Organizational Resilience: What it is and What it isn’t? A Conceptual Review

Organizational Resilience (OR) as a construct and as a socioeconomic challenge is gaining uprising attention. Yet, a better understanding of the term in terms of what it is and what it isn't is still far behind. The present study is aimed at revisiting the definitions of OR for elucidating the scope of it. A systematic review of selected journal articles of 30 years (19902020) indexed in SSCI was performed. Both identifying and distinguishing facets of definitions were reviewed qualitatively and presented. Findings indicate that OR is a multidimensional construct that possesses several features that distinguish it from other similar constructs. The study concluded that the OR is about an organizational philosophy comprised of diverse competencies to manage challenging environmental events in a continuous and progressive way. Implications suggest that any conceptualization of OR should primarily centre on the long-term continuous process of meeting the challenging environmental occurrences rather than a set of discrete capabilities to respond to a devastating event.


INTRODUCTION
The term resilience is often used for denoting the ability to "bouncing back". It is rooted in the Latin term "resiliere" which gives the similar meaning of "jumping back" (Klein, Nicholls, & Thomalla, 2003;Paton & Johnston, 2006). Despite the appearance of the term being noted in general use for decades, ecology was the first scientific discipline to adopt the term in building its theoretical construction. Holling (1973) pioneered the use of the resilience concept in the field of ecology. He defined (1973) resilience in the context of ecosystems as their ability to absorb changes and persist. With Holling's initiative in 1973, the term branched into several areas of studies.
Organizational Resilience (OR) is one of such branches that address how organizations can combat the uninvited environmental uncertainties. Along with the inaugural work of Weick (1993), OR, which thrived in the face of the accelerated presence of disasters in the world of business, gained greater attention from both scholars and professionals (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2008;Hillmann & Guenther, 2020). For instance, the pandemic situation that arose due to the new COVID 19 virus compelled us to reassess how resilient we are as businesses.
However, the findings of the previous reviews show that the term lacks clarity in terms of interpretation and measurement. For instance, Amann and Jaussaud (2012) claimed that the term lacks clarity despite its popularity as a promising factor for both practitioners and for scholars. Duchek (2020) reported that OR as a core construct lacks consistent understanding. Moreover, Burnard and Bhamra (2011) and Linnenluecke (2017) while assessing the theoretical foundation of the construct noted the interpretational anomalies of the OR definitions which cause them to offer new definitions. Moreover, reviews of the OR presented so far staged have been diverse research agendas. Regardless of the dominance of the construct in the world of empirical studies, these spares in the definition and measurement have reduced the significance of the concept as an applied organizational construct (Amann and Jaussaud 2012; Brand and Jax 2007; Burnard and Bhamra 2011;Linnenluecke 2017). Regardless of the numerous contributions by different authors towards the development of the concept, until recently a uniform definition of OR has not staged (Linnenluecke, 2017;Xiao & Cao, 2017;DesJardine et al. 2017;Hillmann & Guenther, 2020).
For example, OR has been defined as capacity, capability, characteristic, outcome, process, strategy, approach, philosophy, process, competency attribute, and much more (Hillmann & Guenther, 2020). Resultantly, it is been criticized for ambiguity and inconsistency.
Additionally, theoretical support available for empirical studies was found less reliable to adopt (Brand and Jax 2007;Hillmann & Guenther, 2020). Importantly, this has given birth to studies of a different focus. For instance, greater diversity is noted with respect to their research focus among many of the reviewed performed so far. Hillmann and Guenther (2020) pointed the threat towards the significance of the concept for practice and research due to deficiencies associated with the definition and the measurement. On the other hand, OR has become the centre of organizational dialogues with the increased business uncertainties. Likewise, many leading practitioner journals often stage the insights of resilient organizations (Linnenluecke, 2015;DesJardine, Bansal, & Yang, 2017;Hillmann & Guenther, 2020). Despite the immense presence of the term in the empirical inventory, issues of conceptualization are still prevailed (Hillmann & Guenther, 2020). This paper is driven by the aim of revisiting the definitions of OR for elucidating what it is and what it isn't.

METHODS
A systematic review of the OR literature was performed. Research articles published in SSCI journals were drawn from leading e-databases namely Emerald, JSTOR, OXFORD, EBSCO, Science Direct, and Taylor & Francis. The keywords; "definition of OR", "defining OR", "review of OR", and "reviewing OR" were set as the inclusion criteria where articles of other titles (i.e., OR measures, scales of OR) and non-indexed journal articles with keywords were excluded. In addition to the aforesaid e-databases, the search of articles was performed in online journals of related disciplines. The search resulted in 467 articles (1990 -2020) including 12 meta-reviews among which 205 articles were considered for the review. The selection of articles considered the scientific merit of the paper and as well the source. Both the identifying and distinguishing facets of definitions were analysed qualitatively (Flynn et al., 1990) by performing a thematic analysis. Tables and narratives presented the analysed data. Table 1 presents the summary of the reviewed definitions.

RESULTS
The continuous renewal of competitive advantages. Continuous Duchek et al., Resilience means effectively responding to adverse events not only after such events but before and during them as well.

Adverse events Respond
The outcome is influenced by a dynamic complex combination of environmental factors. & Heijer, (2006) The characteristic of managing the organisation's activities is to anticipate and circumvent threats to its existence and primary goals.

Characteristic Anticipate Manage
Hillmann & Guenther, The organization's ability to restore to the original state even develops a new skill in disruptive conditions. Ability Bounce back Skill Growth Adverse events Hollnagel, (2006);Nemeth, et al., (2011) The essence of resilience is the intrinsic ability of an organisation (system) to maintain or regain a dynamically stable state, which allows it to continue operations after a major mishap and/or in the presence of continuous stress.

Ability Stable Adverse events Continuous
Janellis Pvt Ltd, (2015) A resilient organization has the ability to intelligently anticipate and manage the change swiftly, has the capacity to learn from challenges and seeks opportunities to enhance its capability to adapt, bounce back faster, smarter and stronger. Ability of systems to prevent or adapt to changing conditions in order to Ability Adapt (2011) maintain control. Leveson, et al., (2006) Organizational capacity to absorb the impact and recover from the actual occurrence of an extreme weather event.

Capacity Absorb
Linnenluecke, Griffiths, & Winn (2012) The capacity to rebound, 'to come back' from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change.

Capacity
Bounce back Adverse event Uncertainty Luthans, The ability of an individual or organisation to expeditiously design and implement positive adaptive behaviours matched to the immediate situation.

Ability Adapt
Mallak, The capacity of a company to over time become a selected variation in the Capacity Environment marketplace.
Vogus & Sutcliffe, (2007) The maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions such that the organization emerges from those conditions strengthened and more resourceful.
It comprises coping skills, which materialise when events get outside of normal operational boundaries, and knowledgeable people who can selforganise into ad hoc networks to provide expert problem-solving.

Cope
Adverse events Problem -Solving Weick, (1993) Resilience in organisations seeks to promote competence, restore efficacy, and encourage growth through the behavioural processes of mindful organizing enacted by front-line employees; therefore, a resilient organisation is one that is able to do this on a sustainable basis.
The capacity to cope with uninvited events and bounce back once they occurred while he interpreted anticipation as predicting and preventing potential dangers before the damage.

Capacity
Cope Adverse events Bounce back Prevent Williams et al. (2017) The process by which an actor (i.e. an individual, organization, or community) builds and uses its capability endowments to interact with the environment in a way that positively adjusts and maintains functioning prior to, during, and following adversity.
Organizational resilience is a multilevel construct and influenced by many factors, many levels.

Multi-level construct
Source: Developed by the author (2021)
Resilience is a multidimensional, socio-technical phenomenon about how individuals or groups manage uncertainty. Thus, it is used in a wide variety of fields including ecology, psychology, supply chain, strategic management and safety engineering (Bhamra, Dani, & Burnard, 2011) which has again led it to be difficult to form a generalized definition and a sound measure (Pollock, 2016). With the increased frequency and intensity of catastrophic events that threaten the survival of businesses, the concept of "organizational resilience" was born. Organizations demonstrate a greater sensitivity to perturbations on any scale. Hence, resilience has become a principal feature of any modernday organization. Weick (1993) was the first to attribute the resilience concept to the organizational context. In his work, "The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster", he revisited the tragedy of 13 men's death causing the Mann Gulch fire disaster in Montana on August 4, 1949, presented by (Maclean, 1992 in the awardwinning book "Young Men and Fire". There, Weick questioned, "Why do organizations unravel?" and "How can organizations be made more resilient?" (1993, p. 628). He proposed four sources of resilience that make organizations/groups less vulnerable to disruptions. They are improvisation & bricolage, virtual role systems, the attitude of wisdom, and respectful interaction (Weick, 1993). Along with this foundational application of "resilience" in the organizational context, a branch of the resilience body of knowledge has emerged and evolved besides its presence in numerous other fields.
OR was initially viewed in the term of coping skill of an organization. Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld (1999) procreated the said idea by theorizing that the OR comprises coping skills, which materialise when events get outside of normal operational boundaries, and knowledgeable people who can self-organise into ad-hoc networks to provide expert problem-solving. Resilient was then better understood by practitioners as the organizational capacity to withhold a negative event without damaging its ability to remain in the business. Sutcliffe & Vogus (2003) viewed OR as a phenomenon at the organizational level that empowers organizational units to resume, rebound, bounce back, or positively adjust untoward events. This interpretation is mostly in line with the general understanding of what "resilient" is.
Yet, the modern conceptualization of the term denotes not only bouncing back but also growing or becoming even better after facing a disaster as proposed by Kendra & Wachtendorf (2003). They interpreted OR as a set of attitudes about desirable actions by organisational representatives, as it is about developing new capabilities. It is believed that the learning gained by facing untoward events expands the capacities of the organization by means of developing new capabilities. Luthans (2002) also came with a similar interpretation of OR, as the capacity to rebound, 'to come back from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change's. Hence, being resilient means becoming even stronger and more capable than ever after confronting a devastating event.
Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2012) interpreted OR as a process containing three stages namely; anticipation, coping, and adaptation. They develop the Relative OR Scale to assess the OR (Figure 1). Achieving success in dealing with challenging events is usually progressive and incremental. Hence, treating OR as a process is virtually meaningful. In the meantime, some authors have viewed OR as both a dynamic process and an outcome of strategies (Cascio, 2009;Pollock, 2016 (Jiwani & Milley, 2009). This heavily applies in crisis and emergency management. In this context, resilience helps organizations to achieve their objectives and fulfill their core purpose. The resilient organization can anticipate, respond and adapt to acute or sudden shocks and chronic or incremental changes so that it survives and prospers into the future (BSI, 2014). Many definitions in general stress resilience as a means of recovering from disasters. Therein, adaptive capacity is an essential component of resilience because it reflects the learning aspect of the organization in response to crises (Carpenter & et al, 2001). Organizations that are not learning from the crises will remain crisis-prone. In contrast, crisis-prepared organizations keep learning and become adaptive to crises. Crisis orientation of organizations thus can be used in grouping organizations based on their adaptive capacity (Pauchant & Mitroff, 1992). Additionally, organizations can be placed in a continuum between crisis-prone and crisis-prepared, based on their adaptive capacity, which is a predominant requirement to be resilient (Pollock, 2016). Consequently, many authors found adaptive capacity as a lead predictor of organizational resilience (Garvin, 2000;Smith & Elliott, 2007;Pollock, 2016).

Figure 1: Defining Organizational Resilience
Resilient organizations are crisisprepared. They learn from their own crises and as well from the experience of others. These learnings assist them in avoiding failures. They, on the other hand, sharpen the organization's proactiveness (Smith & Elliott, 2007).
Therefore, resilient organizations can be branded as "crisis-prepared". For this reason, nuclear power plants and aircraft carriers are often referred to as high resilient organizations. But many organizations today are less resilient and lacking the ability to withstand disruptions (Pollock, 2016). This may attribute to the excessive rate of failures in the business field despite several helping arms.
While distinguishing reactive resilience and proactive resilience, Somers (2009) noted that it is often followed by an event or crisis. Others who acknowledged the reactive nature of the OR are Mallak (1998) and Hollnagel (2006). Mallk (1998; 148) described resilience as 'the ability of an individual or organization to expeditiously design and implement positive adaptive behaviors matched to the immediate situation". Parallelly, Hollnagel (2006;13) showed OR as an intrinsic ability of an organization (system) to maintain or regain a dynamically stable state, which allows it to continue operations after a major mishap and/or in the presence of continuous stress. In 2011, Hollnagel and others suggested four dimensions of OR, namely, anticipation, monitor, respond and learn ( Figure  2). A resilient socio-technical system possesses the abilities to Respond, to Monitor, to Anticipate, and to Learn (RMAL Model). The ability to respond is being able to respond to variations (both regular and irregular) by implementing predefined actions or altering the present functions. The ability to monitor is being vigilant of possible effects on the system's performance. Next, the ability to learn is being able to learn from experiences, (correspond to double-loop learning concept by Argyris & Schon (1974) as cited by Hollnagel, (2015, p. 4). The ability to anticipate is the capacity to foresee the future in terms of possible challenges and opportunities (Hollnagel, 2015).
An organization equipped with these abilities can better analyze and solve problems in a structured and practical way (Tengblad, 2018 .3)).
The line of sequential activities suggested here is from a process; the OR thus resembles a process rather than capacity. Both Hollnagel's (2006) and Mallk's (1998) definitions emphasized the reactive nature of OR. Having armed with flexibility, first-rate communication, and the ability to mobile resources are thus considered as the critical success factors of the effective reactive action plan. They also support the process-based nature of the OR. Inconsistently, others interpreted it as the ability to foresee the crisis before its occurrence and the ability to cope with it if it happens to meet with the crisis. Leveson, et al. (2006) describe their proactive-flamed OR as the ability of systems to prevent or adapt to changing conditions in order to maintain control. As for them, resilient organizations should be capable of early detecting and avoiding unfavorable conditions and adapting them during their realtime occurrence and keep responding even after the disruption. This explains the continuous cause of an organization that must be maintained throughout its life span. Therefore, regarded as managerially effective and operationally challenging. In the same tone, Hale and Heijer defined OR as "the characteristic of managing the organization's activities to anticipate and circumvent threats to its existence and primary goals" (2006; p. 35). Hence, to be resilient, organizations should develop their anticipating ability and adaptive capacity. The two approaches were seen distinctively (Wildavsky, 1991) and as well complementarily (Comfort, Sungu, Johnson, & Dunn, 2001;Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003;Boin & Lagadec, 2000). Wildavsky (1991) viewed resilience as the capacity to cope with uninvited events and bounce back once they occurred while he interpreted anticipation as predicting and preventing potential dangers before the damage. He posited that the strategies of anticipation work best against known problems, whereas strategies of resilience work best against unknown ones. Each strategy is appropriate to specific conditions. Resilience strategies are appropriate when there is greater uncertainty and anticipation strategies apply best when the environment is in a steady-state and predictable mode.
The OR was defined with a closer link with environmental interactions by Williams, Gruber, Sutcliffe, Shepherd, & Zhao in 2017. They stated OR as the process by which an actor (i.e., an individual, organization, or community) builds and uses its capability endowments to interact with the environment in a way that positively adjusts and maintains functioning prior to, during, and following adversity (p. 742). Resilient organizations should emphasize organizational learning as organizational learning gained from their own experience and others' experiences help to generate greater organizational resilience (Smith & Elliott, 2007). In the organizational literature, it is cited as an essential organizational competence for modern organizations that describes one of the most important inherent characteristics that cause that business success (Naswall, Kuntz, Hodliffe, & Malinen, 2013;Britt, Shen, SinClair, Grssman, & Klieger, 2016). Tengblad (2018)   In REC model, reliability refers to the operational safety, sound risk management, product & service quality, and quality of customer care. Efficiency measures how productive the organization is in creating value for its stakeholders. Next, the change capacity refers to the flexibility and innovation potentiality of the organization. These three then are proposed to use as the key predictors of OR. Yet, the author held that the proper balance between three qualities might vary from organization to organization, industry to industry, and over time (Tengblad, 2018, p. 35). The REC model well addresses the organizational level capabilities to become resilient basically at the present level. The "resiliency" as a system property is always coupled with an ability of a system to foresee the future based on existing trends and prepare itself to meet the challenges on its way (Hollnagel, 2006;Hollnagel, Paries, David, & Wreathall, 2011). Yet, the REC focus on the current state of performance doesn't explicitly reflect the organization's ability to anticipate and prepare for a possible future challenging event.

Figure 4: RAG Model of Organizational Resilience
Source: Chuang S, Ou J-C, Hollnagel E, Hou S-K (2020) Measurement of resilience potential -development of a resilience assessment grid for emergency departments.
PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239472 In par with the four-dimensional RMLA model of Hollnagel et al. (2011), he came with RAG -Resilience Analysis Grid in 2014 (Figure 4) which can assess the resilience systems (i.e. an organization or an individual). They correspond to the stages of RMLA model  namely; Respond, Monitor, Learn and Anticipate (Figure 2). RAG intends to measure the resilience performance of a system, which, indeed, as for him, is not a quality of a system but the ability to succeed under varying conditions. Hollnagel (2015) expressed this in his work of RAG in 2015, as; ………the ability of systems to succeed under varying conditions …………. The purpose of the rather roundabout definition given above is to avoid statements such as 'a system is resilient if …', since this narrows resilience to a specific quality. (Or even worse, that 'a system has resilience if………) …… (Hollnagel, 2015, p.1).
In 2019, Hollnagel emphasized the same notion in his work of "Invisible trade-offs and visible consequences" by stressing the importance of developing the resilience culture within the organization.
High Reliable Organizations ( HRO) is an analogous concept of managing crises and ensuring system safety, in which a culture of reliability is promoted to prevent operational failures (Porte, 1996). They are known to operate nearly error-free in extremely challenging and uncertain environments, where complex procedures, technology, and guidelines are used to manage complex systems and conditions (Enya, Pillay, & Dempsey, 2018). Industries with a high level of risk profile such as construction in which the fatality rate is very high, gas & oil refining, aircraft, and nuclear industries often regarded as HRO and expected to function at an exceptionally high level with little or no accidents.
The theory of HRO once originated at the Berkeley campus of the University of California and has been studied by many organizational scholars to assess its application over a wide range of high-risk organizations. Karl E. Weick of the University of Califonia (1980s) together with his team investigated the behaviour of organizations that operate in highly hazardous environments and came out with a set of traits they share commonly (Weick, 1987). Weick et al. later related the concept of collective mindfullness as an approach to ensure a safe culture at HROs (Enya, Pillay, & Dempsey, 2018). They identified a set of traits that explain the behaviour of HROs. They are; 1. Preoccupation with failure, 2. Reluctance to simplify, 3. Sensitivity to operations 4. Commitment to resilience, and 5. Deference to expertise (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).
Four cornerstones of OR were used by Patriarca, Gravio, Costantino, & Falenami (2018) to develop a semi-quantitative framework of OR based on which the resilient profiles can be generated. They put resilience at the organizational level as the combination of these four cornerstones: monitoring, responding, learning and anticipating (Patriarca, et al., 2018, p.266 ). The outcome was a modified model of OR based on the Resilient Analysis Grid (RAG) of Hollnagel's (2011). The proposed construct of Patriarca et al. (2018) holds greater similarities with Hollnagel's work and extends it up an Analytical Hierarchy Process in which weaknesses and strengths of the organizational resilient profiles can be spotted. Additionally, the new model allows managers to target the resiliency phase by phase rather than an incremental uptake.
The diversity is the organizational context that has accounted as an essential component of innovation propensity, decision effectiveness, anticipating ability etc. Its theoretical connection with OR has been questioned by Duchek, Raetze, & Scheuch (2020) and proposed a framework for resilience-enhancing diversity management. They emphasised the role of diversity in enhancing the resilient capabilities of the organizations throughout the three-stages process of OR (Anticipation, Coping and adaptation). alignment. Yet, the tested model only incorporated organizational level antecedents and thus included into the final model. Among the existing theoretical frames, this is the only model which used a single first-order factor to predict the OR. That was adaptation capacity, whereas this was engaged in many of the models as adaptive capacity (Hale & Heijer, 2006;Malik & Nilakant, 2011).
Resilient organization has the ability to intelligently anticipate and manage swiftly, has the capacity to learn from challenges and seeks opportunities to enhance its capability to adapt, bounce back faster, smartest and stronger (Janellis Pvt Ltd, 2015, p. 1). Four groups of OR indicators were proposed as benchmarking indicators specifically, risk, readiness, response and assurance. The interpretations of the four main themes of OR reported by Janellis in 2015 are relatively identical to Hollnagel et al.'s (2011) classification of attributes of a resilient sociotechnical system; monitor, to anticipate, to respond and to learn. Nevertheless, empirical support was not presented for the benchmark OR indicators. (2007)  Linnenluecke has contributed much in developing the OR construct. He and his colleagues have defined OR as the organizational capacity to absorb the impact and recover from the actual occurrence of an extreme weather event (Linnenluecke, Griffiths, & Winn, 2012). In contrast to other definitions, OR was defined specifically within the context of extreme weather events whereas others have conceptualized a more general view of damaging events which covers a wider range of disturbing incidents. For instance, some have accounted even an expiry of core functional member who was holding a greater responsibility of key organizational functions in to adverse profile of the organizations. They proposed a three-dimensional framework of OR in which simple extreme, complex extreme and unique or single extreme weather events are assessed. Along with that they came up with a five-stages process of organizational adaptation and resilience.

Vogus & Sutcliffe
A theoretical framework would become popular and operationally sound when it is specific and less ambiguous. The 3-component resilient capacity framework of Lengnick-Hall and others gained much popularity due to its specificity. Furthermore, it was supported by empirical evidences too. Their model was based on the definition of OR; a unique blend of cognitive, behavioural, and contextual properties that increase a firm's ability to understand its current situation and to develop customized responses that reflect that understanding (Lengnick_Hall & Beck, 2003;Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005;Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2009;Lengnick_Hall, Beck, & Lengnick_Hall, 2011). Figure 5 presents the 3component resilience framework of Lengnick-Hall and others.   Williams et al. 2017). Some argue that the OR is an outcome rather than a process, management system, strategy or predictive measurement (Gibson & Tarrant, 2010). They perceived it as an outcome of complex environmental factors which included the organization's risk culture. Thus, OR is known as the ability to anticipate, prepare for, respond, and adapt to shocking events (both sudden and gradual changes).

CONCLUSION
This review aimed at revisiting the definition of OR to distinguish it from other related facets. OR is a phenomenon at the organizational level. It empowers organizational units to resume, rebound, bounce back, or positively adjust untoward events (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).It has proven to be neither an outcome nor the process but both (Cascio, 2009;Pollock, 2016). It demands more than "bouncing back" (Linnenluecke, 2015;DesJardine, et al., 2017). Again, OR is not just adaptation but more than the adaptation as it stresses subsequent growth followed by a devastating event (Carpenter & et al, 2001;DesJardine, Bansal, & Yang, 2017). Despite their highly correlated nature, OR is not either crisis management (Mallak, 1998;Somers, 2009;Hollnagel, 2006). OR must be necessarily a proactive and continuous organizational process, but it should not be reactive following a devastating event. Coping skill can't attribute to the OR as it omits the preceding and succeeding stages of OR; the anticipation, and the adaptation respectively. OR is not either becoming stable as it calls for moving ahead ( (Hollnagel, 2006). Calling OR a "buffer capacity" seems unrealistic once the OR's ability to thrive after a shocking event is concerned (Arrow, et al., 1995;Cardona, 2003). OR is not only a set of attitudes but also enactive behavioural movements towards gaining superficial capacities (Kendra & Wachtendorf , 2003;Hillmann & Guenther, 2021 (Lee, Vargo, & Seville, 2013). An organization equipped with these abilities can better analyse and solve problems in a structured and practical way (Tengblad, 2018;Tengblad & Oudhuis, 2019;Torgeir, Stian, Ragnar, & Andrew, 2019). Accounting the continuous and progressive nature of OR, it can be interpreted as not only a capability but also a philosophy at organizational level which spelled out how organizations can face adverse, complex, and uncertain events in a responsible and pro-active way. Theoretical implications suggest inclusion of the identified aligning criteria to any conceptualization or measures of OR while one should avoid alike but, disjoining criteria for interpretational and measurement purposes. Practical implications demand for organizations to primarily focus on the long-term continuous process of meeting the challenging environmental occurrences rather on discrete capabilities to respond to devastating events.