Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith in the 80’s, studied the influence of risk factors that occur when the processes of lifestyle, work, daily life, social, cultural, political relationships and ecological, are characterized by deep social inequity and discrimination, both gender and ethnocultural inequality that generate unfair forms of remuneration with its consequence: poverty, a life system full of stressors, physical, psychological and / or emotional overloads, exposure to dangers and destructive processes that are part of certain modes of social functioning or of human groups. (Gómez, 2010)

Faced with such research, resilience was considered as something that could be studied once individuals adapted and stabilized after experiencing adverse events, that is, a person was only labeled as resilient, if there had already been a positive adaptation ; and then, those studies focused on finding the factors that had made this improvement possible.

On the other hand, the second generation of researchers in this tenor, constituted by Michael Rutter and Edith Grotberg, among others; considered resilience as a process that can be promoted. Therefore, their research aimed to specify which are the dynamics present in the resilient process, with the purpose of being replicated in similar contexts. In this way, it became necessary to investigate the relationship between the different risk factors and the resilient ones, and, on the other hand, to develop models that would allow to cause resilience effectively through intervention programs. (Gómez, 2010)

For their part, as mentioned (Arana, 2010), examples such as that of Anne Frank, Víctor Frankl, among many other characters, as well as some survivors of the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Nazis, or orphaned children survivors of the bombing of London during The Second World War, which managed to reorganize their lives and overcome the horror of war and devastation, reveal the great capacity of human beings to resist their traumatic experiences.

In the business world, when referring to successful companies, those that have lasted for a long time in the market and are currently in people’s minds are usually taken as a reference; Therefore, it is of great importance that in the variable business world, in the same way that there are people with a strong capacity for survival, there are also resilient organizations that, taking advantage of the difficulties they face in their environment, capitalize and turn into opportunities failures and misfortunes, in order to excel in the pursuit of being more productive, more competitive and smarter. (Contreras, 2011)

In this case, the use of the concept of resilience is recent in the organizational field and is also defined as the capacity of a system to absorb the changes that are seen as a series of sudden crises and still retain its essential functionality. Thus, if crisis situations inhibit the vital processes of the system, it is due to the temporary inability to deal effectively with the complexity generated by the actors and variables located in the context of the organization.

Organizational resilience aims to identify and study the different factors that make it possible for organizations to recover when going through complex adversities; and provide feedback on said factors to assess the willingness of the company to face a period of crisis and consider the level of disturbance that it can withstand before falling to a critical point for its sustainability.

The idea is to collaborate so that organizations adapt more and better to the complexities of the market without sacrificing their independence; and therefore create a more enduring organism. Since, as has been stated, the current global market conditions have shown that the way of doing business and managing companies has completely changed, because now the challenge is to learn to work in the crisis, to know how to deal with extremely unstable markets and manage in shortages. Therefore, in such circumstances, some organizations begin to worry about training, developing and increasing the resilient capacity of both their members and themselves, to improve their own response capacity in an unfavorable environment; it has been shown that those companies that are resistant to change tend to disappear. (Leon, 2013)

However, for there to be resilience within an organization, it is not necessary that it is suffering or has suffered any disturbance, however, in companies that have gone through major setbacks, their degree of resilience can be detected more clearly.

Why do certain organizations usually overcome unfavorable stages and even come out stronger and others not? In this regard, various figures have studied the factors associated with organizational resilience, which allow companies to adequately overcome setbacks, problems and misfortunes in the exercise of their daily activities and that could put their permanence in the market at risk.

With regard to this, it is easy to identify that organizations that have not been able to recover from the crisis almost always repeat the same mistakes; and those that have managed to leave behind are characterized by assuming setbacks with a certain impetus that has made them recognized not only for their prosperity, but also for their great ability to solve problems in the face of market adversity.

Therefore, various investigations on this subject have shown the existence of certain factors in common, which can be considered important in the analysis of organizational behavior, since their use can be vital for the durability of any company. Thus, (León, 2013) lists three relevant factors for the development of resilience in organizations:

Leadership: When organizations are in a critical or highly uncertain environment, a high degree of insecurity tends to develop within them, due to the fact that a large number of conjectures are generated related to the future of the company; same that greatly affect its stability and harmony.

Therefore, at this point, the good work of a leader is vital to guide the group towards the goal that was once clear, but which due to various circumstances has been clouded for the vast majority of its members. Thus, in the cases of companies that are led back to success, they have people who enjoy ambition for the organizational cause and not just personal; who are convinced that it is possible and worthwhile to make their work a momentous act, which can positively impact their organization and therefore their personal interests.

In this way, one of the types of leadership that best adapts to organizational resilience is the so-called transformational leadership, which is defined as one that anticipates future trends and inspires others to adopt a new vision of possibilities, developing others to also be leaders and conceiving the group as a unit that constantly learns.

Objectivity: It refers to the quality that the organization must build throughout its productive life, which constitutes the ability to visualize the true inconvenience that leads to the crisis, that is, to establish the root of the problem and not its consequences.

Thus, the importance of this factor focuses on the optimization of resources that are usually scarce when the company is in a difficult period. Since generally, organizations limit themselves to dealing with the consequences or symptoms of the problems presented and build an elaborate strategy to attack what at the time is considered to be the origin of the crisis, thereby causing the misuse of their available resources.

Sense of belonging: When referring to this factor, the great drawback is its complexity when trying to be materialized in the organization’s strategies, since its members should be committed to it; however, true commitment only comes out of conviction.

When the employees of a company have a sense of belonging, they not only understand the values ​​disclosed by it, but also transmit them and make them respect them under any circumstance. And thus, this type of thinking causes companies not only to resurface in a solid way, but also to do so independently. (Leon, 2013)