IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p452-456_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing Employee Resilience Research: Additional Thoughts

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfson, Natalie E.
  • Mulqueen, Casey

Abstract

Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) draw attention to issues in the psychological literature regarding how we define, assess, select for, and build employee resilience. We offer a handful of recommendations for complementing and expanding on these important issues. Specifically, we propose that research should include more common forms of workplace adversity, versus extreme and rare types of adversity; resilience should be assessed via objective multirater methodology rather than subjective self-report; because context is important when studying resilience, researchers should delineate the purposes of the research; resilience should be treated as a malleable rather than a fixed characteristic; and finally, the field would benefit from qualitative research in addition to quantitative research.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfson, Natalie E. & Mulqueen, Casey, 2016. "Advancing Employee Resilience Research: Additional Thoughts," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 452-456, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:452-456_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000389/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Parul Malik & Pooja Garg, 2018. "Psychometric Testing of the Resilience at Work Scale Using Indian Sample," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 43(2), pages 77-91, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:452-456_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.