A Workplace Dignity Perspective on Resilience: Moving Beyond Individualized Instrumentalization to Dignified Resilience

Anchoring Point of Ideology

Žižek (1989) uses the term anchoring point (quilting point or le point de capiton) to illustrate how ideology operates. More specifically, the anchoring point is the perspective through which people understand particular concepts, such as resilience. In other words, ideology may cause people to have a specific interpretation of and perspective on concepts. Concepts such as freedom, democracy and justice can have very different meanings depending on context (Žižek, 1989, 2001), and ideology offers an anchoring point to interpret the meaning of concepts in a specific way. Hence, through ideology, concepts which in themselves are interpretable in multiple ways, obtain a specific meaning in a context.

We can observe that resilience is anchored in the neoliberal construction of the contemporary human being and worker (Bal & Dóci, 2018; Cretney, 2014; Hall & Lamont, 2013; Joseph, 2013). Neoliberalism concerns the dominant economic-political paradigm governing societies in both the Western world and beyond (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017). Through its emphasis on economic freedom, utility maximization, individualism and meritocracy (Bal & Dóci, 2018), neoliberal anchoring of resilience has resulted in a specific meaning, including several core assumptions regarding the concept, and in particular two main conceptualized entities: instrumentality and individualism.

First, resilience perceived through a neoliberal anchoring point serves an instrumental purpose. This is notable in research on resilience emphasizing its “applicability and relation to workplace performance” (Youssef & Luthans, 2007, pp. 778–779). In other words, resilience is of importance to societies and organizations because of its instrumental nature to organizational performance and productivity. As resilient employees will be better able to cope with workplace adversities, and will be quicker in bouncing back from negative events, it is postulated that resilience has importance to organizations and societies. For instance, the article by Bardoel et al. (2014) on employee resilience and HRM emphasized the importance of resilience for organizational performance because “with resilient employees, the organization itself becomes resilient and gains a competitive advantage” (Bardoel et al., 2014, p. 288).

Absent from such an argument is the notion that resilience could have an intrinsic quality, or the notion that resilience may be important regardless of its instrumental nature for organizations. The problem is not that more resilient employees are more highly performing, but that resilience becomes the norm (Stewart, 2011). Thereby it is projected upon people, and thus expected to exist within the contemporary human being, who has to be an “entrepreneur of the self” (Bauman, 2000; Žižek, 2014). Because resilience has an instrumental property in its potential to generate economic output, it is imposed upon people as a necessity. Those people who are not resilient have no utility, and therefore organizations are discouraged from investing or even employing individuals who are not resilient (Cabanas & Illouz, 2019). Such a perspective neglects the differential possibilities of people to realize such an imposed norm, thereby accentuating the dividing line between winners and losers. While highly performing individuals are rewarded by organizations, they will be more able to accumulate the resources needed to build resilience, such as training in Psychological Capital (Britt et al., 2016). In contrast, individuals who for whatever reason are not performing well, may not be offered such training. Hence, the adoption of resilience in a positive psychology paradigm may actually achieve the opposite of what was meant to be; instead of the empowering quality of an emphasis of resilience for human beings, the projection upon a need to become resilient may delegitimize claims of unequal access due to structural inequalities, and amplify the individual responsibility for resilience.

A critique that resilience literature does not only take into account the instrumental nature of resilience for individual and organizational performance, but also looks at the importance of resilience for individual well-being, is insufficient. It is also notable how well-being itself becomes instrumentalized toward viability of the organization (Bal, 2020; Cabanas & Illouz, 2019). Any claim that resilience strengthens individual and collective well-being (Cretney, 2014) should therefore be investigated carefully, and in particular its underlying ontological assumptions. With the tendency toward “instrumentalization of everything” toward economic growth (and organizational performance as an important mediator in this relationship), well-being and resilience also face a similar risk: in particular that of the loss of an understanding of its intrinsic quality for human beings (Herrman et al., 2011; Stewart, 2011), toward an individual responsibility to contribute to maintenance of the current capitalist system through becoming a resilient soldier for organizational performance (Bal, 2020).

Second, it is precisely this individual responsibility toward resilience that corresponds to the neoliberal construction of resilience. Emphasizing the notion of meritocracy (Bal & Dóci, 2018; Littler, 2013), or the idea that everyone in society has a fair and equal chance to success, neoliberal ideology assumes the equal chances of each individual to become resilient. This has multiple implications: first, people have an individual responsibility to resilience. Resilience in the HRD literature is by itself a psychological concept and primarily aimed at explaining an understanding at the individual, psychological, level (cf. Cretney, 2014). Hence, resilience is individualized such that its meaning only manifests at the individual level. In other words, employees not only carry an individual responsibility to become resilient (notwithstanding the individual differences among people to do so), but resilience also only reflects a value to the individual herself. Even more so, there is little research on the wider context around the development of resilience capabilities, and the extent to which communities, organizations and societies favor some individuals over others in the possibilities for resilience accumulation (see for exceptions Kossek & Perrigino, 2016; Mishra & McDonald, 2017). As resilience is conceptualized as ultimately an individual responsibility, meritocratic beliefs help to sustain a perspective on the workplace as able to distinguish between those individuals who are willing to exert effort into becoming more resilient and those who are unwilling.

It is the fantasy of the neoliberal unregulated free market that explains a social Darwinist perspective on resilience (Bal & Dóci, 2018; O’Malley, 2010). It is because individuals are either lazy or unwilling to ‘bounce back’ from adversity that those people who are not resilient have to pay the price of their inability of developing resilience. Because in the free market the “invisible hand” sorts out the winners and the losers, it is not surprising to see how attributions are made accordingly: the winners are deserving, as they worked hard for their rewards, while the losers are unable to survive and manage themselves. A resilience discourse does not challenge such perspectives, but rather contributes to a further underpinning of social Darwinism. Any claim for organizational support to resilience capability-development is ultimately grounded in the instrumental logic, whereby resilience contributes to the bottom line. More fundamentally, it has been argued that neoliberal economic logic is pervading deeper into the very structures of society and psychology (Musílek et al., 2020), thereby having the potential to transform any concept through economic instrumentalization. Resilience is not different in its proclaimed possibility to contribute to employee and organizational performance, whilst at the same time being a solely individual responsibility, thereby delegitimizing claims for organizational or governmental responsibility to ensure individual and collective resilience. Paradoxically, neoliberal regimes have consistently emphasized arguably resistance undermining policies—austerity, budget cuts, and slashing of social benefits (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017), further implying individualized responsibility for resilience building (O’Malley, 2010). Hence, a neoliberal anchoring point to conceptualize resilience results in a perspective on resilience as being driven by an economic logic and of which responsibility ultimately resides in the individual.

This notion can be problematized in multiple ways. Most importantly, the individual responsibility to resilience does not necessarily help those individuals lacking resilience. Due to structural inequalities in societies and workplaces, resilience may especially benefit those who are already in privileged positions (Cremin, 2010). Because privilege may ease access to resources, it is those people who will be more likely to “survive” in the workplace. For instance, people with ample human capital will find it generally easier to find employment, thereby not suffering from the disappearance of permanent employment as much as those workers with less human capital, who are forced into precarious employment. Consequently, while the former may be more resilient and thereby retaining their resilience, the latter may find it increasingly difficult to find resources for resilience accumulation, whilst trying to survive in the hypercompetitive labor market.

Second, when resilience is merely instrumentalized within neoliberal ideology to create possibilities for economic value creation (Cretney, 2014), its meaning is reduced toward a narrow understanding, which effectively limits its potential for meaningful empowerment. When resilience is only of interest economically, there would be no incentive for organizations to invest in resilience if it would not contribute to performance. For instance, the study of Youssef and Luthans (2007) showed no significant relationships of resilience with job performance. This could lead to a conclusion that organizations should not invest in resilience, due to the lack of “pay off” for the organization. Such a logic limits its potential for human beings in contemporary workplaces. The question, therefore, is how resilience can be anchored, such that it both has an intrinsic value, and is not merely projected as an individual responsibility. We argue that resilience can be anchored through a dignity-perspective (Kostera & Pirson, 2017; Lucas, 2015), through which its meaning and conceptualization can be enriched for a wider use in academic research and practice.

A Dignity Perspective on Resilience

We advocate a pluralist approach toward the study and practice of resilience as opposed to or an alternative to the dualistic instrumentalization and individualization perspectives of resilience in HRD discourse (Greenwood & Van Buren, 2017; O’Malley, 2010). Pluralism allows for the coexistence of multiple paradigms at the same time, thereby allowing scientific debates to take place about the various (implicit) assumptions that drive research. Our intention, therefore, is not to advocate against the concept of resilience, but to retain its value and to explore how resilience can be used alternatively. To do so, we emphasize the importance of “dignity” (Bal, 2017; Kostera & Pirson, 2017) as an alternative framework to conceptualize resilience, such that the role of collective welfare functions as an anchoring point in how resilience is conceptualized.

Dignity has a twofold meaning in relation to resilience. First, it offers the potential to attribute an intrinsic meaning to resilience, through which it no longer has to be instrumental to economic value creation. Second, dignity offers the possibility to conceptualize responsibility toward resilience development, through postulating the Kantian principle of duty toward dignity. Both will be discussed in detail below.

Workplace Dignity as Alternative Paradigm

Dignity has a long history (Bal, 2017), but most Western interpretations have been influenced by philosopher Kant (1785/2012), who described dignity as the intrinsic worth of each human being. Moreover, dignity implies that people have autonomy, and thereby not only freedom, but also the possibility to self-regulation. Dignity as the intrinsic worth of human beings has far-reaching implications (Thomas & Lucas, 2019). For instance, a Kantian perspective on dignity prescribes that people may never be used as a mere means toward an end, and therefore, the instrumentalization of employees for the achievement of organizational performance can be perceived as inherently undignified. However, in problematizing the notion of human dignity, Bal (2017) extended the concept of dignity as intrinsic worth to everything that is part of the workplace, including animals and the planet itself. Departing from the notion that everything in the workplace has an intrinsic worth, a radical transformation takes place concerning the role of work in society. Contemporary business cannot escape the fundamental questions of today, including environmental destruction and rising inequality. If dignity is about the intrinsic worth of everything in the workplace (Bal, 2017), a question concerns how this translates into theory and practices of respect for and promotion of greater dignity in the workplace. It can be observed how dignity has been at the forefront of international discourse on human rights and peace, but nonetheless has not yet been integrated into everyday understanding of interpersonal contact and the functioning of organizations. In other words, dignity is still absent from organizational discourse.

Therefore, a dialog is needed with stakeholders to formulate the ways through which dignity can be respected and promoted in the workplace. Dialog arises when individuals enter conversations about what the most appropriate way of acting is in a given circumstance, and which aims for respecting, protecting, and promoting the dignity of other people, animals, and the planet (Bal, 2017; Bal & De Jong, 2017). Such conversations may be held among individuals, but can be also structured more formally through ways of democratizing organizations, where individuals within and beyond organizations are able to exercise voice and be a crucial part in decision making processes. This dialog or workplace democracy, ensures participation of stakeholders, and most notably employees, in the process of decision making. Real involvement of employees in decision making ensures that employees are not merely managed top-down and used instrumentally toward organizational performance. Literature has shown that while company profits have skyrocketed, employees have not profited equally, and have faced wage stagnation for years (Wisman, 2013). This disconnect between organizational interest and the participation and inclusion of employees calls for a more fundamental rethinking organizational structures (Kostera & Pirson, 2017). Hence, Bal (2017) described how dignity manifests through dialog and democracy. While the relative difficulty of translating dignity into practice may be explained by the unclear nature of responsibility toward dignity, a conceptual way out is offered by introducing a dialog-approach to dignity. As dignity is context-dependent, it is complex to define universal rules as to how people should be treated with dignity in the workplace.

A Dignity Perspective on Resilience

Following a dignity logic, new meanings for resilience in the workplace can be generated. In contrast to a neoliberal anchoring, a dignity-perspective offers a number of key principles in relation to resilience at work. While resilience denotes the ability to bounce back from adversity at work, a dignity paradigm does not advance this concept as instrumental and as an individualized responsibility. In contrast, while dignity assumes intrinsic worth, it also denotes resilience as an important capability of human beings. As adversity is part of everyday life of every human being, it is indeed important to strengthen the resilience capabilities of each human being, whether they are in or out of employment. Perhaps it is the people without employment who are in even greater need of resilience, as paid employment may offer income and resources, which may be contributing to greater resilience (Mor-Barak, 1995). Hence, resilience is not merely instrumental to organizational performance, and thereby only of interest to organizations and government as it improves organizational functioning, but because resilience has important intrinsic attributes (Stewart, 2011).

Therefore, resilience is important for people to live a dignified life, and to contribute to greater dignity in the workplace. Therefore, it is not just instrumental to organizations, but may contribute to a wide range of “outcomes” which are relevant to individuals and collectives. For instance, resilient individuals may have more resources to cope in times of adversity, and thereby help others in their communities who are less well off. This creates the possibility of sharing of resources for greater social cohesion and belonging.

Moreover, resilience of individuals and communities is needed in the face of environmental destruction (Cretney, 2014). More specifically, it is well established that overconsumption is one of the main sources for pollution and climate change (Conca, 2001). This means that people, especially those in the West, will have to reduce consumption (e.g. eat less meat, fly less, and have fewer children) to decrease their contribution to environmental destruction. Facing this necessity, societies will need resilient people, who can deal with radical change in their lifestyles. The need to change one’s lifestyle demands resilience of people to cope well with such changes. Hence, in a dignity-paradigm, resilience may be actually one of the main challenges for communities. It is important to build resilient communities, where people support each other in becoming more resilient in the light of radical societal transformation. Hence, a dignity paradigm may also inform the individual and collective ways through which resistance to neoliberal regimes can be generated, and how alternatives can be formulated (Bal et al., 2019).

A dignity perspective on resilience postulates that it is not only an individual responsibility to become resilient, but shared within communities. Whereas the basis for manifestation of dignity resides within the dialog among individuals and within communities, it is through this dialog that we can become aware of how resilience can be developed for individuals as well as communities. Resilience is thereby not positioned as an individual responsibility, but as a collective responsibility that may be formulated through debate. As a dignity paradigm acknowledges that people possess differential capabilities and access to resilience accumulation, it is a shared responsibility to ensure people become resilient. Even more so, dignity assumes that special attention is paid to those who, for whatever reason, have difficulties in developing themselves as resilient individuals. The question thereby, is how communities and resilient people may help and support others to become more resilient as well. The notion of “duty of care” (Jenkins, 2008) also corresponds to the idea of dignity in the workplace; when intrinsic worth of other human beings (and in extension of the planet) is central in the organization of our economic system, we have a duty of care toward other people, to not merely treat them as objects to an end, but as individuals with dignity. Consequently, a dialog is necessary to formulate the ways through which people can be supported to become more resilient, and better able to cope with adversity in life and work. A subsequent question that can be asked is what exactly organizations and communities can do, and which structures can be designed such that dignity is respected and promoted (Bal, 2017). In sum, a dignity perspective on resilience offers the possibility to anchor resilience in a fundamentally different way, such that it obtains an alternative meaning.