Mindfulness and the risk-resilience tradeoff in organizations
IRGC Resource guide on resilience: Domains of resilience for complex interconnected systems, Vol: 2, Page: 94-101
2018
- 97Usage
- 136Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage97
- Downloads53
- Abstract Views44
- Captures136
- Readers136
Book Description
Through this chapter, we seek to contribute to ongoing discussion about risk, resilience, and how they can be jointly managed (see Linkov, Trump, & Keisler, 2018), particularly in the context of organizations. We start by reviewing the traditional image of organizations. In this traditional image, processes related to risk and resilience are seen as complementary, as these processes pertain to distinct aspects of the organizational environment. We then complicate this theoretical image by introducing five underappreciated ways that risk and resilience processes may not be complementary in practice—because the aspects of the environment to which these processes pertain cannot always be easily distinguished and because enacting either of these processes can produce tradeoffs that constrain the other. We conclude by suggesting three principles rooted in mindfulness to help organizations manage these risk-resilience tradeoffs. In so doing, we hope to offer an updated image of organizations. This updated image may enrich discussions about risk and resilience within communities of theorists and practitioners alike—as well as across them.
Bibliographic Details
9782970118817
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/6891; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7890&context=lkcsb_research; http://dx.doi.org/10.5075/epfl-irgc-262527; https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/262527/files/IRGC%20%282018%29.%20Resource%20guide%20on%20resilience%20%28vol.%202%29%20-%20Domains%20of%20resilience%20for%20complex%20interconnected%20systems.pdf
EPFL International Risk Governance Center
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know