Received: 12 February 2019 Revised: 6 June 2019 Accepted: 6 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/jtr.2312

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Building tourism organizational resilience to crises and

disasters: A dynamic capabilities view

Yawei Jiang | Brent W. Ritchie | Martie‐Louise Verreynne

UQ Business School, The University of

Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Abstract
The importance of resilience for tourism organizations facing crises and disasters is
Correspondence
Yawei Jiang, Colin Clark Building, The indisputable. Yet little is known about how these organizations become resilient. This
University of Queensland (St Lucia Campus), paper proposes that dynamic capabilities provide a mechanism that enables tourism
Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Email: yawei.jiang@uq.net.au organizations to respond to disruptive environmental changes through a process of
routine transformation, resource allocation, and utilization. The resulting theoretical
framework takes a processual view to show how an organization's existing opera-
tional routines transform into new ones that are resilient to disruptive events,
enabled by dynamic capabilities and slack resources. The paper outlines six research
propositions and suggests methods for future empirical research.

K E Y W OR D S

dynamic capabilities, environmental turbulence, operational routines, organizational resilience,

slack resources

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N (Keats & Hitt, 1988). Current tourism literature argues that it is often
ineffective response or recovery strategies, overreliance on govern-
Crises and disasters are major challenges for the tourism industry ment funding and support, and a lack of forward planning, which
(Williams & Baláž, 2015), which can incur significant economic and impact the speed and scale of being resilient to turbulent environ-
job losses as a result of a reduction in tourist demand (Boukas & ments (Blackman, Kennedy, & Ritchie, 2011). Therefore, it is important
Ziakas, 2013). In 2018, there were 281 natural disasters recorded to ask, “How can tourism organizations become resilient in an increas-
across the world, resulting in 10,373 deaths, 61.7 million affected ingly turbulent environment?”
people, and US$160 billion in economic damage (CRED & United Resilience, briefly defined as the ability of a system to maintain and
Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019). Natural disasters adapt its essential structure and function in the face of disturbance
are predicted to increase as a result of global environmental change (Holling, 1973), is useful to understand how tourism organizations
(Pelling & Uitto, 2001), thereby threatening tourism destinations could respond effectively and adapt positively to increasing environ-
located alongside coastlines and mountain areas (Ritchie, 2008). mental turbulences (Biggs, Hall, & Stoeckl, 2012; Tyrrell & Johnston,
Human‐made crises can also influence tourism demand and negatively 2008). Recent studies use and propose resilience framework at the
affect tourism industries, such as seen from recent examples that destination level, such as the disaster sustainability framework
include the global financial crisis (Sheldon & Dwyer, 2010) and (Calgaro, Lloyd, & Dominey‐Howes, 2014) that assesses vulnerability
terrorist attacks (Paraskevas & Arendell, 2007). and resilience of the tourism economy in Harrietville, Australia (Pyke,
Tourism industries are not well prepared to manage crises and De Lacy, Law, & Jiang, 2016) or examines tourism resilience in
disasters (Wang & Ritchie, 2012), yet they are vulnerable to external Thailand (Beirman, 2018). These works use a multilevel perspective,
events due to their global nature and reliance on safety and security noting resilient destinations' needs on wider communities, rather than
(Ritchie, 2004). Organizational strategies and actions attempt to just the tourism industry itself (Amore, Prayag, & Hall, 2018). How-
address the impacts of crises and disasters, but inevitably these inter- ever, a need remains to broaden the conceptual basis by drawing on
relate with organizations' capabilities to plan and adapt to change new theories and knowledge from other disciplines, such as strategic

Int J Tourism Res. 2019;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jtr © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 JIANG ET AL.

management, to discuss how tourism organizations can become organizations, which exceeds the ability of organizations to cope with
resilient in turbulent environments at an organizational level (Jiang, (Keown‐McMullan, 1997). For tourism organizations, crises and disas-
Ritchie, & Benckendorff, 2017). This has resulted in a lack of widely ters can be seen as severe occurrences that threaten the normal oper-
used mechanisms that can enable and guide effective crisis prepara- ations of tourism organizations and damage the overall destination
tion, response, and long‐term resilience across tourism industries. It reputation by affecting tourists' perceptions, which exceeds the ability
also highlights the need for theoretical frameworks in tourism prior of organizations to recover using its own resources (Mair, Ritchie, &
to empirical work to help define key concepts, relationships, and Walters, 2016; Sönmez, Backman, & Allen, 1994).
the operationalization of primary research (Jiang et al., 2017; Tourism organizations are firms that conduct business activities,
Pearce, 2012). including the provision of transportation, accommodation, food and
A promising avenue comes from the strategic management field, beverage (F&B), recreation, and entertainment‐related services aimed
which identifies organizational capabilities as important in facilitating at the tourism market (Hystad & Keller, 2006; Leiper, 1979). Tourism
strategic activities and enhancing organizational performance products have three unique characteristics that differentiate it from
(Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Barreto, 2010). In this field, a other industries and result in different impacts from crises/disasters.
growing literature notes the important role of dynamic capabilities First, tourism products are intangible and its production and consump-
(DCs) in responding to a turbulent environment and achieving long‐ tion happen at the same time (Smith, 1994). A typical case is when a
term resilience. Resilience is central to sustainable tourism manage- disaster strikes a tourism destination, and recreation‐related services
ment (Biggs et al., 2012) and can help organizations to better cope (e.g., snorkelling tours to Great Barrier Reef) cannot be stored and sold
with uncertainties (McManus, Seville, Vargo, & Brunsdon, 2008). Resil- to tourists due to the environmental damage. They are therefore not
ient organizations usually have the capability to manage their vulnera- available until the environment is restored. Second, tourism products
bilities and are more adaptive and innovative in their operations are perishable as inventory cannot be carried or stored away for later
(Aldunce, Beilin, Handmer, & Howden, 2014). In crisis and disaster use. For example, hotel rooms cancelled by tourists during a disaster
management, organizations should consider resilience as an important period are left vacant, and the revenue is lost and cannot be resold.
part of their culture (Sawalha, 2015) and develop the capability to Third, tourism products are based on the cooperation among multiple
transit from daily routines to adapting and responding to sectors (i.e., accommodation, F&B, and recreation) that provide a com-
crises/disasters (Alonso, Kok, & O'Shea, 2018; Dixon, Meyer, & Day, plementary and holistic tourism experience (Williams & Baláž, 2015).
2014; Paton & Hill, 2006). However, this tight industrial chain structure results in high interde-
This paper defines DCs as the mechanisms that enable organiza- pendency and create a ripple effect (Ritchie, 2004). If one part is dam-
tional resilience to environmental turbulence (such as crises and disas- aged due to crises/disasters, the others are also affected. For example,
ters) through a process of routine transformation, resource allocation, when hotel rooms are damaged, there will be no place for tourists to
and utilization (Helfat et al., 2007; Teece, 2007; Wang & Ahmed, stay and therefore leisure activities become obsolete.
2007). A focus on developing DCs in turbulent environments has A number of management models provide guidelines for effective
promise for the Tourism crisis and disaster management (TCDM) liter- TCDM (e.g., Paraskevas & Arendell, 2007; Smith, 1995; Stafford, Yu,
ature. It can help to create/modify organizations' current resources & Armoo, 2002). In the early stages of tourism crisis/disaster manage-
and routines, sense/seize opportunities, and maintain/improve com- ment, simple guidelines were developed to incorporate crisis planning
petitiveness to achieve long‐term resilience in turbulent environments and build task forces and partnerships within the tourism industry
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, (Sönmez, Apostolopoulos, & Tarlow, 1999). In the early 2000s, some
1997). To set this important foundation, this paper examines the TCDM frameworks were proposed that incorporated disaster manage-
concept of organizational resilience, DCs, and its parent theories from ment stages and corresponding strategies, such as Faulkner's (2001)
the strategy literature before investigating its applicability to TCDM. tourism disaster management framework and Ritchie's (2004) strategic
A theoretical framework is then developed to position DCs in a and holistic framework. This encouraged the development of more
crisis/disaster context. We conclude the paper with suggestions on specific frameworks from various perspectives. For example, Hystad
how this framework can be used to advance future research. and Keller's (2008) stakeholder‐focused framework outlined responsi-
bilities and interactions of major stakeholders. Pennington‐Gray's
(2014) destination disaster framework helped position disaster
2 | T OUR I SM CR I S ES /D I SA S TE R S A ND impacts in a destination context, whereas Avraham's (2015) multistep
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS framework for altering destination images after crises/disasters recog-
nized the effect of media sensationalism. These approaches provide
Disasters are defined by the United Nations Office of Disaster Risk relevant tourism strategies and actions to manage current
Reduction as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community crises/disasters (Moe & Pathranarakul, 2006) but do not explain how
involving widespread human, material, economic, or environmental tourism organizations can become resilient when encountering similar
losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected commu- crises/disasters in the future.
nity to cope with using its own resources.” Crises are defined as a trig- How tourism organizations recover from a crisis/disaster may dif-
gering event causing significant change and threat to the survival of fer on a case‐by‐case basis (Jiang & Ritchie, 2017). This points to the
JIANG ET AL. 3

importance to examine the management capabilities required to This paper defines organizational resilience as an organization's
achieve resilience at an organizational level, in addition to the theoret- ability to persist and withstand external environmental changes (prep-
ical lenses identified above. Insufficient management capabilities con- aration), mitigate and cope with negative effects caused by the
stitute one of the biggest challenges for tourism organizations in changes (response), and bounce forward to a new state for better
dealing with turbulent environments (Hystad & Keller, 2008; future performance (recovery). Although tourism organizations (mainly
Paraskevas, Altinay, McLean, & Cooper, 2013). Organizations' internal small to medium sized) have limited financial resources, strategic plan-
resources and DCs have the potential to enable long‐term resilience ning, and experience (Burnard & Bhamra, 2011; Ingirige, Jones, &
(Augier & Teece, 2009). Therefore, this paper aims to address this Proverbs, 2008; Verreynne, Williams, Ritchie, Gronum, & Betts,
gap by developing a theoretical framework to discuss the role of 2019), they often have the potential to flexibly adapt to changes
DCs to help organizations to adapt to turbulent environments through because of their smaller size, simple organizational structure, and
deploying slack resources and transforming operational routines to niche business focus (Antony, Kumar, & Labib, 2008; Burnard &
achieve resilience (Teece, 2009). Bhamra, 2011). Resilient organizations have the ability to adjust their
management structure, processes, and practices (Borekci, Say,
Kabasakal, & Rofcanin, 2014), which provide flexibility to prepare
3 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L U NC E R T A I N T Y , for, respond to, and recover from environmental turbulences (Somers,
T O U R I S M OR G A N I Z A T I O N A L RE S I L I EN C E , 2009). Therefore, it is important for tourism organizations to build
AND DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES resilience by enhancing their capability to recognize key resources
(Ates & Bititci, 2011; Bhamra, Dani, & Burnard, 2011).
An organizational environment is the sum of physical and social fac- Empirical research on tourism resilience remains scarce in the liter-
tors that interact with organizational actions and strategies to influ- ature. As noted by Prayag, Spector, Orchiston, and Chowdhury (2019,
ence decision‐making behaviours (Duncan, 1972). Crises and p. 3), “existing resilience studies on tourism organizations do not pro-
disasters are macrolevel environmental changes that occur in the vide empirical evidence of the relationships between different types of
objective world. They can lead to market uncertainties in tourism resilience.” Key dimensions to achieve tourism resilience tend to focus
organizations as a result of an unexpected reduction in tourist arrivals on the organizational and individual level. For example, human capital
and reputational damage. How organizations perceive the impact of a (employees' adaptive capacity and individual resilience) and lifestyle
crisis/disaster depends on the bounded rationality of managers identify (owners and mangers' lifestyle choice and satisfaction) are
(Simon, 1957), their imperfect understandings of the environment seen as important in achieving resilience in tourism organizations
(Smircich & Stubbart, 1985), and individual managers' abilities to pre- (Biggs, 2011; Prayag et al., 2019). The strength of business ties in rela-
dict the probable outcomes of events (Miller, 1993). Furthermore, tion to other stakeholders (e.g., trust, commitment, and friendship) has
how an organization responds to and recovers from a crisis/disaster a strong influence on adaptive resilience (Chowdhury, Prayag,
depends on its DCs that enable it to learn from and adapt to the tur- Orchiston, & Spector, 2018). Orchiston (2013) further adds to this dis-
bulent environments (Teece, 2009). cussion by highlighting continuity insurance and staff induction as the
Achieving organizational resilience when a sudden crisis/disaster most commonly used tools to achieve tourism resilience in the context
occurs is important for the sustained growth of tourism organizations of the Southern Alps of New Zealand. Apart from the quantitative
(Hall, Prayag, & Amore, 2017; Orchiston, Prayag, & Brown, 2016). studies, Dahles and Susilowati (2015) conducted a longitudinal qualita-
Emerging from ecology in the early 1970s through Holling's (1973) tive research of small businesses in the accommodation sector in Indo-
study of ecological stability and its interacting population, the concept nesia, which noted tourism organizations' ability to find alternative
of resilience has evolved across various disciplines, including psychol- resources is vital to achieve resilience.
ogy, engineering, and organizational science (Manfield & Newey, In recent years, researchers have started to build conceptual
2018). Resilience is mostly defined as either a system's “ability” to models (e.g., Amore et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2017) and apply a cross‐
absorb change and disturbance or the “magnitude” of disturbance a disciplinary lens of disaster resilience (Brown, Rovins, Feldmann‐
system can absorb before changes occur (Gunderson, 2000; Holling, Jensen, Orchiston, & Johnston, 2017) in conceptualizing how organi-
1973). Social ecologists regard a system's persistence, tolerance, and zations build and manage resilience. From these studies, it is evident
absorptivity to disturbance as indicators of resilience (Walker et al., that three critical dimensions form organizational resilience include
2002). Crisis/disaster management scholars understand resilience as individual resilience (people), systems resilience (processes), and sup-
a way to mitigate and contain the negative impacts of disasters ply chain resilience (partnerships; Hall et al., 2017). The DCs approach
(Bruneau et al., 2003), whereas resilience in organizational science discussed in this study echoes these three dimensions by arguing that
explains organizations' adaption to disturbance and opportunity seiz- tourism organizations' higher level of capabilities can find and utilize
ing that results in business transformations rather than a return to both internal (human capital) and external resources (social capital
any previous status (Manfield & Newey, 2018; Smit & Wandel, and supply chain) of organizations as well as to modify existing and
2006). Therefore, resilience is a progressive state of organizational create new operational routines (process) to achieve resilience.
evolution, which represents organizations' constant change and Resilient tourism organizations can cope better with crises/
adaptability. disasters because they have the capability to identify and manage
4 JIANG ET AL.

key vulnerabilities and develop routines and approaches to adapt to resilience in turbulent environments (e.g., natural disasters and eco-
changed situations with new and innovative solutions (McManus nomic crisis). This paper draws on the strategy literature and argues
et al., 2008). Crises and disasters have transformational effects on that DCs can provide a different approach to understand the key orga-
tourism organizations and act as “turning points” for organizations to nizational resources and operational routines, which can encourage
achieve a new state, which can be better or worse than before organizational resilience, a key research gap in the TCDM literature.
(Cioccio & Michael, 2007; Davies & Walters, 1998; Faulkner, 2001). DCs are defined through different lenses and theoretical founda-
Effective capabilities may help to minimize negative impacts and lever- tions. Table 1 summarizes the key definitions of DCs from two main
age opportunities to discover new markets, develop new products, theoretical schools of thought.
and establish new collaborative relationships. Tourism studies should First, organizational capability is defined as a high‐level routine
shift to resilience rather than crisis/disaster management (Prayag, that determines an organization's management and decision making
2018). Therefore, the long‐term goal for TCDM should not be a simple (Winter, 2003). Lei, Hitt, and Bettis (1996) support the “routine” view
return back to former states, but rather an adaptation and transforma- that continuous organizational learning is the generator of effective
tion to new states for future growth (Scott, Laws, & Prideaux, 2008). core competences, which are based on “dynamic routines.” Zollo and
One approach that is widely advocated as a key source to achieve Winter (2002) expand the concept of “dynamic routines” and define
resilience is the dynamic capability approach (Augier & Teece, 2009; DCs based on the idea from the theory of evolutionary economics
Paton, Smith, & Violanti, 2000). The next section discusses the nature of changing operational patterns in organizations (Metcalfe, 1998;
of DCs from two main theoretical schools of thought and uses these Nelson & Winter, 1982). This school of thought treats DCs as a collec-
foundations to develop a theoretical framework. tive of learning activities that help modify organization operational
routines to adapt to the turbulent environments. In contrast, Teece
(2007) and Helfat et al. (2007) share a similar view to the resource‐
4 | UNDERSTANDING DYNAMIC based view (RBV), namely, that DCs are the capacity to change
CAPABILITIES AND ITS THEORETICAL organizations' resources including tangible and intangible assets and
FOUNDATIONS capabilities to adapt to the changing environments. This school of
thought treats an organization's resource base as the core factor of
4.1 | Nature of dynamic capabilities organizational performance and asserts that DCs can improve the uti-
lization of resources to improve its performance in the face of turbu-
DCs are types of capabilities that allow organizations to respond to lent environments such as crises and disasters.
turbulent environments (Teece et al., 1997). Although it is pervasive Incorporating these two schools of thought, Wang and Ahmed
in the strategy literature, where it examines how organizations can (2007) argue that DCs are not simply processes but rather represent
achieve sustained growth in a hypercompetitive environment (e.g., the capacity to deploy resources that are embedded in the organiza-
technology development and market dynamics), few studies in tourism tional processes (p. 35). This paper agrees with this view and defines
discuss its potential to explain how organizations can develop DCs as the mechanism that enables an organization's adaptation to

TABLE 1 Definitions of dynamic capabilities

Author (year) Definition of dynamic capabilities Theoretical foundations

Teece et al. (1997) “The ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to Resource‐based view
address a rapidly changing environment” (p. 517)
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) “Specific strategic and organisational processes like product development, alliancing Resource‐based view
and strategic decision‐making that create value for firms within dynamic markets
by manipulating resources into new value‐creating strategies” (p. 1106)
Zollo and Winter (2002) “A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through Evolutionary theory of the firms
which the organisation systematically generates and modifies its operational (evolutionary economics)
routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness” (p. 340)
Teece (2007) “The capacity (1) to sense and shape opportunities and threats, (2) to seize Resource‐based view
opportunities, and (3) to maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining,
protecting, and, when necessary, reconfiguring the business enterprise's intangible
and tangible assets” (p. 1319)
Helfat et al. (2007) “The capacity of an organisation to purposefully create, extend or modify its resource Resource‐based view
base” (p. 4)
Wang and Ahmed (2007) “A firm's behavioural orientation constantly to integrate, reconfigure, renew and Both resource‐based view and
recreate its resources and capabilities and, most importantly, upgrade and reconstruct evolutionary theory of the firms
its core capabilities in response to the changing environment to attain and sustain
competitive advantage” (p. 35)
JIANG ET AL. 5

environmental turbulence. A dynamic and adaptive view is taken from be perfectly utilized across organizations (Barney, 1991; Penrose,
evolutionary theory that holds that the changing utilization of organi- 1959). This heterogeneous view highlights internal organizational
zational resources over time is important to understand DCs. Although resources and their roles in achieving long‐lasting growth through the
the creation and evolution of organizations' DCs are suggested to be process of further integration and utilization of slack resources (Cheng
embedded in organizational processes, it remains a “black box” in its & Kesner, 1997). Slack resources are unused resources that can be used
working mechanism in the current literature, and this requires further in a discretionary manner (Tan & Peng, 2003), which allow an organiza-
exploration. To better understand the nature of DCs, the following tion to adapt to the pressure of environmental changes (Huang & Chen,
sections examine the parent theories and their contribution to the 2010). However, one limitation of RBV is that it only focuses on the
DCs approach. source of achieving long‐term growth, which does not indicate how
organizations can use them. Mahoney and Pandian (1992) first point
out that “a firm may achieve rents not because it has better resources,
4.2 | Resource‐based view of the firm and dynamic but rather the firm's distinctive competence involves making better use
capabilities of its resources” (p. 365). This has gained attention from other
researchers who have started to explore organizations' core capabilities
The RBV of the firm comes from the work of Penrose (1959) who (Leonard‐Barton, 1992), combinative capabilities (Kogut & Zander,
argued that a firm's growth is due to resources employment within 1992), transformation‐based competencies (Lado, Boyd, & Wright,
organizations (an endogenous view). Penrose viewed firms as (a) a col- 1992), and organizational capabilities (Russo & Fouts, 1997) in manag-
lection of productive resources, (b) with the attributes of product ing strategic resources to achieve better performance. The dynamic
diversification and heterogeneity, and (c) as an administrative unit that capability approach thus seeks to explain the organization's dynamic
could manage these resources. These arguments have contributed to interacting process of using inimitable capabilities to shape/reshape
the development of DCs, as explained next. and to configure/reconfigure the organization's resources to respond
First, the RBV argues that an organization is a collection of produc- to the turbulent environments (Teece, 2009; Teece et al., 1997).
tive resources that includes both physical and human resources, such Third and most important, an organization is an autonomous
as managerial skills, knowledge and experience (Penrose, 1959). To administrative planning unit led by “central management.” In other
earn above‐normal returns, organizations need to identify and acquire words, organizational growth considers human motivation and human
resources that are critical to the development of products (Wernerfelt, decision (mostly a small group of higher level managers or sometimes
1984). Barney (1991) extends the scope of resources by including the single entrepreneur) compared with a natural biological growth
capabilities and organizational processes. The RBV does not acknowl- process. Thus, an organization's expansion is limited by the “produc-
edge the distinction between “resources as inputs” and “resources that tive opportunity” found and utilized by managers. Resources, DCs,
enable the organization of such inputs.” The latter resources can be and knowledge are closely interlinked (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen,
viewed as the organization's processes to select, deploy, and reconfig- 2001). The connection between resource and capability is that man-
ure the former resources as inputs to match environment change agers need certain capabilities to design and construct organizational
(Teece, 2007). This has contributed to understanding DCs' nature as systems to enhance the productivity of resources the organization
organizational and strategic routines to achieve new resource configu- acquires (Makadok, 2001). New knowledge and experience can be
ration and organization effectiveness (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; produced by learning‐oriented organizations and in return contribute
Zollo & Winter, 2002). to the development of capabilities (Penrose, 1959). The DCs approach
Second, organizations are heterogeneous with respect to the is developed based on this assumption and further discusses how an
strategic resources they possess and those resources that may not organization can use its administrative function to make the best use

FIGURE 1 Firm growth based on Penrose's resource‐based view [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 JIANG ET AL.

of its productive resources to gain sustained competitive advantage (Nelson & Winter, 1982, p. 9). In other words, some superior routines
and achieve continuous growth. that perform better than others in times of crisis/disaster can be main-
Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between physical and tained and transmitted within organizations to better prepare for
human resources, in which organizational capabilities and routines future events. Some routines are viewed as the “genes” in biology that
are able to find and use unused productive resources to create devel- initially determine possible behaviours, such as organizational cultures,
opment opportunities and competitive advantages. This point is working philosophies, and staff rules. This paper focuses on the sec-
highlighted in our theoretical framework and may explain the relation- ond type of routines—“acquired behaviours”—that are determined by
ships between slack organizational resources and DCs (refer to Prop- the environment, that is, the capabilities, procedures, and decision
ositions 3 and 4 in framework development). rules that are learned and gained from organizations' experience in
In summary, the RBV contributes to the development of the DCs operations.
approach as follows. First, it acknowledges heterogeneous productive Another important concept in the ETF is the “evolutionary pro-
resources and managerial capacities across firms. This has contributed cess,” which is always discussed with organizational growth and sur-
to the argument that organizations possess different and unique vival. Three principles that jointly define the evolutionary process
resources, which can be further utilized to cope with environmental are (a) the principle of heredity, (b) the principle of variation, and (3)
changes. Second, it highlights the critical role of human decision and the principle of selection (Brandon, 1990; Lewontin, 1974). “Heredity”
capabilities in making the best use of these resources to achieve a is the replication of routines (behaviour patterns) to ensure continuous
more sustained growth. Although Penrose did not emphasize operation over time, and the stability of the operational routines is a
external environmental change, such as natural disasters and necessary condition for organizations to exist (Metcalfe, 1998). “Vari-
industrial/financial crises, her RBV also suggests the importance of ation” of behaviour (Metcalfe, 1998) is an economic analogue of the
external environmental analysis because environmental change may natural selection process in the natural world as explained by Darwin's
change the significance of resources to the firm (p. 79). Her argument theory of evolution. An evolutionary process could generate “varia-
of eliminating uncertainty is still applicable in a crisis and disaster man- tion” by adding or altering the characteristics of existing routines
agement context. For example, the input of resources for preevent (Endler & McLellan, 1988). Variation is also discussed with adapta-
assessment, planning, and preparedness is of great importance in tion—a dynamic process of learning and searching (Dosi & Nelson,
guiding organizations to reduce negative impacts (Prideaux, Laws, & 1994). Organizations engage in various “search” activities to discover,
Faulkner, 2003). consider, and evaluate possible changes in their ways of doing things
and to modify existing routines or create new ones by imitation and
innovation. “Selection” considers environmental attributes such as
4.3 | Evolutionary theory of the firm and dynamic the market selection environment. In tourism crisis/disaster manage-
capabilities ment, organizations' survival and future growth depend on the selec-
tion of appropriate strategies and actions towards the fast and
The evolutionary theory of the firm (ETF) has its origins in evolution- efficient response and recovery outcomes. DCs of organizations help
ary economics, which is based on biological analogies (Alchian, 1953; increase the chance of “right” selections by sensing, seizing, shaping,
Schumpeter, 1934). The evolutionary framework by Nelson and and transforming (Teece, 2009) in turbulent environments.
Winter views organizations as profit‐seeking entities that possess var- In summary, evolutionary theory has contributed to the DCs
ious “capabilities, procedures, and decision rules” that determine what approach in several ways. First, the DCs approach argues that the cre-
they do in given external conditions (1982, p. 206). Essentially, it ation and evolution of organizations' DCs are embedded in organiza-
proposes that organizations' capabilities and rules can be modified tional processes shaped by the evolutionary paths they have had in
over time because of deliberate problem‐solving efforts and random the past (Teece et al., 1997; Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Second, three
events, which is a dynamic process from a time‐span perspective. principles (heredity, variation, and selection) of the evolutionary pro-
The capability to modify operational rules is discussed as part of the cess are critical elements of DCs in crisis and disaster management
DCs approach that aims to reconfigure internal and external compe- (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Routines can be maintained, transmitted,
tences to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997). or modified based on an organization's experience, knowledge, and
Two concepts of the ETF are important and contribute to the the- learning processes. This is a dynamic process that relies on the organi-
oretical framework proposed later. First, “routines” are defined as reg- zation's DCs. Third, the idea of knowledge‐based routines has led to
ular and predictable behavioural patterns of organizations (Nelson & the argument of the learning mechanism of organizations that guide
Winter, 1982) and evolutionary theory aims to explain the changing the evolution of DCs—learning from past or others' experience can
patterns in the organizations over a time span (Metcalfe, 1998). This create new processes and routines to address the potential problems
idea is in line with TCDM as it tries to understand how tourism orga- in changing the environment (Zollo & Winter, 2002).
nizations change behaviour in the face of crises and disasters to The emergence of DCs has enhanced the RBV by addressing the
achieve resilience. The evolutionary theory highlights the “organiza- evolutionary nature of firm resources and capabilities in relation to
tional genetics” by arguing that “the traits of organizations underlying environmental changes (Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Table 2 summarizes
the capability to make profits that can be transmitted through time” the comparisons across different theories/approaches.
JIANG ET AL. 7

TABLE 2 Comparing theories and approaches and their contributions

Evolutionary theory of firms Dynamic capabilities approach

Resource‐based view (RBV) (ETF) (DCs)

Level of analysis Organization Primarily industry Both organization and industry

Units of analysis Resources Routines Capabilities
Primary object of explanation Sources of competitive advantage, Technological evolution and Competitive advantage and the
diversification competition changing environment
Source of competitive advantage Organization's internal resources Firm's inherited knowledge and Competences of sustaining
innovation (new routine) innovation
Central resources All resources Primarily intangible resources Primarily intangible resources
Nature of resources and Heterogeneous and unique Heterogeneous and unique Heterogeneous and unique
capacities
Concept of strategy Accumulation and deployment of Articulation of routines in a Integration and deployment of
unused resources to achieve profit‐seeking way capabilities to address the
organization growth changing environment

The paper next focuses on using these foundations to develop a help form the foundations for future research through the develop-
theoretical framework as a first step to better understand the role ment of interrelated propositions (Meredith, 1993), along with poten-
of DCs to achieve resilience in tourism crisis and disaster tial measurements suggested for future empirical studies (Burnard &
management. Bhamra, 2011).

5 | F R A M E W O R K BU I L D I N G
M E TH O DO LO GY 6 | D Y N A M I C CA P A B I L I T I E S A P P R O A C H T O
A C H I E V E R E S I L I E N C E I N C RI S E S A N D
Theory development is a process of creativity (Zahra, 2007) that is DISASTERS
important to advance knowledge in management studies (Shepherd
& Suddaby, 2017). A theoretical framework is a set of broad theoret- Based on the above discussion of the nature and theoretical founda-
ical concepts and the presumed relationship among them (Meredith, tions of DCs, this paper argues that organizations' DCs can improve
1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Willis, 2007), which helps researchers organizational recovery and achieve resilience by (a) making best use
to delimit and formulate research questions and shape research of organizations' slack resources, (b) embedding and integrating into
designs (Pearce, 2012; Zahra, 2007). Building explanations not only organizational functions and processes, and (c) changing organizations'
helps us to understand existing management phenomena but also operational routines. The DCs approach shifts a static strategy/action‐
helps to build theory to advance the field (Shepherd & Suddaby, based ontology to a dynamic process‐based ontology, focusing not
2017; Zahra, 2007). This paper develops a theoretical framework only on the DCs but also on its active process in changing organiza-
through investigating and synthesizing new theories and concepts tional behaviours in turbulent environments.
from the DCs approach to expand the knowledge of tourism crisis To address the knowledge gap in TCDM studies, this paper
and disaster management studies. proposes a theoretical framework (see Figure 2) that links the key
This paper follows the “conceptual systems” approach to describe concepts and demonstrates their proposed relationships. In the frame-
and explain key concepts and their proposed theoretical relationships work, the time span has been divided into three stages in accordance
(Meredith, 1993; Wacker, 1998), based on evidence gathered through with the evolutionary process (Brandon, 1990; Lewontin, 1974;
an effective literature review (Webster & Watson, 2002). An effective Metcalfe, 1998). The first stage (heredity) is the perceived simple
literature review should compare emergent concepts, constructs, and and static operational environment before the occurrence of unex-
theories (Eisenhardt, 1989). To address this, this paper presented a lit- pected turbulence. The second stage (variation) is the short‐term
erature review from three major aspects: (a) definitions of tourism period after the occurrence of environmental turbulence when adap-
crises/disasters and missing concepts in the existing TCDM frame- tation and transformation are needed for organizational recovery.
works, (b) nature of DCs and organizational resilience, and (c) classical DCs mainly function in this stage as they can learn to find and use
theories that inform the dynamic capability approach, such as RBV and resources to create new operational routines and behaviours. The
evolutionary theory of firm, to develop theoretical foundations. Other third stage (selection and new heredity) is the long‐term period after
key concepts such as organizational operational routines and slack the environmental turbulence when suitable changes are created and
resources were also drawn from the review to establish six key prop- transmitted into organizations' new operational routines and thus
ositions in the framework. This “conceptual systems” approach can achieve resilience after several rounds of environmental selections.
8 JIANG ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Dynamic capabilities—crisis/disaster resilience framework [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

6.1 | Stage 1: Organizational existing operational short‐term operational tasks (Ates & Bititci, 2011), rather than preparing
routines and capabilities for unforeseen disasters by spending extra money. This is evident from
Hystad and Keller's (2006) study, where very few tourism businesses
The first stage of the framework (shown on the left‐hand side of had made effort to develop disaster management plans, instead thinking
Figure 2) shows the existing operational routines and capabilities of it should be the responsibility of the regional tourism groups. This can be
organizations in simple and static environments. In these environ- explained by the theory of organizational inertia, where organizations
ments, organizational capabilities can be either ordinary or dynamic are resistant to change and unable to quickly and effectively react to
(Teece, 2017a, 2017b). Ordinary capabilities focus on technical effi- changes (Kinnear & Roodt, 1998). Organizations with high levels of iner-
ciency in basic functions and can be measured against the require- tia usually tend to persist with their existing strategies, continue on their
ments of specific tasks, such as recruitment and employee training current trajectory, and do not change their organizational structure
to maintain and increase service levels. They focus on organizational (Asano & Eto, 2007; Colombo & Delmastro, 2002). In some cases,
survival and day‐to‐day operations. In contrast, DCs enable organiza- despite the newly developed organizational structures or operational
tions to build, renew, and reconfigure resources in response to disrup- models, knowledge flows and coordination can still follow the same pat-
tions in the environment (Pisano & Teece, 2007). They are longer term terns associated with the old structure (Criscuolo & Narula, 2007).
focused and concerned with learning new approaches to cope with However, environmental turbulence requires an organization to
unexpected environmental turbulence. respond rapidly to unforeseen changes with appropriate strategies to
Some researchers define organizational capability as a bundle of survive and grow (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Covin & Slevin, 1989).
interrelated yet distinct routines that evolve over time to support When tourism organizations continuously encounter environmental
operational management (Helfat, Peteraf, Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, turbulence (e.g., extreme weather and natural disasters), they will need
2003; Lei et al., 1996; Winter, 2003). On the contrary, other to develop adequate knowledge and skills to establish a set of new
researchers argue that capabilities are not only composed of routines operational routines to cope with it. For example, tourism organiza-
that encompass rules and systems but also include courses of actions tions could make permanent changes in their business model or struc-
and behaviours (Biesenthal, Gudergan, & Ambrosini, 2018) to deploy ture to increase faster adaptation to unexpected new situations
resources embedded in organizational processes (Wang & Ahmed, following disasters. The tourism literature points to approaches such
2007). This paper agrees with this view and suggests that organiza- as the development of new staff skills, flexible and market‐oriented
tional capabilities are not tantamount to routines but are embedded management structures (Pechlaner & Tschurtschenthaler, 2003), regu-
in organizational processes to facilitate organizational adaptations on lar environmental scanning, and close collaboration with external
both resources and routines. stakeholders to obtain information (Hystad & Keller, 2008).
In the tourism industry, the majority of organizations are small to Path dependence explains organizations as dynamic systems in
medium sized and thus are more vulnerable to environmental turbu- which behaviours are influenced by the contingent legacies of
lence due to their insufficient organizational slack resources and capa- events/actions in their history (David & Thomas, 2003; Magnusson &
bilities (Burnard & Bhamra, 2011; Ingirige et al., 2008). These small‐ to Ottosson, 2009). In a crisis and disaster situation, path dependence
medium‐sized tourism organizations often focus on dealing with explains why organizations' response and recovery behaviours usually
JIANG ET AL. 9

depend on their previous experience in similar situations. However, the survival strategies while waiting for the predisaster normality to
“history matters” idea may not help them to survive in similar but more return, rather than adopting proactive adaptation strategies to absorb
severe situations. For example, tourism organizations that suffer from unexpected changes (Dogru, Marchio, Bulut, & Suess, 2019; Prayag,
cyclones every year may rely on their past safety management plans Chowdhury, Spector, & Orchiston, 2018).
(Sjodahl, 2014). The danger is they are less likely to survive if they are Nevertheless, slack resources can also have a negative impact
unable to learn from past experience (Blackman & Ritchie, 2008) or tran- when organizations use them to reactively build a buffer to shield
sit knowledge (Blackman et al., 2011; Ghaderi, Mat Som, & Wang, 2014) from uncontrollable external changes (Litschert & Bonham, 1978;
to create new preparation and response processes when the cyclone Yasai‐Ardekani, 1986), which is more relevant in the context of crisis
strikes with perhaps stronger winds and rain than the past. and disaster management. It may further insulate an organization from
Organizations' operational routines can be categorized into differ- exogenous changes and technological innovations, which then
ent levels (Cyert & March, 1963). Higher order routines that modify impedes new expansion opportunities. Managers may also become
lower order routines over time respond to radical change in the envi- overly optimistic and implement inappropriate strategic actions due
ronment (Dosi & Nelson, 1994; Nelson & Winter, 1982). For instance, to higher levels of slack resources (Bateman & Zeithaml, 1989; Coo-
establishing and updating contingency plans and assembling regular per, Woo, & Dunkelberg, 1988). In the context of crisis/disaster man-
task forces can be viewed as new lower order routines to mitigate agement, as tourism organizations are already exposed to external
negative impacts caused by disasters. In contrast, exploring and shocks and already suffer from negative impacts, the identification
adopting new opportunities in identifying new market groups for tour- and utilization of slack resources should play an important role in
ism organizations (Carlsen, 2006; Carlsen & Hughes, 2008), creating achieving dynamic strategic actions and flexible adaptation to changes.
new products/services (Xu & Grunewald, 2009; Zhang, Li, & Xiao, Organizational capabilities provide a means to achieve resilience
2009), and developing collaborative relationships with external stake- through organizational learning and structure/function adaptation
holders (Becken & Hughey, 2013; Cioccio & Michael, 2007) can be (Folke, 2006; Paton et al., 2000; Smith & Fischbacher, 2009). A capa-
viewed as new higher order routines facilitated by DCs. Based on this, bility portfolio can be a collection of ordinary capabilities and DCs to
our first proposition is accommodate different sets of circumstances (Hine, Parker, Pregelj,
& Verreynne, 2013; Teece, 2017b). For example, a routine‐based (or
Proposition 1. Existing operational routines need to be
ordinary) capability is more suitable for organizations to continue with
changed into new operational routines if an environmen-
previous opportunities in dealing with familiar, simple, and frequent
tal turbulence occurs.
threats. However, a heuristics‐based (or dynamic) capability response
is preferred where the organization adopts flexible behaviours to
6.2 | Stage 2: DCs' hierarchy and the adaptation exploit new opportunities when threats are unfamiliar, complex, and
process of new operational routines infrequent and slack resources are unavailable. Compared with
routine‐based capability, heuristics‐based capability is more dynamic
The second stage occurs when unexpected turbulence increases the and flexible in turbulent environments (Manfield & Newey, 2018).
dynamism (perceived) of the organization's operating environment. Other researchers also dichotomize DCs into first order and second
Organizations need to introduce “variation” or “adaptation” through order. First‐order DCs can modify organizations' routines and address
a dynamic process of searching and learning. From the strategy litera- environmental changes such as R&D and market analysis, whereas
ture, slack resources are defined as a “cushion of actual or potential second‐order DCs can create new capabilities and impact on organiza-
resources which allows an organization to adapt successfully to inter- tions' performance (Danneels, 2008; Schilke, 2014). In a crisis/disaster
nal pressures for adjustment or to external pressures for changes in situation, organizations with second‐order DCs (learning based) can
policy” (Bourgeois, 1981, p. 30). The RBV notes that organizational modify first‐order DCs (function based) to mobilize resources and
expansion arises from a pool of unused, but potentially productive change operational routines. For example, sensing and orchestration
resources, services and specialized knowledge (Penrose, 1959). Orga- capabilities in destination marketing are used to respond to changing
nizations have incentives to eliminate the pool of idle resources and market trends (Murray, Lynch, & Foley, 2016) such as green and dark
fully use them for further expansion. tourism, and the capability to renovate organizations' knowledge
Slack resources can enhance organizational performance in two resources is used to build new resources and capabilities in turbulent
ways. First, slack resources can ease capital restrictions and enable environments (Nieves, Quintana, & Osorio, 2016). Thus, this paper con-
managers to develop and implement new strategies. Second, slack siders the important role of DCs in modifying existing operational rou-
resources allow risk taking, which is important for making structural tines and creating new ones to achieve recovery and resilience in times
or functional changes (George, 2005). This means slack resources play of crises and disasters. From this, our second proposition is
a proactive role in enhancing organizations' capability to adapt and
assist innovation and change (Cyert & March, 1963). Dahles and Proposition 2. The interactive relationship between
Susilowati (2015) noted that tourism organizations' ability to find dynamic capabilities and slack resources supports organi-
alternative resources is vital to achieve resilience in the accommoda- zations to convert existing operational routines into new
tion sector. Organizations with few slack resources can only use operational routines.
10 JIANG ET AL.

Organizational slack resources and capabilities are interdependent. Proposition 4. Organizations that have built resilience
In a crisis and disaster situation, slack resources may either be dam- based upon wider integration of internal and external
aged, unavailable, or inadequate for effective survival and recovery. slack resources are more likely to enable and initiate a
Although the RBV has explained that organizations depend on their process of dynamic capability development.
unique resources to sustain competitive advantage (Barney, 1991,
2001; Cheng & Kesner, 1997), how an organization can use these
resources through its operating processes is not well understood. 6.3 | Stage 3: Achieving tourism organizational
Organizational capabilities provide a means to find and use available resilience
resources from both within and outside the organization (e.g.,
Leonard‐Barton, 1992; Russo & Fouts, 1997), to construct organiza- The third stage (shown on the right‐hand side of Figure 2) focuses on
tional operational routines, and to enhance the productivity of organi- achieving long‐term organizational resilience after environmental tur-
zational resources (Makadok, 2001). The external source of resources bulence. Building organizational resilience in tourism organizations
could be other stakeholders (e.g., owner company or industry chain could help them to experience fewer negative impacts when
partners) or other agencies (e.g., governments, industry associations, crises/disasters occur and improve their adaptation to future threats.
and wider emergency systems). This paper argues that suitable adaptation and transformation (a new
On one hand, DCs can enhance organizations' performance in tur- balance) should be incorporated to achieve long‐term resilience after
bulent environments through organizational changes and innovation an environmental turbulence, in addition to mitigating disturbance
outputs, such as resource reconfiguration and routines transformation and bouncing back to previous states. Previous states can be under-
(Ambrosini et al., 2009; Makkonen, Pohjola, Olkkonen, & Koponen, stood as organizations' original operational routines and decision‐
2014; Teece, 2012). For small and medium tourism organizations with making patterns that have been frequently used for daily operations
limited resources and knowledge, the capability to integrate resources in static environments. Thus, tourism resilience can be viewed as an
from external sources is essential for faster recovery, such as external active capacity for a tourism organization to (a) maintain its opera-
use of industrial networks, gaining financial support from govern- tional function and business performance before any structural
ments, information sharing, and industry planning (Battisti & Deakins, changes (absorptivity), (b) mitigate effects caused by crisis/disaster
2017; Jiang & Ritchie, 2017; Verreynne et al., 2019). Strong DCs help (adaptation), and (c) transform to a new state (transformation). Resil-
enable an organization to profitably build and renew resources, ience is also a dynamic and sustained state of organization operation
reconfiguring them as needed to respond to changes in the business (Gibson & Tarrant, 2010), which requires various DCs to continuously
environment (Pisano & Teece, 2007; Teece, 2017a). This paper thus create new operational routines in a fast‐changing operating
argues that slack resources in itself cannot facilitate organization environment.
recovery, adaptation, or transformation without being well recognized A number of conceptual models have tried to explain how organi-
and utilized through proper capabilities and operational routines. zational resilience can be achieved and enhanced (e.g., Burnard &
On the other hand, this paper takes the RBV that organizational Bhamra, 2011; Gibson & Tarrant, 2010). For example, an attributional
adaptation and transformation flourish in conditions where sufficient resilience model (Gibson & Tarrant, 2010) proposes that organizational
slack resources exist (Bromiley, 1991; George, 2005). The availability attributes (such as leadership, communication, and sensitivity) can help
of slack resources is important for organizations to adapt successfully develop resilience and deal with uncertainties, but the model had little
to internal pressure of adjustments or to external pressure of changes discussion on the necessary tangible elements of organizations that
in technologies or environmental turbulence (Geiger & Makri, 2006; contribute to resilience, such as financial capitals, skilled labours, and
Huang & Chen, 2010), such as product innovation and entering new infrastructures. A herringbone and triangle model of resilience (Gibson
markets (Tan & Peng, 2003; Voss, Sirdeshmukh, & Voss, 2008; Yang, & Tarrant, 2010) advocated that organizational capabilities and a range
Wang, & Cheng, 2009). Organizations with adequate slack resources of activities can contribute to resilience, but it has not clarified the
are more likely to pursue opportunities in a more flexible manner meaning of “activities” and the lack of discussion on how capabilities
(Chandy & Tellis, 2000; Kim & Miner, 2007). Conversely, lack of slack can affect the adaptation process. In general, these models have con-
resources may inhibit the development of organizations' DCs to mobi- nected resilience with other concepts and disciplines, considering the
lize necessary resources (Chen, Li, & Lin, 2013; Ferrier, 2001) and rede- influence of organizational attributes, characteristics, capabilities, and
ploy resources to perform innovative activities (Teece & Pisano, 1994), strategic approaches to improve resilience. However, there is a lack
which thereby impedes the development of new routines towards the of further exploration or verification.
achievement of organizational resilience (Huang & Li, 2012). From these Past studies have also discussed key factors and obstacles to build-
two arguments, the third and fourth propositions are proposed as ing resilience. From the perspective of general social‐ecological sys-
tems, building awareness and preparation is the first factor in
Proposition 3. Organizations with dynamic capabilities building resilience (Berkes, 2007). A sustained system needs to learn
can find and use wider internal and external slack from past experience and have the capability to store its social mem-
resources to address environmental threats and achieve ory to prepare itself for future events. This capability is connected to
resilience. organizations' learning capacity, which can be obtained through
TABLE 3 Propositions measurement: Potential variables and methods
JIANG

Propositions Key variables and scales Potential research approach Supportive sources
ET AL.

P1: Existing operational routines need to be Operational routines: Interviews over a longer period (1–2 years) Nelson and Winter (1982), Metcalfe
changed into new operational routines if an • Regular and predictable behavioural patterns of organizations + survey testing (1998), Lewontin (1974), and Brandon
environmental turbulence occurs (Nelson & Winter, 1982) Secondary information, for example, (1990)
New operational routines: organizations' existing operating
• New staff (skills/knowledge), new procedures, new activities, procedures and new safety management
and new business models manuals
Evolutionary process: Measurement scales: dynamic capabilities
• Heredity, variation, and selection (Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011); proactive
capabilities and resource integration
P2: The interactive relationship between Dynamic capabilities: Teece et al. (1997), Nieves and Haller
(Battisti & Deakins, 2017); dynamic
dynamic capabilities and slack resources • For example, exploration and exploitation learning and (2014), Wang, Senaratne, and Rafiq
learning capabilities scales (Verreynne,
supports organizations to convert existing knowledge creation (2015), and Verreynne et al. (2016)
Hine, Coote, & Parker, 2016);
operational routines into new operational • Integration and coordinating capabilities
exploratory versus exploitative
routines Slack resources:
innovation (Jansen, Bosch, & Volberda,
• Unused financial, physical, and labour resources (tangible)
2005); and reactive capabilities (Baker &
• Unused skills, network, and knowledge resources (intangible)
Nelson, 2005; Brockner & James, 2008)
P3: Organizations with dynamic capabilities Organizational capabilities: Interviews + survey testing Danneels (2008), Macpherson, Jones, and
can find and use wider internal and external • Internal capabilities, for example, learning, knowledge creation, Use secondary data in combine with survey Zhang (2004), Makkonen et al. (2014),
slack resources to address environmental and reconfiguration responses to test hypotheses, for Teece (2017a, b)
threats and achieve resilience • External relationships and collaboration example, financial reports, operation
Slack resources: plans, and outcomes of strategic
• Unused financial, physical, and labour resources (tangible) activities
• Unused skills, network, and knowledge resources (intangible)
P4: Organizations that have built their Slack resources: Interviews + survey testing Danneels (2008), Makkonen et al. (2014),
resilience based upon wider integration of • Unused financial, physical, and labour resources (tangible) Measurement scales: dynamic capabilities and Nieves and Haller (2014)
internal and external slack resources are • Unused skills, network, and knowledge resources (intangible) (Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011); proactive
more likely to enable and initiate a process Capabilities for dynamic adaptation: capabilities and resource integration
of dynamic capability development • Proactive capabilities, for example, exploratory versus (Battisti & Deakins, 2017); dynamic
exploitative learning, knowledge creation, and coordinating learning capabilities scales (Verreynne
capabilities et al., 2016); exploratory versus
Capabilities for damage mitigation: exploitative innovation (Jansen et al.,
• Reactive capabilities, for example, problem solving, and 2005); reactive capabilities (Baker &
problem analysis capabilities Nelson, 2005; Brockner & James, 2008);
and slack (Danneels, 2008)
P5: New operational routines are needed to New operational routines: Survey testing + interviews over a longer Metcalfe (1998), Gibson and Tarrant
build organizational resilience after several • New staff (skills/knowledge), new procedures, new activities, period (1–2 years) (2010), Burnard and Bhamra (2011),
rounds of environmental (market) selection and new business models Measurement scales: resilience capabilities Makkonen et al. (2014), Dahles and
Resilience: (Parker & Ameen, 2017); three Susilowati (2015), Prayag and
• To maintain its operational function and business performance properties of social‐ecological resilience Orchiston (2016), Verreynne et al.
before any structural changes (absorptivity) (Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, (2016), and Battisti and Deakins (2017)
• To mitigate effects caused by crisis/disaster (adaptation) 2001; Linnenluecke, 2017)

(Continues)
11
12 JIANG ET AL.

knowledge and information sharing (Berkes, 2007; Jiang & Ritchie,

Orchiston (2013), Ghaderi et al. (2014),

Prayag et al. (2018), and Nieves et al.
2017). However, a key obstacle for resilience building is the creation

Hystad and Keller (2006), Cioccio and

of organizational processes that enable organizations to learn from

Michael (2007), Biggs (2011),

the past event experience in an iterative way (Berkes, 2007). This
includes processes of effective and prompt knowledge sharing within
and across organizations and collaborative partnerships to foster com-
Supportive sources

plementary knowledge and skills.

To build resilience, organizations need to put processes in place that
allow them to learn from experience and apply this learning to future

(2016)
events (Berkes, 2007). This paper thus proposes a dynamic organiza-
tional process in which new operational routines can be created through
the interaction of DCs and resources to achieve long‐term resilience.
Measurement scales: organizational sector,
size, and age (Biggs, 2011; Nieves et al.,

2011; Orchiston, 2013; Orchiston et al.,

operating activities, or business models

However, organizations can only achieve resilience by having new oper-

2016; Orchiston, 2013; Prayag et al.,
2018); and tourism resilience (Biggs,

ational routines tested in the new operating environment and “pass” the
Quantitative survey testing (interview
organizations' operation plans, new
Secondary information, for example,

market or industrial selection. This is similar to the evolution of species,

where only those genes that can effectively adapt to the new environ-
Potential research approach

ment can be maintained and are inherited to this day. In other words,
this dynamic process considers environmental attributes in determining
organizational resilience. In TCDM, organizations' survival and growth
depend on the selection of appropriate routines for rapid and efficient
response and recovery. Organizational DCs can help increase the
based)

2016)

chance of the “right” selections by sensing, seizing, shaping, and

transforming (Teece, 2009) in turbulent environments. However,
smaller tourism organizations with fewer professionally trained man-
agers and financial and physical resources are less prepared for
(accommodation, transport, F&B, and attraction/activities)

crises/disasters than larger organizations when developing planning

• Number of employees (full time, part time, and casual)

and learning practices (Cioccio & Michael, 2007; Ghaderi et al., 2014).
• Business classification within the tourism sector

They can nevertheless easily develop fast and consistent messages

• To transform to a new state (transformation)

around business recovery (Armstrong & Ritchie, 2008) because of their

close ties with stakeholders. These new routines could be built through
• Length of time in business operation

a well‐designed on‐site and off‐site crisis/disaster planning, a more

effective communication and sharing of resources, and the adaptive
integration of organization products with local, regional, and/or national
tourism strategies. Thus, the fifth proposition is developed as
Key variables and scales

• Adaptive resilience

Proposition 5. New operational routines are needed to

• Planned resilience
Tourism resilience:

build organizational resilience after several rounds of

Tourism sector:

Tourism size:

Tourism age:

environmental (market) selection.

Tourism organizations represent a very broad spectrum of small to

medium or large businesses and across very different sectors such as
accommodations, F&B, and recreation‐related services. Firms from dif-
ferent tourism sectors with different business characteristics such as
P6: Tourism organizations' sector, size, and
age can influence their ability to achieve

size and age can develop organizational resilience along different paths,
which need further study (Ghaderi, Mat Som, & Henderson, 2015;
Orchiston et al., 2016; Ritchie, Bentley, Koruth, & Wang, 2011). For
example, the recreation tourism sector (attraction related) usually has
organizational resilience

significantly higher levels of situation awareness, strategic partnerships,

(Continued)

staff engagement, and effective partnerships than the accommodation

sector (Orchiston, Seville, & Vargo, 2014). The accommodation and
Propositions

F&B sector are able to service the needs of community needs after
disasters (Hystad & Keller, 2006), such as using Airbnb accommodation
TABLE 3

to provide homes for tourists and aid workers (Hajibaba, Karlsson, &
Dolnicar, 2017). Furthermore, informal (or small) tourism organizations
JIANG ET AL. 13

(e.g., in family ownership) usually have lower capital investment than interactive relationship of slack resources and DCs (Battisti & Deakins,
formal (or large) tourism organizations but have higher levels of social 2017) can be further examined to explain the mechanism. For exam-
capital from the community (Biggs et al., 2012), which is found to be ple, what types of DCs can (re)configure slack resources for multiple
positively related with organizational resilience (Brown et al., 2017; recovery purposes (George, 2005; Makkonen et al., 2014), what types
Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Chowdhury et al., 2018). and amount of slack resources can initiate DCs (Chen et al., 2013;
Furthermore, the size and age of tourism organizations can influence Teece, 2017a), and what are the potential influences of organizational
their financial performance (Prayag et al., 2018), the amount and type of demographics, such as sectors, firm size, and age? (Prayag &
available resources, and their ability to introduce process innovation to Orchiston, 2016; Ritchie et al., 2011). These can be further explored
cope with turbulent environments (Nieves et al., 2016; Verreynne et al., through longitudinal in‐depth interviews with different types of tour-
2019). Larger and older organizations have more resources and knowl- ism organizations to provide practical suggestions on how to achieve
edge to develop crisis/disaster management procedures (Ritchie et al., resilience.
2011), which small organizations lack (Cioccio & Michael, 2007; Ghaderi Second, our framework has potential as a tool for identifying a
et al., 2014; Orchiston, 2013). Small firms also do not have slack to deal portfolio of DCs to continuously modify the existing operational rou-
with the challenge of falling income and the need to initiate actions tines or create new ones to increase organizations' adaption for differ-
beyond day‐to‐day operations (Cioccio & Michael, 2007). Yet these ent contingencies (Makkonen et al., 2014). A dynamic capability
organizations are more flexible and adaptive in the face of disasters portfolio is important to enact organizational routines and heuristic‐
(Biggs, 2011; Orchiston, 2013). Therefore, the last proposition is based responses for tourism organizations to address environmental
uncertainties (Manfield & Newey, 2018). Future research can examine
Proposition 6. Tourism organizations' sector, size, and
proactive learning capabilities (Blackman & Ritchie, 2007; Zollo &
age can influence their ability to achieve organizational
Winter, 2002), organizational leadership styles (Paraskevas et al.,
resilience.
2013), and networking and collaboration (Denicolai, Cioccarelli, &
Table 3 summarizes potential variables and methods that can be Zucchella, 2010; Jiang & Ritchie, 2017), which may be required in con-
used to further test these propositions. In summary, this paper argues structing second‐order or first‐order DCs in different levels of envi-
that DCs are one of the most important internal factors that influence ronmental turbulence (Hine et al., 2013). A longitudinal study of
organizations' operational routines in times of crisis and disaster to tourism organizations can be useful in exploring the requirement and
achieve long‐term resilience. This framework outlines the process to utilization of different types of DCs in multiple management stages,
achieve resilience by (a) showing the needs of transforming existing such as prevention, planning, response, and recovery.
operational routines into new ones under a turbulent environment, Third, this framework identifies organizational routines as the
(b) discussing the influence of organizational slack resources and major factor in supporting slack resources and different levels of
DCs in creating new operational routines, and (c) arguing for a DCs. We propose that DCs are embedded in organizational processes
dynamic environmental process in the selection of appropriate rou- and can modify existing routines to influence organizations' perfor-
tines towards long‐term resilience. mance during a crisis/disaster. However, the clear mechanism on
how it works for different tourism organizations requires further stud-
ies on identifying different types of organizational routines (Cyert &
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
| March, 1963) and their relationships with DCs (Winter, 2003). Fur-
DIRECTIONS thermore, constraints that may impede the development of DCs could
further be studied to explain why some tourism organizations fail to
The aim of this paper was to provide a novel perspective on how tour- adapt to crises/disasters, perhaps due to limited information, man-
ism organizations can achieve long‐term resilience after crises and agers' bounded rationality, misperception of feedback, and even a lack
disasters by examining the role of DCs in this process. A theoretical of holistic thinking. The theory of path dependence or organizational
framework is developed to show this process through the creation inertia (success trap) can be used to explain this inability by consider-
and selection of new operational routines driven by DCs and slack ing how organizations' learning activities and strategies can be limited
resources. The theoretical framework is an initial first step to guide by their previous experience and past decisions in dynamic environ-
future research in the TCDM field. It draws from our understanding ments (Junni, Sarala, Taras, & Tarba, 2013; Sterman & Wittenberg,
of evolutionary processes, which illustrates that tourism organizations 1999; Van Buuren, Ellen, & Warner, 2016).
acquire learning from past experience and knowledge (heredity), adapt Furthermore, DCs are found to have a direct positive influence on
and transform it by changing operational routines (variation), and iden- organizational change and an indirect positive influence on innovation
tify good traits such as capabilities, behaviours, or strategies for future performance and the evolutionary fitness of the organization
events (selection and new heredity). (Makkonen et al., 2014). Further empirical research can examine the
Our theoretical framework provides opportunities for empirical relationship between key concepts proposed in the framework (e.g.,
work that can further extend and improve the knowledge. First, it different levels of DCs and organizational operational routines) using
shows that organizations' slack resources and capabilities can contrib- quantitative data based on the scales of dynamic learning capabilities
ute to long‐term resilience in times of crises and disasters. The (Verreynne et al., 2016). Qualitative research using cross‐case analysis
14 JIANG ET AL.

can be conducted to explore a portfolio of DCs in different tourism Amore, A., Prayag, G., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Conceptualizing
subsectors to help understand how they interact and operate to destination resilience from a multilevel perspective. Tourism
Review International, 22(3‐4), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.3727/
achieve organization resilience. Resilience capacities can be studied
154427218X15369305779010
regarding organizations' slack resources, structures, and processes that
Antony, J., Kumar, M., & Labib, A. (2008). Gearing Six Sigma into UK
could lead to resilience (Linnenluecke, 2017). Having developed this manufacturing SMEs: An empirical assessment of critical success fac-
theoretical framework, opportunities exist for further research to tors, impediments, and viewpoints of Six Sigma implementation in
empirically extend or improve it across a range of tourism organiza- SMEs. Journal of Operations Research Society, 59(4), 482–493. https://
doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602437
tions, as suggested in Table 3.
Fourth, this theoretical framework has shown that the three stages, Armstrong, E. K., & Ritchie, B. W. (2008). The heart recovery marketing
campaign: Destination recovery after a major bushfire in Australia's
drawn from the “evolutionary process”—heredity, variation, and selec-
national capital. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(2‐4),
tion (Brandon, 1990; Lewontin, 1974; Metcalfe, 1998)—can guide our 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_14
understanding of the process through which organizations develop Asano, A., & Eto, T. (2007). Organisational inertia in Japanese institutions.
resilience. In particular, the current literature does not provide a clear Journal of Asian Economics, 18(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
demarcation of when each stage begins and ends, and how organiza- asieco.2007.07.008

tions can recognize these shifts. Future studies could improve the Ates, A., & Bititci, U. (2011). Change process: A key enabler for
building resilient SMEs. International Journal of Production Research,
framework by empirically investigating tourism organizations' transi-
49(18), 5601–5618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.
tions between these stages and exploring potential key drivers and bar- 563825
riers to transitions. This could contribute to a clearer identification of
Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role
different types of DCs in each stage, but also better integrate this of managers in business strategy and economic performance.
framework with other crisis/disaster life cycle models to improve the- Organisation Science, 20(4), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/
ory. In addition, a spatial dimension can also be considered in future orsc.1090.0424

research to explore how tourism organizations in different geographical Avraham, E. (2015). Destination image repair during crisis: Attracting tour-
ism during the Arab Spring uprisings. Tourism Management, 47,
locations suffer and respond to the same crisis or disaster. Tourism
224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.003
organizations in close proximity may be more negative influenced,
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. R. (2005). Creating something from nothing:
whereas geographical location can also influence resource availability Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administra-
and information accessibility. However, impacts and responses are tive Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329. Retrieved from–366. http://asq.
likely to vary based on the nature of the crisis/disaster, its magnitude, sagepub.com/content/50/3/329.short, https://doi.org/10.2189/
asqu.2005.50.3.329
and duration (Jiang et al., 2017).
In sum, this paper is novel in considering an endogenous view on Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. Jr. (2001). The resource‐based view
of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6),
the role of organization's DCs in achieving resilience through resource
625–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700601
configuration and routine transformation. This new angle to study
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and the theory of competitive advan-
TCDM takes a long‐term view by recognizing resilience as the goal tage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/
of TCDM and considers dynamic capability's role as a mechanism to 014920639101700108
build resilience to external events. It is our aim that this framework will Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource‐based theories of competitive
assist researchers and tourism organizations to be more resilient with advantage: A ten‐year retrospective on the resource‐based view.
Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/
respect to future unexpected and disruptive events in this continu-
014920630102700602
ously changing world.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an
agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.
ORCID https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350776
Yawei Jiang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3125-3732 Bateman, T. S., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1989). The psychological context of stra-
tegic decisions: A model and convergent experimental findings.
Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/
RE FE R ENC E S
smj.4250100106
Alchian, A. A. (1953). Biological analogies in the theory of the firm: Com-
Battisti, M., & Deakins, D. (2017). The relationship between dynamic capa-
ment. The American Economic Review, 43(4), 600–603.
bilities, the firm's resource base and performance in a post‐disaster
Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Handmer, J., & Howden, M. (2014). Framing disaster environment. International Small Business Journal, 35(1), 78–98.
resilience: The implications of the diverse conceptualisations of https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615611471
“bouncing back”. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(3),
Becken, S., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2013). Linking tourism into emergency
252–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM‐07‐2013‐0130
management structures to enhance disaster risk reduction.
Alonso, A. D., Kok, S., & O'Shea, M. (2018). Family businesses and adapta- Tourism Management, 36, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
tion: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Family and Economic 2012.11.006
Issues, 39(4), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834‐018‐9586‐3 Beirman, D. (2018). Thailand's approach to destination resilience: An his-
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An torical perspective of tourism resilience from 2002 to 2018. Tourism
exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Review International, 22(3‐4), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.3727/
Management, 20, 9–24. 154427218X15369305779083
JIANG ET AL. 15

Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Calgaro, E., Lloyd, K., & Dominey‐Howes, D. (2014). From vulnerability to
Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 283–295. transformation: A framework for assessing the vulnerability and resil-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069‐006‐9036‐7 ience of tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3),
Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: The concept, a 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.826229
literature review and future directions. International Journal of Carlsen, J. C. (2006). Post‐tsunami tourism strategies for the Maldives.
Production Research, 49(18), 5375–5393. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Tourism Review International, 10, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.3727/
00207543.2011.563826 154427206779307312
Biesenthal, C., Gudergan, S., & Ambrosini, V. (2018). The role of ostensive Carlsen, J. C., & Hughes, M. (2008). Tourism market recovery in the Maldives
and performative routine aspects in dynamic capability deployment at after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
different organizational levels. Long Range Planning, 52, 350–365. keting, 23(2‐4), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.03.006 Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From meta-
Biggs, D. (2011). Understanding resilience in a vulnerable industry: The phor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8),
case of reef tourism in Australia. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 312. 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021‐001‐0045‐9
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‐03948‐160130 Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) & United
Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (2019). 2018 Review of
informal tourism enterprises to disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thai- Disaster Events. Retrieved from https://www.cred.be/2018‐review‐
land. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 645–665. https://doi.org/ disaster‐events
10.1080/09669582.2011.630080 Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent's curse? Incumbency,
Blackman, D., Kennedy, M., & Ritchie, B. (2011). Knowledge management: size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.
The missing link in DMO crisis management? Current Issues in Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.1.18033
14(4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2010.489637 Chen, Y. C., Li, P. C., & Lin, Y. H. (2013). How inter‐ and intra‐organisational
Blackman, D., & Ritchie, B. W. (2007). Tourism crisis management and coordination affect product development performance: The role of
organisational learning: The role of reflection in developing effective slack resources. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(2),
DMO crisis strategies. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(2‐4), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621311295263
45–57. Cheng, J. L., & Kesner, I. F. (1997). Organisational slack and response to
Borekci, D. Y., Say, A. I., Kabasakal, H., & Rofcanin, Y. (2014). Quality of environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns.
relationships with alternative suppliers: The role of supplier resilience Journal of Management, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
and perceived benefits in supply networks. Journal of Management & 014920639702300101
Organization, 20(6), 808–831. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.51 Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., Orchiston, C., & Spector, S. (2018).
Boukas, N., & Ziakas, V. (2013). Impacts of the global economic crisis on Postdisaster social capital, adaptive resilience and business perfor-
Cyprus tourism and policy responses. International Journal of Tourism mance of tourism organizations in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal
Research, 15(1), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1878 of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518794319

Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organisational slack. Acad- Cioccio, L., & Michael, E. J. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tourism manage-
emy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/ ment for the inevitable in Northeast Victoria. Tourism Management,
amr.1981.4287985 28(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.015

Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and environment. Princeton: Princeton Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). The determinants of organiza-
University Press. tional change and structural inertia: Technological and organizational
factors. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 11, 595–635.
Brockner, J., & James, E. H. (2008). Toward an understanding of
https://doi.org/10.1162/105864002320757271
when executives see crisis as opportunity. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1988). Entrepreneurs' per-
0021886307313824 ceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 97–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883‐9026(88)90020‐1
Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 37–59. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in
hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1),
Brown, N. A., Rovins, J. E., Feldmann‐Jensen, S., Orchiston, C., & Johnston,
75–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107
D. (2017). Exploring disaster resilience within the hotel sector: A
systematic review of literature. International Journal of Disaster Risk Criscuolo, P., & Narula, R. (2007). Using multi‐hub structures for interna-
Reduction, 22, 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.005 tional R&D: Organisational inertia and the challenges of
implementation. Management International Review, 47(5), 639–660.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O'Rourke, T. D.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575‐007‐0038‐9
Reinhorn, A. M., … Von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to
quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communi- Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioural theory of the firm (Prentice‐Hall
ties. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/ behavioural sciences in business series). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐
1.1623497 Hall.

Burnard, K., & Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: Development Dahles, H., & Susilowati, T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth
of a conceptual framework for organisational responses. International and crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 34–50. https://doi.org/
Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5581–5599. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002
10.1080/00207543.2011.563827 Danneels, E. (2008). Organisational antecedents of second‐order compe-
Calgaro, E., & Lloyd, K. (2008). Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: Examining tences. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 519–543. https://doi.
disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand. org/10.1002/smj.684
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 29(3), 288–306. https://doi. David, P. A., & Thomas, M. (2003). The economic future in historical perspec-
org/10.1111/j.1467‐9493.2008.00335.x tive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16 JIANG ET AL.

Davies, H., & Walters, M. (1998). Do all crises have to become disasters? Hajibaba, H., Karlsson, L., & Dolnicar, S. (2017). Residents open their
Risk and risk mitigation. Property Management, 16(1), 5–9. https://doi. homes to tourists when disaster strikes. Journal of Travel Research,
org/10.1108/02637479810202883 56(8), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516677167
Denicolai, S., Cioccarelli, G., & Zucchella, A. (2010). Resource‐based local Hall, P., Prayag, G., & Amore, A. (2017). Tourism and Resilience: Individual,
development and networked core‐competencies for tourism excel- Organisational and Destination Perspectives. Bristol: Channel View
lence. Tourism Management, 31(2), 260–266. https://doi.org/ Publications.
10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.002 Helfat, C., Peteraf, M., Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003).
Dixon, S., Meyer, K., & Day, M. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities of The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Man-
adaptation and innovation: A study of micro‐foundations in a transition agement Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
economy. Long Range Planning, 47(4), 186–205. https://doi.org/ Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D.,
10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.011 & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic
Dogru, T., Marchio, E. A., Bulut, U., & Suess, C. (2019). Climate change: change in organisations. Malden: John Wiley & Sons.
Vulnerability and resilience of tourism and the entire economy. Tourism Hine, D., Parker, R., Pregelj, L., & Verreynne, M. L. (2013). Deconstructing
Management, 72, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018. and reconstructing the capability hierarchy. Industrial and Corporate
12.010 Change, 23(5), 1299–1325.
Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). An introduction to evolutionary theories in Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual
economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4(3), 153–172. https:// Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/
doi.org/10.1007/BF01236366 annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organisational environments and Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2012). Slack resources in team learning and pro-
perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, ject performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 381–388. https://
17, 313–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392145 doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.037
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Huang, Y. F., & Chen, C. J. (2010). The impact of technological diversity
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation, 30(7), 420–428.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.01.004
they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 1105–1121. https:// Hystad, P., & Keller, P. (2006). Disaster management: Kelowna tourism
doi.org/10.1002/1097‐0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID‐ industry's preparedness, impact and response to a 2003 major forest
SMJ133>3.0.CO;2‐E fire. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(1), 44–58.
Endler, J. A., & McLellan, T. (1988). The processes of evolution: https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.13.1.44
Toward a newer synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Hystad, P. W., & Keller, P. C. (2008). Towards a destination tourism disaster
19(1), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.19.110188. management framework: Long‐term lessons from a forest fire disaster.
002143 Tourism Management, 29(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster manage- tourman.2007.02.017
ment. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Ingirige, B., Jones, K., & Proverbs, D. (2008). Investigating SME resilience
S0261‐5177(00)00048‐0 and their adaptive capacities to extreme weather events: A literature
Ferrier, W. (2001). Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and review and synthesis. CIB W89. Building Education and Research (BEAR).
consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Sri Lanka.
Journal, 44(4), 858–877. Jansen, J., Bosch, J., & Volberda, P. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploit-
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social– ative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and
ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4),
253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396721
Geiger, S. W., & Makri, M. (2006). Exploration and exploitation innovation Jiang, Y., & Ritchie, B. W. (2017). Disaster collaboration in tourism: Motives,
processes: The role of organizational slack in R&D intensive firms. Jour- impediments and success factors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
nal of High Technology Management Research, 17(1), 97–108. https:// Management, 31, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.09.004
doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2006.05.007 Jiang, Y., Ritchie, B. W., & Benckendorff, P. (2017). Bibliometric visualisa-
George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held tion: An application in tourism crisis and disaster management
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676. https://doi. research. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/
org/10.5465/amj.2005.17843944 13683500.2017.1408574
Ghaderi, Z., Mat Som, A. P., & Henderson, J. C. (2015). When disaster Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organisational ambi-
strikes: The Thai floods of 2011 and tourism industry response and dexterity and performance: A meta‐analysis. The Academy of
resilience. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(4), 399–415. Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.5465/
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2014.889726 amp.2012.0015
Ghaderi, Z., Mat Som, A. P., & Wang, J. (2014). Organizational learning in Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among envi-
tourism crisis management: An experience from Malaysia. Journal of ronmental dimensions, macro organisational characteristics, and
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 31(5), 627–648. https://doi.org/ performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598.
10.1080/10548408.2014.883951 Keown‐McMullan, C. (1997). Crisis: When does a molehill become a moun-
Gibson, C. A., & Tarrant, M. A. (2010). A “conceptual models” approach to tain? Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 6(1),
organisational resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653569710162406
25(2), 6–12. Kim, J., & Miner, A. S. (2007). Vicarious learning from the failures and near‐
Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience—In theory and application. failures of others: Evidence from the US commercial banking industry.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425–439. https://doi. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 687–714. https://doi.org/
org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425 10.5465/amj.2007.25529755
JIANG ET AL. 17

Kinnear, C., & Roodt, G. (1998). The development of an instrument for Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case
measuring organisational inertia. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 24(2), and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 441–454.
44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272‐6963(98)00023‐0
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capa- Metcalfe, J. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction (The
bilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), Graz Schumpeter lectures). London; New York: Routledge.
383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Wright, P. (1992). A competency‐based model of expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
sustainable competitive advantage: Toward a conceptual integration.
Miller, K. D. (1993). Industry and country effects on managers' perceptions
Journal of Management, 18(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/
of environmental uncertainties. Journal of International Business Stud-
014920639201800106
ies, 24(4), 693–714. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490251
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in
Moe, T., & Pathranarakul, P. (2006). An integrated approach to natural
Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.
disaster management: Public project management and its critical suc-
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Bettis, R. (1996). Dynamic core competences through cess factors. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
meta‐learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22(4), Journal, 15(3), 396–413.
549–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200402
Murray, N., Lynch, P., & Foley, A. (2016). Unlocking the magic in successful
Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tour- tourism destination marketing: The role of sensing capability. Journal of
ism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), Marketing Management, 32(9‐10), 877–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/
390–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160‐7383(79)90003‐3 0267257X.2016.1192557
Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of technical change.
in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, Cambridge: Ma, Beknap Harvard.
13(S1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009
Nieves, J., & Haller, S. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities through knowl-
Lewontin, R. C. (1974). The genetic basis of evolutionary change. New York:
edge resources. Tourism Management, 40, 224–232. https://doi.org/
Columbia University Press.
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.010
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management
Nieves, J., Quintana, A., & Osorio, J. (2016). Organizational knowledge,
research: A review of influential publications and a research agenda.
dynamic capabilities and innovation in the hotel industry. Tourism
International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 4–30. https://doi.
and Hospitality Research, 16(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/
org/10.1111/ijmr.12076
1467358415600208
Litschert, R. J., & Bonham, T. W. (1978). A conceptual model of strategy
Orchiston, C. (2013). Tourism business preparedness, resilience and disas-
formation. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 211–219. https://
ter planning in a region of high seismic risk: The case of the Southern
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1978.4294847
Alps, New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(5), 477–494. https://
Macpherson, A., Jones, O., & Zhang, M. (2004). Evolution or revolution? doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.741115
Dynamic capabilities in a knowledge‐dependent firm. R&D Management,
Orchiston, C., Prayag, G., & Brown, C. (2016). Organizational resilience in
34(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9310.2004.00331.x
the tourism sector. Annals of Tourism Research, 56, 145–148. https://
Magnusson, L., & Ottosson, J. (2009). The evolution of path dependence doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.002
(new horizons in institutional and evolutionary economics). Cheltenham:
Orchiston, C., Seville, E., & Vargo, J. (2014). Regional and sub‐sector
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
impacts of the Canterbury earthquake sequence for tourism
Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource‐based view within the businesses. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 29(4), 32–37.
conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,
13(5), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130505 Paraskevas, A., Altinay, L., McLean, J., & Cooper, C. (2013). Crisis
knowledge in tourism: Types, flows and governance. Annals of Tourism
Mair, J., Ritchie, B. W., & Walters, G. (2016). Towards a research agenda
Research, 41, 130–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.005
for post‐disaster and post‐crisis recovery strategies for tourist destina-
tions: A narrative review. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 1–26. https:// Paraskevas, A., & Arendell, B. (2007). A strategic framework for terrorism
doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.932758 prevention and mitigation in tourism destinations. Tourism Management,
28(6), 1560–1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.012
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource‐based and
dynamic‐capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Jour- Parker, H., & Ameen, K. (2017). The role of resilience capabilities in shaping
nal, 22(5), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.158 howfirms respond to disruptions. Journal of Business Research, 88,
535–541.
Makkonen, H., Pohjola, M., Olkkonen, R., & Koponen, A. (2014). Dynamic
capabilities and firm performance in a financial crisis. Journal of Business Paton, D., & Hill, R. (2006). Managing company risk and resilience through
Research, 67(1), 2707–2719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013. business continuity management. In D. Paton, & D. Johnston (Eds.),
03.020 Disaster resilience: An integrated approach (2nd ed.) (pp. 249–264).
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Manfield, R., & Newey, L. (2018). Resilience as an entrepreneurial capabil-
ity: Integrating insights from a cross‐disciplinary comparison. Paton, D., Smith, L., & Violanti, J. (2000). Disaster response: Risk,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), vulnerability and resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management:
1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR‐11‐2016‐0368 An International Journal, 9(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09653560010335068
McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Brunsdon, D. (2008). Facilitated process
for improving organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 9(2), Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box
81–90. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527‐6988(2008)9:2(81) of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 239–273. https://doi.
Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. org/10.1111/j.1540‐5915.2010.00287.x
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(5), Pearce, D. (2012). Frameworks for tourism research. Wallingford: CABI.
3–11. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938987.0000
18 JIANG ET AL.

Pechlaner, H., & Tschurtschenthaler, P. (2003). Tourism policy, tourism Scott, N., Laws, E., & Prideaux, B. (2008). Tourism crises and marketing
organisations and change management in Alpine regions and destina- recovery strategies. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(2‐4),
tions: A European perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_01
508–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667967
Sheldon, P., & Dwyer, L. (2010). The global financial crisis and tourism:
Pelling, M., & Uitto, J. I. (2001). Small island developing states: Natural Perspectives of the academy. Journal of Travel Research, 49(1), 3–4.
disaster vulnerability and global change. Global Environmental Change https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509353191
Part B: Environmental Hazards, 3(2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory building: A review and inte-
S1464‐2867(01)00018‐3
gration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Pennington‐Gray, L. (2014). Developing a destination disaster impact 0149206316647102
framework. Tourism Analysis, 19(1), 105–110. https://doi.org/
10.3727/108354214X13927625340352 Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behaviour (2nd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Sjodahl, L. E. (2014). Path dependence and routines: A threat to capability
development. Diagnosis (Berl), 1(2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation:
dx‐2014‐0001
Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Man-
agement Review, 50(1), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166428 Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted
world. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 724–736. https://
Prayag, G. (2018). Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279096
and crisis management in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives,
25, 133–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.012 Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerabil-
Prayag, G., Chowdhury, M., Spector, S., & Orchiston, C. (2018). Organiza- ity. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/
tional resilience and financial performance. Annals of Tourism Research, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
73(C), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.06.006 Smith, D., & Fischbacher, M. (2009). The changing nature of risk and risk
Prayag, G., & Orchiston, C. (2016). Earthquake impacts, mitigation, and management: The challenge of borders, uncertainty and resilience. Risk
organisational resilience of business sectors in Canterbury. In C. M. Hall, Management, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2009.1
S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber, & R. Wordsworth (Eds.), Business and post‐ Smith, K. (1995). Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster.
disaster management: Business, organisational and consumer resilience London: Routledge.
and the Christchurch earthquakes (pp. 111–132). Routledge.
Smith, S. L. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3),
Prayag, G., Spector, S., Orchiston, C., & Chowdhury, M. (2019). Psychologi-
582–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160‐7383(94)90121‐X
cal resilience, organizational resilience and life satisfaction in tourism
firms: Insights from the Canterbury earthquakes. Current Issues in Somers, S. (2009). Measuring resilience potential: An adaptive strategy for
Tourism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1607832 organizational crisis planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 17(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐5973.
Prideaux, B., Laws, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Events in Indonesia: Exploring
2009.00558.x
the limits to formal tourism trends forecasting methods in complex cri-
sis situations. Tourism Management, 24(4), 475–487. https://doi.org/ Sönmez, S. F., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis:
10.1016/S0261‐5177(02)00115‐2 Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1),
Pyke, J., De Lacy, T., Law, A., & Jiang, M. (2016). Building small destination 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759903800104
resilience to the impact of bushfire: A case study. Journal of Hospitality Sönmez, S. F., Backman, S. J., & Allen, L. R. (1994). Managing tourism crises:
and Tourism Management, 28, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A guidebook. Clemson, SC: Clemson University.
jhtm.2016.04.003
Stafford, G., Yu, L., & Armoo, A. K. (2002). Crisis management and recov-
Ritchie, B. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis ery: How Washington, DC, hotels responded to terrorism. Cornell
management in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 25(6), Hospitality Quarterly, 43(5), 27.
669–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004
Sterman, J. D., & Wittenberg, J. (1999). Path dependence, competition, and
Ritchie, B. (2008). Tourism disaster planning and management: From
succession in the dynamics of scientific revolution. Organisation
response and recovery to reduction and readiness. Current Issues inTour-
Science, 10(3), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.322
ism, 11(4), 315–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802140372
Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. (2003). Organisational slack and firm performance
Ritchie, B. W., Bentley, G., Koruth, T., & Wang, J. (2011). Proactive crisis
during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy.
planning: Lessons for the accommodation industry. Scandinavian Jour-
Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1249–1263. https://doi.org/
nal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.351
10.1080/15022250.2011.600591
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro‐
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource‐based perspective on
foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Manage-
corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of
ment Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
Sawalha, I. H. S. (2015). Managing adversity: Understanding some dimen- Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management:
sions of organizational resilience. Management Research Review, 38(4), Organizing for innovation and growth. New York: Oxford University
346–366. Press on Demand.

Schilke, O. (2014). Second‐order dynamic capabilities: How do they Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial
matter? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 368–380. action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0093 org/10.1111/j.1467‐6486.2012.01080.x

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, Teece, D. J. (2017a). A capability theory of the firm: An economics and
Mass: Harvard University Press. (strategic) management perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers.
JIANG ET AL. 19

Teece, D. J. (2017b). Towards a capability theory of (innovating) firms: Wang, J., & Ritchie, B. W. (2012). Understanding accommodation man-
Implications for management and policy. Cambridge Journal of Econom- agers' crisis planning intention: An application of the theory of
ics, 41(3), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew063 planned behaviour. Tourism Management, 33(5), 1057–1067. https://
Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.006
introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556. https:// Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the
doi.org/10.1093/icc/3.3.537‐a future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533. Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097‐0266(199708)18:7<509::AID‐ 4250050207
SMJ882>3.0.CO;2‐Z Williams, A. M., & Baláž, V. (2015). Tourism risk and uncertainty theoretical
Tyrrell, T. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2008). Tourism sustainability, resiliency and reflections. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/
dynamics: Towards a more comprehensive perspective. Tourism and 10.1177/0047287514523334
Hospitality Research, 8, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2008.8 Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical
Van Buuren, A., Ellen, G. J., & Warner, J. F. (2016). Path‐dependency and approaches. California: Sage, Thousand Oaks. https://doi.org/
policy learning in the Dutch delta: Toward more resilient flood risk 10.4135/9781452230108
management in the Netherlands? Ecology and Society, 21(4). https:// Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Manage-
doi.org/10.5751/es‐08765‐210443 ment Journal, 24(10), 991–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
Verreynne, M.‐L., Hine, D., Coote, L., & Parker, R. (2016). Building a scale Xu, J., & Grunewald, A. (2009). What have we learned? A critical review of
for dynamic learning capabilities: The role of resources, learning, com- tourism disaster management. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(1),
petitive intent and routine patterning. Journal of Business Research, 102–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160802711444
69(10), 4287–4303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.003
Yang, M., Wang, A. M., & Cheng, K. (2009). The impact of quality of IS infor-
Verreynne, M. L., Williams, A. M., Ritchie, B. W., Gronum, S., & Betts, K. S. mation and budget slack on innovation performance. Technovation,
(2019). Innovation diversity and uncertainty in small and medium sized 29(8), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.01.004
tourism firms. Tourism Management, 72, 257–269. https://doi.org/
Yasai‐Ardekani, M. (1986). Structural adaptations to environments. Acad-
10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.019
emy of Management Review, 11(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.5465/
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack amr.1986.4282607
resources and environmental threats on product exploration and
Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship
exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147–164.
research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.30767373
org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.04.007
Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for differ-
Zhang, H. Q., Li, M., & Xiao, H. (2009). Tourism recovery strategies
ent theory‐building research methods in operations management.
and their implications: A multiple case study approach. Journal of
Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361–385. https://doi.org/
China Tourism Research, 5(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10.1016/S0272‐6963(98)00019‐9
19388160903152811
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M.,
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of
… Pritchard, R. (2002). Resilience management in social‐ecological
dynamic capabilities. Organisation Science, 13(3), 339–351. https://
systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach.
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‐00356‐
060114
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and How to cite this article: Jiang Y, Ritchie BW, Verreynne M‐L.
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1),
Building tourism organizational resilience to crises and disas-
31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2370.2007.00201.x
ters: A dynamic capabilities view. Int J Tourism Res.
Wang, C. L., Senaratne, C., & Rafiq, M. (2015). Success traps, dynamic
capabilities and firm performance. British Journal of Management, 2019;1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2312
26(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8551.12066