Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

www.ccsenet.orgijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 9, No. 2; 2014 304 Figure 2. Empirical results of the effect of trust on organizational resilience Note: S=significant; m=moderates.

5. Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

5.1 Competence and Vulnerability The results of data analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between competence and vulnerability. This implies that Competence boosts or enhances organizational vulnerability. One possible explanation for this finding may be that when the members of staff perceive their organization as capable of meeting their needs both now and in the foreseeable future, it creates affective feelings in the workers. This may in turn motivate them to make contributions towards enhancing the vulnerability of the organization, with the belief and conviction that the survival of the organization is their survival as well. Clearly therefore, an organization that has an effective leader and is also able to survive in the market place a competent organization will operate in a favourable vulnerability position thus enhancing the survival of the organization in the face of any threats. This is the result we have found out in this study. This position is buttressed by Posen 2011 who argues that where the members believe in the competence of the organization, they give their all to ensure that the organization is protected thus making the organization less vulnerable to disasters. It also aligns with the position of Shockley-Zalabak et al 2011b who argues that competence had proven to be statistically significant in creating favourable vulnerability for an organization. Competence Vulnerability Adaptive Capacity Openness Reliability [H 07 , m] [H 08 , m] [H 01 , +ve] s [H 02 , +ve] s Culture [H 03 , +ve] s [H 04 , +ve] s [H 06 +ve] s Structure [H 05 , +ve] s www.ccsenet.orgijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 9, No. 2; 2014 305 5.2 Competence and Adaptive Capacity Similarly, the result of data analysis also revealed a positive and significant and relationship between competence and adaptive capacity. This implies that competence advances, boosts or enhances organizational adaptive capacity. This finding may be explained by the fact that competence is promoted through continuous learning and this capability precedes and underlies innovation, execution, and adaptive or pre-emptive response. To this end, when an organization is perceived as having the ability for collective learning and is seen as being able to survive, there is an adaptive capacity response generated in the members, thus promoting the organization’s adaptive capacity. We may also view this relationship as being further enhanced given the individual need for security. Every employee wants to have a secured feeling and in this process may recognise that his security depends on the secured position of the organization exemplified by its adaptive capacity. With an assurance of the organization’s competence, the members may be motivated to contribute to its adaptive capacity both for their survival and the organization’s survival as well, a symbiosis beneficial to both parties. This underlies the connection between competence and adaptive capacity of organizations. For an organization to be able to continuously improve on its ability and speed to manage crises effectively adaptive capacity, then the competence of its leaders and of the organization itself is of the essence. This result is in line with the position offered by Clark and Gottfredson 2008 when they averred that the ultimate source of adaptive capacity, competitiveness, and self-preservation, indeed the key to resilience and renewal, unmistakably points to the ongoing ability of an organization to learn and apply its knowledge, which is a measure of its competence. 5.3 Openness and Vulnerability The result of data analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between openness and an organization’s vulnerability. This implies that openness enhances organizational vulnerability. This finding may be explained by the fact that workers perceive openness as being indicative of mutually-serving rather than self serving motives. Consequently, they are inspired to give of their best believing that it is also for their own good if improvements result in desirable organizational outcomes. This plays out to enhance the vulnerability of the organization. The converse to an open organization may be one that breeds distrust and withdrawal with its adverse consequences on desirable organizational outcomes over the long run. The significant relationship between openness and vulnerability may also be explained by the fact that openness breeds positive relationships which have been known to serve as the key coping resources that enables individuals and organizations to develop resilience in the face of work stress and the attacks. Moreover, people cannot be taken for granted if they are to give of their best. When they are fed with trusted information from a trusted source, that supports known facts, they are encouraged to continue to make meaningful contributions to the enhancement of the vulnerable positions of the organization. This finding is consistent with the earlier findings of Shockley--Zalabak et al. 2011a who found that openness is a major determinant of organizational vulnerability, and in particular, the adaptive capacity. It was their contention that when the leaderships efforts are perceived as being sincere, judged by the communication shared across the organization, the organization members develop increased levels of commitment which positively impacts on the vulnerability of the organization. This is very significant as it has been proven that the level of communication sharing in an organization dictates the extent to which the organization becomes open and can be trusted by its members Ouchi, 1981; Shockley--Zalabak, 1999; Nanus, 1989. Similarly, Berkes and Folke 2002 also conjectured that enhancing openness in the organization through communication breeds confidence in the workforce and galvanises contributions towards enhancing the organization’s vulnerable position in the event of an adverse situation or condition. 5.4 Openness and Adaptive Capacity The result of data analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between openness and an organization’s adaptive capacity. This finding implies that openness enhances an organization’s adaptive capacity. This finding may be explained by the fact that feeling of belonging is accentuated by the creation of openness within an organization. Adaptive capacity, which depends on the ability of a society or organization to act collectively, and to resolve conflicts between its members, is a factor that is heavily influenced by governance and the creation of openness in the organization. If these systems were not put into motion, there is a much greater likelihood of panic in the event of an untoward situation. This finding may also be explained by the fact that openness breeds appreciation and reduces rumours. Where people are well informed of happenings around them without having to dig deep to get the information they require, they are encouraged to give of their best. Moreover, suspicions will be reduced to the barest minimum thus engendering mutual coexistence and identification with the objectives of the organization. This result is in line with the findings of earlier studies on the relationship between the two variables. The earlier study of Berkes and Folke 2002 revealed that trusted communication will allow the www.ccsenet.orgijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 9, No. 2; 2014 306 organization and individuals within it to adapt more quickly. On their part, Spreitzer and Mishra 1999 argued that involving lower echelon of employees in the decision making process is a measure of the organization’s openness and this enhances various desirable organizational outcomes including adaptive capacity. Similarly, Holling and Gunderson 2002 also corroborated this view as they suggested that openness increases the potential for continuous change and enhances the adaptive cycle of the organization. Resilience in a situation like a hurricane or pandemic or other untoward attacks, requires that individuals and organizations create openness through trusted information from a central source that can see the whole picture; and to contact individuals to ascertain damage to specific people and assets. This view was also supported by Samarajiva 2005. This will demonstrate the adaptive capacity of the organization built through a network of trusted information disseminators that have been established within the culture of openness established before the event. 5.5 Reliability and Vulnerability The result of data analysis shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between reliability and an organization’s vulnerability. This implies that reliability does enhance vulnerability. A possible explanation for this result is that relationships in an organization are enhanced when the members do not develop a feeling of negative inequity in the decisions they are exposed to in the organization. When everyone has a feeling of being fairly treated in his experiences and in all circumstances, they will not waste valuable time in questioning decisions and actions, thus getting dissatisfied, disillusioned or discouraged. Such discouragement may lead to “switching off” with its adverse consequences on desirable organizational outcomes. Furthermore, a person’s perception of unjust treatment, such as in the application of personnel policies and practices, or in reward management and punishment systems, can lead to tension and conflict. The perception of inequity will motivate a person to take action to restore equity, including changes to inputs or outputs, or through acting on others. This will ultimately lead to distortions in the system including deteriorated level of vulnerability. Variations in the consistency of various standards within an organization can quickly lead to a feeling of dissatisfaction and perceived injustice. This finding is in agreement with the earlier finding of Gittelle 2003 which indicates that inconsistent and erratic behaviours will pave the way for negative performance outcomes and these effects are consistent with relational theory, which suggests that relationships are an important predictor of organizational outcomes. Gittelle 2003 also posited that in the determinant of vulnerability, reliable behaviours will engender positive contributions from the workforce. Gittelle 2003 further affirmed that organizations which have developed relationships which were built on consistent and dependable behaviours, particularly in decision making and reward distribution, were able to identify their exposure levels prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 thus enhancing their level of vulnerability. To further understand the need for consistency and dependability in enhancing vulnerability, Dalziell and McManus 2011 introduced systems analysis to explain the relationship. Accordingly, Dalziell and McManus 2011, argues that a key concept within systems analysis is the recognition that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and hence, the emergent properties of a system cannot be understood by analysing the components of the system in isolation. It may not be possible to understand the way that a team of people work together by analysing the way that they work in isolation. By interacting with each other, each person will naturally modify their behaviour to respond to their colleague’s ideas, mood, and actions. Similarly, the effectiveness of any organization is a function of not only how effective each of its individual departments are, but also on how well these departments work together for the good of the organization. These call for reliability in behaviour. The foregoing may also explain why it is expedient that organizations exhibit reliable behaviours if vulnerability is to be enhanced. 5.6 Reliability and Adaptive Capacity The result of data analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between reliability and an organization’s adaptive capacity. This implies that reliability enhances or promotes an organization’s adaptive capacity. This finding may be explained by the fact that as workers continue to perceive reliable behaviours in their organizations, they perceive andor experience a feeling of fairness and justice. As a result, they are moved to continue to contribute to the organization’s performance and this ultimately affects the adaptive capacity of the organization. As previously stated, a feeling of negative inequity distorts the equilibrium of an organization and negatively impacts on organizational outcomes. When organizations are consistent in selecting, hiring, evaluating and rewarding people based on their ability to thrive, they enhance the willingness and ability of organizational members to make meaningful contributions towards enhancing the adaptive capacity of organizations. This result is in conformity with the obtained results by previous researches in this area. To affirm the place of reliability in developing the adaptive capacity of organizations, Brooks and Adger 2011 averred that further constraints on developing adaptive capacity might be the result of internal conflict e.g., mitigating against long-term planning andor investment and preventing regional co-operation. Similarly, the finding of Smit and www.ccsenet.orgijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 9, No. 2; 2014 307 Wandel 2006 indicates that for adaptive capacity to be enhanced, it is imperative that organizational behaviours be consistent over time. In their opinion, a system’s adaptive capacity and coping range one feature of capacity are not static. Coping ranges are flexible and respond to changes in economic, social, political and institutional conditions over time, thus requiring consistent behaviours in order to continually reap adaptive capacity levels attained Smit Wandel, 2006. 5.7 Moderating Effects of Organizational Structure and Corporate Culture on the Relationship between Trust and Organizational Resilience The result of data analysis revealed that organizational structure significantly moderates the relationship between trust and organizational resilience. Specifically, organizational structure exhibited direct and significant relationships with the measures of the criterion variable organizational resilience in this study that is vulnerability and adaptive capacity. This implies that organizational structure significantly moderates the relationship between trust and organizational resilience. Structure is associated with efforts to achieve both individual needs and organizational goals Mullins, 2005 which facilitates the release of the best spirit for accomplishment from the individuals in the organization. It is believed that the structure of an organization has a telling effect on the feeling of belonging of employees and their readiness to contribute meaningfully to the achievement of an organization’s goals and objectives Mullins, 2005. This may have been responsible for the result obtained regarding the moderating effect of structure on the relationship between trust and organizational resilience. Where employees have a sense of belonging on their job and believe they are putting their skills and abilities to full use, they will be moved to give their best. This can only be achieved through designing a structure that is symbiotic, considering the needs of the employees in relation to the objectives of the organization. When such an environment subsists, the employees feel a sense of gratitude to the organization, trust it, and this generates a quantum reaction on the resilience of the organization. This result is in conformity with the view expressed by Clark and Gottfredson 2008 when they considered that the relentless disruption of the 80’s had made it clear that organizational survival depended on learning as an ongoing process and putting proper structures in place to meet the challenges. As thousands of low-skill manufacturing jobs began migrating overseas, industry leaders had no choice but to move up the value chain and place more emphasis on knowledge work obtained results, if the organization was to survive. This extols the place of structure in achieving favourable organizational outcomes. This realisation had led many organizations to move some distance from an industrial, hierarchical model to one with delayered management and employee empowerment practices. Knowledge workers had slowly persuaded organizations to create more flexible lattice-like structures. They also prompted a revolution in the concepts of performance and career, demanding that organizations spend more time training and supporting their employees and less time directing them. The idea that individuals and teams could largely be self-directed was also introduced, as was the concept of continuous improvement Senge, 1990; Mullins, 2005. Similarly, the result of data analysis also revealed that corporate culture significantly moderates the relationship between trust and organizational resilience. This implies that culture significantly moderates the relationship between trust and organizational resilience. This result agrees with previous studies in this regard. Cartwright 1999 had suggested that when accepted by employees, cultural values increase the power and authority of management in several ways. Employees identify themselves with their organization and accept its rules when it is the right thing to do. In addition, employees internalise the organization’s values when they believe they are right and they are motivated to achieve the organizations objectives. As propounded by Schein 2000, the basic assumptions are treated as the essence–what culture really is; and values and behaviours are treated as observed manifestations of the culture essence, which directs behaviour. The finding in this study may be explained by the fact that an organization’s culture has a telling effect on the attitudes and the dispositions of its employees to make meaningful contributions to the organization. As culture is reinforced through the system of rites and rituals, patterns of communication, the informal organization, expected patterns of behaviour and perceptions of the psychological contract, employees would want to align with the way things are done in the organization once they are integrated into it. Subsisting culture in the organization will affect the way employees relate with one another and without doubt, relational reserves are important ingredients in building trust and organizational experiences. In this light, Gittelle, 2003 had suggested that inconsistent and erratic behaviours will pave the way for negative performance outcomes and these effects are consistent with relational theory, which suggests that relationships are important predictors of organizational outcomes. Gittelle, 2003 also argued that in the determinant of vulnerability, reliable behaviours will engender positive contributions from the workforce, which takes us back to the subsisting culture in the organization. It must be emphasized that developing organizational cultures that are underpinned by ethical behaviour, engenders trust and builds resilience. www.ccsenet.orgijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 9, No. 2; 2014 308

6. Recommendations