An Investigation into the Relationship between Resilience and Thriving at Work

Abstract

Interest in resilience at work has increased following COVID-19 and its aftermath, to understand how people can cope with and recover from adversity. Thriving at work, defined as the experience of both growth and vitality at work, is also important to organisations interested in increasing morale and productivity. Some research conflates these two concepts, with definitions of resilience that include growth after adversity. This programme of research was designed to explore if and how resilience and thriving at work are different, related or aspects of the same construct. Understanding the relationship between resilience and thriving at work could help organisations and their employees prioritise and focus interventions to achieve their desired outcomes. This research focused on desk-based workers, as investigation of resilience at work is often limited to occupations with inherent exposure to traumatic situations. The initial literature review identified a wide variety of definitions and measures for both resilience and thriving at work, with similarities in terminology, and overlaps with well-being literature. Resilience research generally focuses on individuals and their ability to recover from adversity. The thriving at work literature highlights the importance of workplace culture and community to support individuals in experiencing thriving. There is little research into whether or how resilience and thriving at work are related, and what exists is contradictory. The first study used an online questionnaire (n=310) to demonstrate a moderate relationship (r=.37, p<.01) between resilience and thriving at work. A strong correlation (r=.59, p<.01) was also found between thriving at work and wellbeing. A review of meta-analyses and structured reviews of resilience and thriving at work (2011-2022) was conducted to identify common antecedents and outcomes, to detect overlaps and differences between resilience and thriving at work. Common outcomes included both physical and psychological health, and work-related outcomes such as task performance, work engagement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction and organisational commitment. A second questionnaire study (n-288) was then conducted to explore any differences in the impact of resilience and thriving at work on common outcomes. Partial correlations showed strong relationships between thriving at work and four key work-related outcomes: work engagement (r=.86, p<.01), job satisfaction (r=.61, p<.01), career satisfaction (r=.74, p<.01) and organisational commitment (r=.65, p<.01) when controlling for resilience. However, when controlling for thriving at work, there were no correlations between resilience and those four key work-related outcomes (r=.03, r=.09, r=-.03, and r=-.07). As this study had used a general resilience scale and a thriving at work scale, it was replicated (n=284) with a resilience at work scale and a general thriving scale. Similar results were found to the original study, whether using a measure specifically designed for a work context or a more general measure. These studies indicated that resilience and thriving at work are distinct but related constructs, having different impacts on key work-related common outcomes. All other variables being equal, resilience without thriving is not related to work engagement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction and organisational commitment. Study three was designed to clarify how resilience and thriving at work might be related. Semi-structured interviews (n=16) were used to explore critical incidents where participants felt they had been resilient (or not) and thriving (or not) at work. Reflexive thematic analysis suggested an indirect relationship: resilience at work builds new skills and attitudes, increasing clarity and supporting active choices that then result in thriving at work in a supportive environment. Four themes resulted from the analysis: (a) resilience develops roots that enable thriving; (b) thriving is bigger than the individual; (c) thriving spirals upwards through active choices in a supportive environment; and (d) you can be your own worst enemy or biggest supporter. A framework diagram was developed illustrating the relationship between resilience and thriving at work along with personal, relationship and workplace supportive and inhibiting factors identified in the interviews. Many of the factors in the above framework have been investigated in the existing literature for resilience and thriving at work, but prioritising relationships, sense of coherence and authenticity at work have not. Study four used a questionnaire (n=241) and structural equation modelling to confirm that these factors were mediators of the relationship between resilience and thriving at work. Prioritising relationships showed a positive correlation with thriving at work but a negative correlation with resilience at work, while the other two factors had positive relationships with both. The final study explored the utility of the above findings in the real world. It investigated whether a coaching intervention focused on authenticity at work and prioritising relationships might increase an individual’s thriving at work. A group of participants (n=8) completed a questionnaire and received a written report on their resilience, while a second group (n=10) also received a coaching session focused on the two factors above. Kirkpatrick (1996)’s framework was used to evaluate the intervention. All participants found the study interesting and thought-provoking (reaction). All participants felt they had learned a lot about resilience and thriving at work, and coached participants identified ways in which prioritising their relationships with others and being more authentic might impact their thriving at work (learning). All participants reported planning actions, with coached participants reporting more specific actions and more actions taken (behaviour). Only the coached participants showed an increase in wellbeing and thriving at work (results). The qualitative feedback from coached participants added support for the usefulness and impact of a focused coaching intervention. While only an initial pilot, the study laid the groundwork for future studies and interventions.