things in different ways. They were thinking outside the box". "Even though the situation was critical and tough, there was an environment of hope and one could observe employees working with a smile and with positive energy". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The interviewees also described that the organization adapted its business model by finding new solutions that would allow them to keep on producing even if their production plant was no longer available. For example, by producing in other companies and warehouses. And also by, changing the logistics strategy to adapt to the new production strategy. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Another observation that supports the statement of Susi Bakery being adaptable, is the fact that the organization had to redistribute and rearrange resources (financial and social) in order to activate different fronts (reconstruction of the infrastructure, new production and logistics strategy, and marketing). And that the bakery was adaptable in the way they used the available resources. They contacted family and friends in order to ask for advice regarding different topics, as one of the interviewees expressed. The top managers contacted friends and family, and asked for their opinion about specific topics like communication, infrastructure building,

36 production, insurance management, etc. This shows that the company was dynamic in the way it searched for advice and in the way it approached new challenges. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.2. Motivation ​ ​

This enabling factor was observable in the data, when interviewees expressed things like "I had the opportunity to share my knowledge and learnings from past experience that I knew would help them and I felt useful". Employees expressed that they felt encouraged and motivated to participate and contribute to the recovery. Other interviewees from the second and third circle of figure 6, expressed that this case was an interesting challenge, that did not happen every day, and they saw an opportunity to learn for everyone involved. "Feeling the atmosphere of hope and everybody eager to do things and working together... was an awesome feeling and I wanted to connect with it at any cost". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The interviewees (mostly from the third circle in figure 6) explained that they were motivated to help and participate in the recovery of the bakery, because they felt they could share their knowledge and that it would be useful for the recovery. All interviewees expressed that by the CEO asking people, in a participative way, about how they would do certain processes or which decisions they would make, motivated them to share the knowledge they had, and allowed the team to create and think in new ways. One interviewee (from the second circle of figure 6) even expressed "the ones that got involved in the recovery; we were being listened to and were adding to the recovery process. This connected us in a special way, we bonded”, “is like you are part of something, part of it; this interaction generated a passion and an ​ excitement so intense that is almost awkward", this situation "generated in me a want to help, a want to search for solutions and to add to the recovery". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

One of the interviewees (part of the second circle of figure 6 and not related to FFF) pointed at an aspect that came up in several interviews and that motivated her to help, that was that she felt that every resource the organization would receive, they (the bakery) would convert it into so much more "is like giving a grain of sand, and they would make a whole beach out of it, of course that encourages you to help!". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

One can conclude that the data provides insights suggesting that it is important to have motivated people participating in the process of recovery, since this provides resources and knowledge for the company to recover, and insights of what motivated people to help and be part of the recovery process. The data did not provide enough insights to understand aspects related to not being motivated to participate in the recovery of the organization. Nevertheless, the data suggests that the different stakeholders that participated in the recovery, felt motivated because it gave them a feeling of belonging and of being useful. It also suggests that there was no motivation related to money, since the organization did not provide rewards in money, but this is suggested for further research, together with, digging deeper in research to find out what motivates people to help in moments of crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.3. Diversity ​ ​

This enabling factor could be observed in the data. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The interviewees described that "persons with different knowledge and expertise were articulated for the recovering process" and they added observations and statements such as "there were professionals from different disciplines, contributing from their knowledge and experience, and I think that that helped us generate ideas faster". Interviewees also expressed that the experience from each group member coming from different sectors, contributed to see 37 things from different perspectives and that "all persons that participated in the recovery group were key". At the same time, group members expressed repeatedly that sometimes, the amount of different opinions, slowed down the recovery process, "often the opinions were so diverse and different that it did not help to make decisions fast". When the interviewees described the "type" or persons that took part in the recovery, they described the different disciplines and areas of expertise they came from, and also the different types of relationships. In other words, the group was diverse in the sense of people with different knowledge and expertise, and also in the type of stakeholder (supplier, client, friend, family, employee). The interviewees mentioned that often there were many different networks (professional networks, social networks) supporting the recovery. This can be related to diversity in the sense that each network brought people with different interests. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

One can conclude from this enabling factor and the data of the case, that diversity brings several positive aspects related to different opinions and perspectives, together with different skills and areas of experience. But it also brings elements that can slow down a process of recovery, since it demands high amounts of communication and discussion, to integrate those different perspectives, and opinions, and to make decisions. Theory suggests diversity as a resilient enabling factor, however it can slow down processes, and speed is key in moments of crisis and can represent the success or failure of recovery of an organization (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003; Bell, 2002). This brings out a paradox and an interesting topic for further research.

5.1.4. Collective efficacy ​ ​ ​ ​

In the data of this case, it could be observed how relevant this enabling factor is for having a resilient business model and recovering from a crisis. Collective efficacy allows groups to mutually motivate each other during hard times. As it could be observed in the data, hard work, commitment and hope had a snowball effect allowing a faster recovery process. It seems that by believing in the capacity of the other team members and by being able to see or prove that "the others" are serious and committed towards overcoming the crisis, and this being proven by their actions, it pulls other team members to also believe and work hard towards that common goal, recovering from the crisis. As expressed by the interviewed employees, seeing and experiencing the commitment of external people (second and third rings of figure 6) come and help in whatever way they could, motivated them to help and work together. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

External persons involved in the process of recovering (third ring in figure 6), described the commitment of the employees as inspiring and “worth helping”. The fact that all interviewees described the top managers with admiration and most suggested that "they" were their main motivation to help, suggests that seeing their commitment gave the others strength to keep working and believe that they were going to overcome the crisis. "They (top managers) just wouldn't stop! It seemed that they had Redbull in their blood, they were working the hardest". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

At the same time, the top managers described during the interviews, that seeing how many people were helping and how much support they were receiving, generated in them a feeling of "we need to overcome this as a thank you for all who are believing in us". As the CEO expressed, "we cannot let them down after they have believed in us, and have supported and helped us in so many ways". "If one sees a family that is working as hard as they were working, and one sees that they are using every resource they can get to overcome the crisis, one helps right away, without a second thought". An aspect that also suggests that the organization has collective efficacy, is the fact that suppliers kept supplying the organization, even if they did not have resources to pay right away for the supplies they were buying. If a ​ 38 company does not believe that its client will overcome the crisis, the company will most likely not sell anything to that client because it would represent a loss for the company. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

With this analysis, one can conclude that the data provided enough evidence to state that the organization had this enabling factor during the process of recovery. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.5. Effective communication ​ ​ ​ ​

Effective communication in resilient business models is presented as necessary for the enabling condition of diversity to be effective. From what could be observed in the data, effective communication in moments of crisis, is key for keeping the group informed, and the different teams motivated. If effective communication had not been present, it is likely that the ​ group members would not have been as motivated to participate, as they stated. As expressed by the interwiewees, sometimes there were opposite opinions regarding one topic and these discussions slowed down the decision making process. The interviewees emphasized how important it was for the employees to have continuous communication with the management team and how the management team acted as a bridge to communicate the strategies that were discussed in the top management levels with the employees that were focused on maintaining the production processes running. This continuous communication acted as a connector between the different teams. As they expressed, it was key for the employees to have knowledge on the plans, strategies and actions; “this provided a feeling of security” and of "we are working to overcome the crisis". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Effective communication, as described by the interviewees, was key for keeping the stakeholders informed during the crisis. It was found in the data that it was key to communicate that the company was still working and that they were not giving up. The interviewees described this action as key, in order for the clients and consumers to "wait" and support the company while they were recovering, instead of searching for a substitute product or supplier. ​ ​

Effective communication was a key enabling factor in different moments of the crisis. It played a significant and critical role at the beginning of the crisis, when the top managers communicated and explained to all employees the magnitude of the fire and the decisions they were making; this provided some guidance and tranquility for the employees. "The employees were disoriented and wanted to know what was going to happen to them, if they would lose their jobs. It was a moment of total uncertainty". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

It can be observed that through effective communications, all actors involved were aware of the decisions, plans and actions of the whole organization. It seems that by communicating with the actors involved, processes for recuperating were accelerated and encouraged other actors to have hope and believe that the company would overcome the crisis. "I remember that at the beginning, we were discussing the strategies to keep our employees informed. How were we going to connect with them". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

With this analysis, it can be observed that the enabling factor of effective communication influences the enabling factor of collective efficacy. It can be observed by the statements of the interviewees that the management team listened to different opinions, coming from a diverse group of people (not only diverse knowledge and expertise, but also from a different relationship to the organization: employees, friends, family, experts, suppliers, etc.) before making decisions. In this same line of thought, it can be observed that broad information processing took place, since the management team was open to many different opinions on 39 different topics. "In the meetings, consensus was met fast", "my role, together with other ​ people, was to generate questions in a constructive way, that would provide more tranquility when meeting decisions to execute the plan that had been built to overcome the crisis". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

It can be observed that the company had developed abilities in effective communication before the crisis, in the sense that interviewees described the company before the fire as a transparent company, with "open communication", that would communicate its values and not sell nor promise something they were not, "Susi is transparent. Is real. Is a company of values, from the owners to the products the company offers", "I perceived the family, during the crisis, as a family of open communication and with a respectful relationship between members". With this analysis, it can be said that the organization has the enabling factor of effective communication.

For this enabling factor it is worth noting that the effective communication was not only within the company, (most of the studies suggest this enabling factor within the organization). It was key that there was effective communication between the company and its environment; which generated awareness and attracted resources. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.6. Loosening of control ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This enabling factor was in a first moment partially observed in the data. Even though some interviewees expressed that they had authority for decisionmaking in their area (employees), other interviewees expressed that the decision making was centralized in the CEO (expressed by interviewees in the second circle of figure 6). This can be explained, as some interviewees suggested, by the fact that the company is an SME, and that in small-medium companies decision making is centralized, mostly because of lack of decision making infrastructure. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In the data, it could be observed that the main decisions regarding management of the insurance and approval of budget for reconstructing the building, were taken by the CEO, after consulting and discussing with people with knowledge and expertise in these areas. Other decisions that were equally important, but did not compromise most of the available financial resources, were taken by the managers of the different areas, such as communication strategy with stakeholders, adequate areas of production and logistics. As was described by some interviewees (part of the second and third circle of figure 6), the crisis allowed the managers of the different departments to "think out of the box" and to "make things in different ways that they had not done before". It is worth adding that, most of the interviewees described that the owner gave total decision making power to the CEO. The owner participated in many of the discussions and supported the decisions the CEO made. In this sense, loosening of control is an observable factor. If seen as all levels of the organization having authority for decision making, loosening of control was partially observed. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.7. Sustained relationships ​ ​ ​ ​

This was one of the enabling factors with most amount of data. All interviewees pointed out at the positive relationships the organization had with other organizations, networks and stakeholders. They also highlighted the importance of this enabling factor in order to overcome the crisis. As it could be observed in the data, the organization had built this enabling factor through time (described primarily by interviewees in the third circle of figure 6). Interviewees (including employees and all stakeholders from circles 2 and 3 in figure 6) expressed that the organization was "responsible with its employees" and that "it's an organization that values its employees and supports them whenever they need". Some 40 statements were as such: "the human warmth this company has is surpassing". Employees expressed that throughout their employment at the company, the relationship had not changed, that it had been consistent. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

When describing motivation factors, the employees talked about their bosses (the managerial team) as their main motivation to help them through the crisis, which demonstrates positive relationships between employees and the managerial level. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Interviewees from the third and second circles of figure 6, described the CEO as a type of leadership that connected the environment with the company, in the sense that the leadership style would allow a connection with different stakeholders and types of persons, and that promoted positive relationships that contributed to innovative ideas on where to find resources, how to manage them and how to overcome the crisis. This can be supported with the observation that in fact the CEO is member of different professional groups representing the company and also a member of other social groups, from which several members participated in the process of overcoming the crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Interviewees from the second and third circles of figure 6, expressed that they were impressed to see how compromised most of the employees were; supporting the company and its decisions. One even stated that “the employees of Susi love the company”. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Interviewees (from the second circle of figure 6) described the relationship between managers and employees as a relationship of respect and trust, "it feels like a family-relationship of affection between the managers and employees". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In general, all interviewees stated that without the positive relationships the company had with other actors in the market and with stakeholders, the company would be, most likely, out of business (this was expressed in several different ways throughout the interviews). Some expression were: "They (the suppliers) adopted an attitude of unconditional support", "the CEO´s leadership style is very social and allowed people to participate". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

It came over and over again in the data that, the first thing the top management of the company did was to communicate with the employee and explain the situation and its magnitude, together with the promise that those who would want to continue working under crisis conditions would not have to worry about the paycheck, and that those who would prefer to leave it was no problem, that the management team understood that they (the employees) had other priorities and had families to look after. This is a good sign to conclude that the organization has this enabling factor and that it has a transparent and trust based relationship with its employees. ​ ​ ​ ​

One of the interviewees (from the second circle of figure 6, and part of the FFF) described two types of groups in the employees, one totally supportive and committed and another one that was more concerned about their own wellbeing. One interviewee (from circle 2 from figure 6 and not part of FFF) described that, some (less than 10%) of the employees left the company shortly after the fire and that there were only a few that complained about drastic changes in logistics, such as having to go to other factories to produce. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Some suppliers described their relationship with the management team as "a friendship relationship". One interviewee explained that she develops friendship relationships that go beyond business with her customers, but that "with Susi and the family this relationship grew to a higher level", later she explained that because of that relationship of trust and friendship she had helped as much as she could. She added that she liked that even though she offered a 41 lot (because of privacy reasons this is not explained in detail), she never felt that the organization was taking advantage of the offered help. "They (management team) are ethical and have values". ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.8. Minimize layoffs ​ ​ ​ ​

As it has been described before in sustained relationships and effective communication, one of the first things the management team did was to provide a feeling of safety to the employees regarding their job and salary. From the data (for this enabling factor it was necessary to approach additional data to the interviews, such as payrolls), it was found that the organization had an insurance that would cover the cost of salaries of the employees for six months. Additionally, it was found that only 4 employees were indeed fired (representing 8% of all employees). It was also found that those fired employees were in different cities (not in the headquarters) and had relatively little contact with the company. The additional employees that left the company, did so shortly after the fire had happened and because they asked to leave (2 employees, 4%). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

As expressed by the employees, the management team "demonstrated that they were taking care of us, and that they were working to recover from the crisis". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ This enabling factor is the only one, from all 11, that cannot be learned through previous experience (it is dependant on the enabling factor of financial slack, which will be analyzed below, with no resources no salaries can be payed), but itself cannot be built in advance. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

This enabling factor brought with it positive outcomes for the company. Because the company retained almost all employees, it could start producing as soon as the needed infrastructure was available, no experience or know-how was lost (Gittell et al., 2006). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.9. Financial slack ​ ​ ​ ​

Interviewees expressed repeatedly that the crisis represented a critical economical challenge. They also emphasized the fact that without the financial resources the company had, it would have been impossible to overcome the crisis. Interesting is the fact that most interviewees expressed that even though the insurance was crucial to successfully resolving the crisis, the process was seen as time consuming and as a negative factor. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The organization was insured , but as described by several interviewees, the insurance advisor was not strict enough regarding the follow up with new machinery acquisition and extensions in the building, later resulting in an insurance that did not cover the whole damage occasioned by the fire. At the same time, the owners explained how key it was to have the insurance and the the cost of the rebuilding and the salaries of the employees was partially covered by it. The company had enough financial slack to cover the immediate costs that come with a crisis. As explained by Gittell et al. (2006) it is key to be able to cover the short term costs of a crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

One key aspect that several interviewees explained, was the fact that the customers who had pending accounts with the bakery payed everything immediately after they were contacted and put up to date of the situation; as explained more in detail by the interviewees, "everybody (meaning main stakeholders) came to see and witnessed what had happened". The second key aspect that provided financial slack, as described in the data, was the fact that the company started producing and selling products as soon as they found a place to produce. This provided

42 cash flow and enough resources to cover short term costs, and to pay while the insurance process was being managed. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.10. Competence ​ ​

Competence is the 10th enabling factor that theory suggests and that could be observed in the data of the case. The interviewees (from the first and second circle of figure 6) described how "the top managers had a positive attitude all the time after the crisis", and that they were working very hard to overcome the crisis; this shows persistence, a factor of competence. Evidence like describing that even when the production building was not completely built, the owner was producing and working on new products in different production facilities, which demonstrates positive adaptation. ​ ​ ​ ​

As described by some interviewees, the crisis represented a challenge for the employees and they responded by going beyond what was expected and "thinking outside the box". Some interviewees described the crisis as an opportunity to learn and more specifically, to learn for future crisis this is great proof that the organization and the members of the organization ​ (together) have competence and demonstrated it during the crisis indicated that the ​ interviewees described the the top managers would say phrases like "the old Susi burned yesterday, but today a new Susi, renovated and with new ideas, is born". Interviewees had expressions like "great things are created with crisis" which shows the positive attitude the group members had towards the crisis, and the aim they had to take it as an opportunity to learn.

Finally, learning from previous experiences can be observed after the crisis, since the production warehouse was built with the highest fire and electrical standards where the packaging area was of special concern. Together with acquiring of a new insurance with promise of constant communication of new acquisitions and expansions, the administration leader showed commitment to continuing preparation for unforeseen events. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

5.1.11. Acceptance ​ ​

"My first impression when I arrived to the burned warehouse was that there was a whole group of people that was aware of the situation of crisis and was powered by hope and willingness to recover", "it was key that they did not fall into the crisis, they started rebuilding right away", "I saw persons who understood they were in crisis, but were very motivated", these are the type of expressions the interviewees (from the second and third circles in figure 6) said during the interviews. With this data, one can conclude that the top management had the enabling factor of acceptance, and that they were able to pass it to the employees, who later on presented the enabling factor also. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Employees described as an important action, when the top managers, on the first day after the fire, were very clear and accepted the situation and explained that they accepted the decisions the employees would make regarding staying or not in the company during the crisis. It seems that acceptance helped the group members to come up with a recovery plan in a fast way, and as an interviewee described, "at some point, in early stages, we stopped talking about crisis", "the crisis was assumed, they did not falter with the fire, on the contrary all were focused on the generation of ideas". The CEO said "an old Susi burned yesterday, today a new Susi starts", one of the interviewees described that after this phrase, the CEO started explaining that they had the opportunity to create a better Susi, then the interviewee (an employee) stated that this provided tranquility to the employees. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 43

As it can be observed, the data provided enough evidence to conclude that this case had all eleven resilient enabling factors that were found in resilient business models theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The data also provided recurrent and common themes, that suggested additional enabling factors that were key for overcoming the business crisis. In this sense, and as explained before in section 2 and 4, resilient business models theory is still developing and more research is suggested in order to build a more concise and robust theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The three additional resilient enabling factors found in the data of the case, that are not presented in resilient business models theory, will be analyzed in the section below (Section 5.2).

5.2 Additional resilient enabling factors found in common and recurrent themes within the data. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

The previous 11 enabling factors are the ones that were found by the author of this thesis when exploring the most influential studies, used to build resilient business models theory. As it could be noticed before, this case provides evidence that suggests that theory is on the right path to describe the enabling factors for resilient business models. However, there were additional themes found in the data, that suggest additional enabling factors that were key for this resilient organization. This opens the possibility for further research, that would strengthen the current resilient business models theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Leadership

The interviewees mentioned repeatedly how important it was to have a leader that promoted an environment of effective communication and diversity. It can be observed, from the collected data, that a positive, optimistic leadership style, allowed diversity and effective communication, and motivated the group members to actively participate in the recovery process.

Reciprocity

Closely related to collective efficacy, but still different, the interviewees described that by seeing so many “others” helping and being so involved, it moved them to also participate and go beyond what was expected. Additionally, the data showed evidence that the organization had been “supportive” with its employees, in the past, in situations when the employees needed support and this generated a sense of wanting to give back. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Reputation

The fact that the company had a positive reputation in the market, was key for people wanting to participate in the recovery and help. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Often interviewees expressed that it was worth helping to save “what Susi as a company represents”. Interviewees expressed that Susi is a “good company” of values and that is transparent. From the additional data found in social media and how the fans expressed their appreciation for the products, the brand and the company, made it clear that the reputation this organization built during time, generated appreciation and a connection with its’ customers. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

44

6. Discussion and conclusions ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ This section answers the research questions (see section 1.6), presents the main conclusions of this research. It also provides discussion and recommendations for further research. Finally it presents practical recommendations based on the findings of this research. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

From the results of this thesis, one can conclude that Susi Bakery had all 14 enabling factors found in this research: adaptability and innovation, motivation, diversity, collective efficacy, effective communication, loosening of control, sustained relationships, minimize layoffs, financial slack, competence, acceptance, leadership, reciprocity and reputation. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ These enabling factors were key to engage stakeholders for the recovery of the company and allowed the organization to overcome and survive a business crisis, making it a resilient organization.

This research presented 11 enabling factors found in existing theory (adaptability and innovation, diversity, effective communication, loosening of control, sustained relationships, minimize layoffs, financial slack, collective efficacy, motivation, competence, acceptance), and suggested 3 extra resilient enabling factors (leadership, reciprocity and reputation) that were key for this case and could be generalized (with further research) for organizations be able to bounce back and recover from business crisis. As it was suggested in section 5, further research regarding additional enabling factors for resilient business models is recommended. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Theory building has advanced regarding finding resilient business model enabling factors in the different cases and studies. However, for this research, finding and putting together the enabling factors within theory, demanded significant amount of time and effort, and demonstrated that there is a need for further research in order to build a concise and robust theory. With this in mind, this thesis suggests that research in this area (organizational resilience and resilient business models) should invest more time collecting existing research and findings and merging them into one concise theory. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

For further research, it is recommended to understand in a deeper level how the enabling factors are interconnected and how they relate and influence each other. From the previous analysis, it was found that certain enabling factors were necessary for other enabling factors to be successful. For example, it seems that effective communication is necessary for diversity to be effective. Regarding the study of Hamel and Valikangas (2003), they presented some relationships of the enabling factors, but further research in this aspect is suggested. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In the same line of thought as the discussion above, theory presents the enabling factors as characteristics an organization has or not, and as characteristics that need to be built beforehand a crisis occurs. From what could be observed in the data, recovering from a business crisis is a process and affects the development of the enabling factors. Further research is suggested in order to understand how the enabling factors change and evolve during a business crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Additionally, given the fact that the interviewees were interviewed once the organization had already overcome the crisis, the data presents the enabling factors as present from the beginning of the crisis. However, this does not mean that the process was always clear and smooth as it may seem. A crisis involves an environment of stress and uncertainty, and the process of recovery involves many other processes that may affect the development of the

45 enabling factors. For further research, exploring a business crisis as a process and analyze how this process affects the development of the enabling factors, is encouraged. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Migrating to other discussion topics, one conclusion of this research is that the presented enabling factors, permitted this company to bounce back and recover from crisis. However, as suggested by some interviewees, it seems that even if businesses have built enabling factors that will help them recover from disruptive changes, they also need to manage the crisis in a way that allows the activation of the enabling factors and recovery of the business. For example by having crisis manuals and strategies in order to recover faster from crisis. As it is further discussed below, there is a research gap between organizational resilience and business crisis management. ​ ​

It seems impossible for an organization to be totally prepared for crisis (opposite to the suggested theories pre 9/11, which suggest that if organizations are resilient, they will not experience crisis), and the search for total preparation raises the paradox presented by Hamel and Valikangas (2003) of being prepared versus being efficient: a company that has financial reserves capable to rebuild the whole business faces this paradox, since those resources could be invested in the organization itself providing growth and development, instead of being set aside. In other words, being too cautious represents an opportunity cost. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ As explained by Gittell et al., (2006), there is always the possibility to experience an external disruptive change that can lead to crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ With this in mind, it is interesting to keep researching enabling factors that could help organizations be prepared for unexpected change and disruption. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

From the data, 70% of the interviewees expressed several aspects of business crisis management as key to recover from the crisis. These are not explored in depth in this study, since the focus is on organizational resilience, but it would be interesting to find the connections for resilient outcomes. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In other words, in order to overcome a business crisis, an organization needs to have built enabling factors beforehand, and additionally it needs to have an efficient management of the crisis. The enabling factors are key, but in order to be activated there are processes that need to take place, after the crisis, to provide an environment where the enabling factors can flourish. This was observed in the data and suggests that the lines of research of resilient business models and business crisis management meet in common ground in order to build complete and consistent theory on resilient organizations. (Figure 7 represents this discussion below). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

46

Figure 7: Gap between Organizational resilience and Business crisis ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

One suggestion for further research, is to explore the theoretical connection between organizational resilience (resilient business models) and business crisis management. As could be observed in this case, it is not sufficient to have built resilient enabling factors to overcome a crisis; during a crisis, business crisis management plays a key role for an organization to succeed and be resilient. This statement is supported by Williams et al., (2017), who suggest that “crisis and resilience are related in an essential way” (Williams et al., 2017:758). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Loosening of control, as analyzed and explained before, is key for fast decision making and acceleration of the recuperation process, it would be interesting to go deeper in research and evaluate how much of the decentralization of decision making is ideal and for what type of organizations, in case it is different for corporations than for SMEs or other types of organizations.

For further discussion, it could be observed that different interviewees that participated in the recovery process of the bakery, coming from different sectors, expressed that if more companies would have those relational skills and that support from the environment, companies would recover faster and in a better way from crisis. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

There is the question mark about the role of the culture in this crisis. At the same time, different interviewees expressed that in other crisis they had experience in the same country and area (most likely the same culture) they had not experienced such a reaction from the ​ environment and such an aim to help the organization to overcome the crisis. More research is suggested to explore and understand what are the special characteristics of the relationships the managerial team managed to build with the environment of the company. The interviewees that participated in the crisis, but were external, expressed that the top management (owner and CEO) had a particular/peculiar, "different way of being that connected and attracted

47 people like a magnet" and that "makes people go beyond solely a business/professional relationship, creating an emotional connection with them and their business". ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Enabling factors for resilient business models are built before organizations experience crisis and therefore as a practical recommendation, businesses should be aware of them and learn how to build them, in the same way organizations are learning how to be innovative, sustainable, etc. ​ ​

As was found by Gittell et al. (2006), human capital is central for an organization. In this case, it was clear that having layoffs of the main block of employees would represent an incredible loss of know-how related to the bakery's products and processes. Keeping almost all employees and finding innovative ways of producing without the traditional infrastructure, allowed the organization to keep producing and be present in the market in a fast way. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

For this organization the insurance was a key aspect. It represented a negative factor in the sense that it was time consuming to go through the negotiations and they had to invest relevant amounts of time in paperwork instead of investing that time in ideation of recuperation strategies, production, etc. As a practical recommendation, it is worth analyzing how insurance companies can act faster when their customers are in need of fast action. Depending on the financial slack of the company, this time can represent success or failure of the business. On the other hand, it is imperative that organizations are insured, and with a suitable insurance. As was expressed by the interviewees and also in the different studies explored as theoretical basis for this thesis, no one really believes that they will experience a crisis. An insurance can ​ represent a cost for the organization if they believe nothing will happen to them, but it represents the survival of the organization in case they experience a business crisis. As explained throughout this document, crisis can be originated by external unexpected factors, regardless of how efficient and careful the company is. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

It was often described by the interviewees that too many opinions would slow down the ​ process, but it was also stated that a good decision and a learning from the process was that the leader, CEO, decided to focus the questions to specific groups in order to have more targeted answers in other words, he changed the strategy of asking everything to all group members, to asking questions in a certain topic to groups with knowledge and experience in that field. For further research it would be interesting to explore in a deeper way the role of communication during crisis, from the company to its consumers. As was stated in the data, communication through social media to tell their consumers that the company was in crisis, but was working hard to recover, was key so that the customers would not think that they were out of business and look for a replacement product. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Diversity is often understood as culture and gender, in resilient business models theory, it is understood as area of expertise or knowledge, it would be interesting to explore if diversity can also be related to the type of relationship or "role" the individuals have. As found in the data, the roles each person has plays an important part in decision making and identifying available resources. It seems that additionally to the knowledge the person has, the role it plays puts the person in a different position for resource seeking and perspective for decision making.

Finally, it is relevant to discuss the fact that this is a successful case. Indeed the organization overcame and survived the crisis, and the data suggests that the organization had all enabling factors and this is why it was able to survive (as explained at the beginning of this section). However, the sample used for the collection of the data had stakeholders that were involved 48 and helped the organization during this period of crisis. The sample did not include individuals that were not involved and that did not help during this process. This opens a new possibility and different perspectives of the case. For further research, it would be interesting to explore the opinions and arguments of non-involved stakeholders. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

49 References

6, P. & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of Methodology - Research Design in Social Science. Thousand ​ Oaks: Sage Publication. ​ ​ ​ ​

Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral ​ sampling. Sociological methods & research. journals.sagepub.com ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Borden, J. R. (2016). Navigating an Organizational Crisis: When Leadership Matters Most. Journal ​ ​ Of Applied Management & Entrepreneurship, 21(3), 128. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2016.ju.00010. Library of Congress. Retrieved from: https://books.google.se/books?hl=es&lr=&id=tytZCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=resilie nt+leadership+in+moments+of+crisis&ots=t8LpZJD8Zc&sig=xfL-hOVhHuswCeZAwBas1O KpWAM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=resilient%20leadership%20in%20moments%20of%20 crisis&f=false

Brockner, J., & James, E. (2008). Toward an Understanding of When Executives See Crisis as ​ Opportunity. Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 94-115. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development. ​ Oxford: Oxford University Press. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. a. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2003. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Duchek S. (2014). Growth in the face of crisis: The role of organizational resilience capabilities. Acad ​ Manage Proc 2014;861-6. ​ ​ ​ ​

'Dutch' Leonard, H. B., & Howitt, A. M. (2011). Working together in crises. Crisis Response Journal, ​ 7(4), 50. ​ ​

Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line, in The Triple Bottom Line, Does it all add up? ​ Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Everly Jr., G., Smith, K., & Lobo, R. (2013). Resilient leadership and the organizational culture of ​ resilience: Construct validation. International Journal Of Emergency Mental Health, 15(2), 123-128.

Gallardo, L., (March 3, 2013). Why Companies Need To Constantly Build Their 'Survival Mode' Skills. ​ Business Insider. Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-case-for-resilience-redefining-the-terms-for-success-and-s urvival-2013-3?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

George S. Everly, Jr. (June 24, 2011). Building a Resilient Organizational Culture. Harvard Business ​ review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2011/06/building-a-resilient-organizat ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​

Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs and organizational ​ resilience: airline industry responses to September 11. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, pp. 300-329. ​ ​ ​ ​

50 Gunasekaran, A., Rai, B. K., & Griffin, M. (2011). Resilience and competitiveness of small and ​ medium size enterprises: an empirical research. International Journal Of Production Research, 49(18), 5489-5509. ​ ​

Grote, G. (2009). Management of Uncertainty. [electronic resource] : Theory and Application in the ​ ​ Design of Systems and Organizations. London : Springer London, 2009. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Hagen, R., Statler, M., & Penuel, K. B. (2013). Encyclopedia of Crisis Management. Los Angeles, ​ Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2003). The quest for resilience. Harvard Business Review, 81, ​ ​ pp.52-65.

Harari, Y. N. 2011. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Vintage books, London. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​

José F. Loaiza Bran (August 15, 2016). En Itagüí, una panadería no se dejó acabar por un incendio. ​ El Colombiano. Article available in: http://www.elcolombiano.com/antioquia/reposteria-de-itagui-emerge-de-las-cenizas-AG47783 76

Kotha, R. and George, G. (2012). Friends, family, or fools: Entrepreneur experience and its ​ implications for equity distribution and resource mobilization. Journal Of Business Venturing, 27(5), 525-543. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.02.001 ​ ​ ​ ​

Kwasi Dartey-Baah. (2010). Resilient leadership: a transformational-transactional leadership mix. ​ Journal of Global Responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JGR-07-2014-0026.

Lagadec, P. (1997). Learning processes for crisis management in complex organizations. Journal Of ​ ​ Contingencies And Crisis Management, 5(1), 24-31. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Ledesma, J. (2014). Conceptual frameworks and research models on resilience in leadership. SAGE ​ Open, 4(3), 8p.. doi:10.1177/2158244014545464 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Janet Ledesma. (SAGE August 2014). Conceptual Frameworks and Research. Models on Resilience ​ in Leadership. Retrieved from http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/3/2158244014545464. ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​

Linnenluecke, M. (2017). Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of Influential ​ Publications and a Research Agenda. International Journal Of Management Reviews, 19(1), ​ 4-30. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12076 ​ ​

Lock, D. M. (2014). Essentials of Project Management. [electronic resource]. Farnham : Ashgate ​ Publishing Ltd, 2014. ​ ​ ​ ​

Masten, A. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, ​ 56(3), 227-238. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227 ​ ​ ​ ​

Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (n.d). Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability. ​ Journal Of Business Ethics, 112(3), 369-384. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

51 MinCit, Ministerio de Industria y Comercio (Colombian Ministry of Commerce and Industry),http://www.mipymes.gov.co/publicaciones/2761/definicion_tamano_empresarial_mi cro_pequena_mediana_o_grande

Monden, Y., & World Scientific, 2014. Management Of Enterprise Crises In Japan. Singapore: World ​ ​ Scientific.

O'Grady, K. A., & Orton, J. D. (2016). Resilience Processes During Cosmology Episodes: Lessons ​ Learned from the Haiti Earthquake. Journal Of Psychology & Theology, 44(2), 109-123. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

O'Riordan, T. (1993). Book review: Ecological economics: The science and management of ​ sustainability. Robert Costanza (editor), Columbia University Press, New York, 1991, 525 pp. ​ ISBN 0 231 075262 6 (hbk), 1992 (pbk). Ecological Economics, 8185-187. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90047-A

Patel, R. & Davidson, B., 1991. Forskningsmetodikens grunder. att plantera, genomföra och ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ rapportera en undersökning. Lund: Studentlitteratur ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Praszkier, R., & Nowak, A. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: theory and practice. Cambridge; New ​ York: Cambridge University Press. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. ​ doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569

Sawalha, I, Jraisat, L, & Al-Qudah, K 2013, 'Crisis and disaster management in Jordanian hotels: ​ practices and cultural considerations', Disaster Prevention And Management, 22, 3, pp. ​ 210-228, Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 February 2017. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Silvius, G. a. (2012). Sustainability in project management. Burlington, VT : Gower Pub., 2012. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Spillan, J., & Hough, M. (2003). Crisis Planning in Small Businesses:. Importance, Impetus and ​ Indifference. European Management Journal, 21398-407. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(03)00046-X

Stockholm Resilience Center. (2017, Sweden). Seven principles for building resilience in ​ social-ecological systems. Retrieved from: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2015-02-19-applying-resilience-t hinking.html

Susi Panadería. La Historia Más Linda. http://www.susi.com.co/un-poco-de-historia/ 11.04.2017. ​ ​ 13:00

Sutcliffe, K. M. and Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Dutton and R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ new discipline. Berrett-Koehler. ​ ​ ​ ​

Tolbert, P.S., and Hall, R. H. (2009). Organizations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes (10th ed.). ​ Upper Saddle River: International Pearson Education. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

52 United Nations, 2015. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Sustainable development knowledge ​ platform. Retreived from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Veninga, R. (2007). Building resilient work environments: the role of communication. Creative ​ ​ Nursing, 13(3), 7-8. ​ ​ ​ ​

Vogus, T.J and Sutcliffe, K.M, (2007). Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research ​ agenda. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2007. ISIC. IEEE ​ International Conference on, 3418. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2007.4414160. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Walker B, Holling C.S, Carpenter S. R, and Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and ​ Transformability in Social-ecological Systems. Ecology And Society, Vol 9, Iss 2, P 5 (2004), ​ (2), 5. doi:10.5751/ES-00650-090205 ​ ​ ​ ​

Walker, J. and Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political ​ economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42(2), 143-160. doi:10.1177/0967010611399616

Wang, J., Zhang, D., and Zimmerman, M. A. (2015). RESILIENCE THEORY AND ITS ​ IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINESE ADOLESCENTS. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 354-375. doi:10.2466/16.17.PR0.117c21z8

Werther, W. B., and Chandler, D. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility : stakeholders in a ​ global environment. Los Angeles : SAGE, cop. 2011. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M, Shepherd, D.A., Zhao, E.Y. (2017). Organizational ​ response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11, No. 2, 733-769. ISBN/ISSN: 1941-6067. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Witmer, H. and Sarmiento, M., (2016). Organizational resilience: Nonprofit organizations’ response ​ to change. Work 54 (2016) 255–265. DOI:10.3233/WOR-162303. IOS Press ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research : design and methods. London : SAGE, cop. 2014. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Zolli A, Healy AM. (2013). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

53 Appendix

1 Interviews ​ ​

Semi-structured interview: ​ ​ 1. Who are you? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2. What is your relationship to Susi Bakery? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3. For how long have you been working with Susi Bakery? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4. Why do you work with Susi Bakery? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5. Describe the Susi Bakery / How do you see Susi Bakery as a company? Organizational culture, business, etc? ​ ​ ​ ​ 6. How did you participate during the Bakery’s crisis? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 7. Why did you help them (Susi Bakery)? What was your main motivation to support them and help them during crisis? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 8. What did you observe during the business crisis that Susi Bakery did? How did they manage the situation? What did you observe as things that helped them respond? Can you give an example or provide a story that will illustrate this? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 9. Can you mention key players during the crisis? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 10. What about something you saw that slowed them down? Can you give an example? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ What were the reactions and responses of people? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 11. Have you participated in crisis before? How is it similar or different from the Susi Panadería crisis? ​ ​ 12. Is there something you want to add for me to be more informed about how Susi Bakery overcame the crisis? ​ ​ ​ ​

2. Susi Bakery, about the company ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Below find some pictures of the fans that supported the bakery by posting pictures on social media with messages of support and hope, together with the logo used for the recovery campaign of the bakery and hashtag #FuerzaSusi (it means #ForceSusi). Also a picture of the ​ production team producing in a different production plant, from another company. (Links and additional information can be found below in Table 2). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

54

Picture 1: Team for crisis recovery ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

55

Picture 2: Production team producing in a different production plant ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Picture 3 and 4: Social media fans posting messages of hope and support ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

56 Table 2: Additional information for the case ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Website of Susi -www.susi.com.co ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Panadería

Innovation award winner, -http://www.rutanmedellin.org/es/actualidad/noticias/item/ruta ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2015 -n-premio-lo-mejor-de-la-innovacion-7 -http://www.rutanmedellin.org/es/actualidad/noticias/item/ya-t ​ ienes-un-gestor-de-innovacion-en-tu-empresa-7

Social media: Links link -www.facebook.com/susipanaderia ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ and hashtags -www.instagram.com/susipanaderia ​ ​ ​

Social media: Hashtags #FuerzaSusi ​ ​ ​ ​ @SusiPanaderia

News article about the -http://www.elcolombiano.com/antioquia/incendio-en-barrio-s ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ fire imon-bolivar-de-itagui-AJ4694828 -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCMNQalrmwE ​ News article about the -http://www.elcolombiano.com/antioquia/reposteria-de-itagui- ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Bakery as success story emerge-de-las-cenizas-AG4778376 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Re-Inauguration, -https://www.facebook.com/susipanaderia/videos/1315033675 ​ 255588/

57