Dyson College of Arts and Sciences
Issue link: http://dysoncollege.uberflip.com/i/128987
go hand-in-hand with problems in measurement. Without going too deeply into these murky and complicated issues, it would seem to be obvious that no universal measurements for resilience will ever be possible, and that these measurement issues will probably have to be worked out on an industry by industry, field by field, case by case, specialty by specialty, organization by organization, perhaps even individual by individual basis. Issue 3: Obfuscating Other Issues and Concerns by Focusing on Resilience When considering the utility of the construct of resilience when it comes to evaluating, for example, the health of organizations or of individuals, it is worthwhile to focus on the matter of what we really gain and what we perhaps lose when we attribute success to resilience and failure to its absence. By focusing on the presence or absence of resilience as a central cause of either organizational or personal success or failure, we may be giving short shrift to and possibly obfuscating the role of more important determinants and causal factors. So, for example, one could say that the investment bank Lehman Brothers failed because it was not resilient enough to recover from its trading losses, or that Apple became wildly successful after Steve Jobs returned to run the company because it was resilient, or that individual investors had to declare bankruptcy due to a lack of resilience in the face of underwater mortgages or in the face of being fleeced in a Ponzi scheme. But what does this really tell us that is either useful or interesting, and that would allow people or organizations to learn valuable positive or negative lessons? Thus, rather than attributing either organizational successes or failures to the presence or absence of resilience, is it not perhaps much more useful, interesting, telling, and informative to pin down precisely what the underlying issues were that led to personal or institutional success or failure? Hence, Lehman Brothers failed perhaps not because it was not resilient enough, but rather because it failed to manage risk effectively. The lesson then becomes one of how to better manage or avoid certain kinds of risk rather than the all-purpose prescription to build up organizational resilience. Issue 4: Evaluating the Novelty and Uniqueness of Resilience as a Societal Goal It seems evident that society's interest in enhancing resilience, countering terrorism, and "securing our future through public-private partnerships" (the subtitle of the Summit on Resilience) was greatly awakened by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, that led, for example, to the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security and enhanced security measures in the airline industry and in many other industries and facilities. Needless to say, the desire to be resilient in the face of such attacks, and in the face of earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, or tornadoes, either on an individual, an institutional, or a national basis, is necessary and commendable. It is perhaps human nature to feel that we are living through very trying and difficult times that call for resilience on our part. This is undoubtedly true. But at the same time it is important to remember that we are not the first generation to go through difficult and trying times, and that resilience on the part of individuals, people, nations, and societies has always been part of human history and progress even when the term resilience was not used to refer to such efforts, or when people did not think in these terms. Devastating plagues, such as the Black Death, horrendous and deadly famines, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, and wars have always been part of human existence. The Civil War for example, is still by far the deadliest war in the history of the United States. One can also venture 34