Resilience is a topic that is receiving a great deal of interest among those responsible for performance and wellbeing in organisations,

as the work environment becomes increasingly challenging and uncertain. In the main, however, resilience-focused selection and
development interventions are still quite limited, and there is so much more that the scientic study of resilience, wellbeing and
performance has to offer the organisational practitioner (Flint-Taylor & Robertson, 2013). The purpose of this presentation is to provide a
practical illustration of our scientist-practitioner approach to this.
References
Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Schmidt Harvey, V. (2001). Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410-417.
Flint-Taylor, J., McKenzie, A. & Stewart, S. (2013) Resilient people for challenging assignments the role of assessment. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference, Chester, January
Flint-Taylor, J. & Robertson, I.T. (2007). Leader personality and workforce performance: the role of psychological well-being, EAWOP (XIIIth European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology), Stockholm, May
Flint-Taylor, J. & Robertson, I.T. (2013). Enhancing well-being in organizations through selection and development. In R.J. Burke & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The Fulfilling Workplace, (pp. 165-186). Farnham: Gower.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.) The Psychology of Gratitude (pp. 145-166). New York: Oxford University Press.
McClelland, D.C. (1998) Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews, Psychological Science, 9 (5)331-339
Reich, J.W., Zautra, A.J. & Hall, J.S. (Eds.) (2010) Handbook of Adult Resilience. The Guilford Press: New York.
Robertson, I.T. and Flint-Taylor, J. (2009). Leadership, psychological well-being and organizational outcomes, in Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Well-Being, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 159-179
Weekley, J.A., & Ployhart, R.E. (2005). Situational Judgement: Antecedents and relationships with performance. Human Performance, 18, 81-104.
Individual and Team Resilience:
Scientist-Practitioner
Alexander Davda alex.davda@ashridge.org.uk, and Jill Flint-Taylor jill.int-taylor@ashridge.org.uk
Ashridge Business School, UK
Case study illustration:
This case study concerns the selection of experts to work in
very difcult and dangerous environments (Flint-Taylor, McKenzie
& Stewart, 2013). Some of the key characteristics of the roles
included:
Risks to the personal safety of self and others
Complex, high-stakes, cross-cultural relationships
Lack of separation between work and non-work environment
Behavioural Event Interviews (BEI: McClelland, 1998) and
supplementary methods were used to dene the non-technical
requirements. Two related clusters that emerged from the
analysis were self-management resources (personal resilience)
and impact on others wellbeing (team resilience) clearly
important for any role, but identied as critical risk factors in
this context.
A Situational Judgement Exercise (SJE) was designed to
help assess these risks, using a theoretical and research-
driven approach to factor in the individual-situation interaction
element. Over the past 15 years, Situational Judgement Tests
have increased in popularity as a predictor of performance,
but they have not typically been used for assessing resilience
or potential impact on others wellbeing. In the typical SJT, an
applicant is presented with a variety of situations he or she
would be likely to encounter on the job. Accompanying each
situation are multiple possible ways to handle or respond to
the hypothetical situation. Research has shown SJTs to have
incremental validity above and beyond traditional predictors
such as cognitive ability and personality (Clevenger, Pereira,
Wiechmann, Schmitt, & Schmidt-Harvey, 2001; Weekley and
Ployhart, 2005).
In terms of the Individual in our diagram, the design of
the SJE drew on the literature on resilience, personality and
emotional intelligence. In terms of the Work Situation, we
drew in particular on the study of teamwork and the sources
of workplace pressure (Resources and Communication,
Control, Work-life Balance and Workload, Job Security and
Change, Work Relationships and Job Conditions). Content
and face validity were checked during the nal development
stage. Initial analyses based on 53 people provided support
for construct validity (including discriminant validity for the
constructs related to personal resilience resources and impact
on others). Evaluation is ongoing, with predictive validity yet to
be established.
Here we focus on four main scientific principles:
Conclusion and practical
implications:
When selecting for assignments in
dangerous situations, a persons
likely impact on colleagues
wellbeing and team resilience
is as important as his or her own
personal resilience.
Personal resilience resources and
impact on others can be dened in
behavioural terms, and incorporated
into a wider competency-based
assessment framework.
The situational judgement method
allows the individual-situation
interaction to be taken into account
in the selection process. It is exible
enough to pick up on the specics
of particular roles and contexts.
More needs to be done to
encourage and promote
assessment and development
procedures that take account of this
individual-situation interaction in the
context of resilience at work.
There should be a shift in
approach towards comprehensive
psychological tness for all that
starts at individual selection and
and continues into personal and
team development.
It is important to take account
of the interaction between
individual and situation.
The personal style of individuals (leaders/managers in particular)
has an impact on wellbeing and performance in the team.
(Flint-Taylor & Robertson, 2007; Robertson & Flint-Taylor, 2009)
Personal resilience is best
viewed in terms of process and
outcome, rather than as a xed
set of characteristics (Reich, Zautra
& Hall, 2010); individual differences
are a function of personal
resilience resources ranged on
a continuum from stable abilities
and personality traits to more
malleable attitudes and states.
High levels of wellbeing improve
collaboration, innovation and
the management of complexity
(Fredrickson, 2004), thereby
strengthening the teams ability
to manage pressure (team
resilience).
Figure 1: Positive individual-situation interaction
builds personal and team resilience
Individual
Personality, ability, attitude
and experience
Personal resilience resources
Confidence, social support,
adaptability and purpose
Individual resilience (process)
Challenges in the work situation
help to build personal resilience
resources
Individual resilience (outcome)
Individual remains positive,
healthy and effective in difcult
circumstances
Team resilience (process)
Individual has a positive impact on
the sources of pressure boosting
wellbeing in the team
Team resilience (outcome)
Team remains collaborative,
innovative and effective in difcult
circumstances
Work situation
Sources of workplace
pressure and support e.g.
Work relationships, work
demands, conditions
Selection and development
can help to ensure this
interaction is positive,
then...
Positive interaction,
wellbeing and
Performance are
sustained
2
3
4
1