Psychological capital, coping mechanisms and organizational resilience: Insights from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, New Zealand

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Psychological capital, coping mechanisms and organizational resilience: Insights from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, New Zealand

T

⁎

Shupin (Echo) Fang, Girish Prayag , Lucie K. Ozanne, Herb de Vries UC Business School, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Psychological capital Organizational resilience Coping strategies Hope Optimism Self-efficacy Psychological resilience Small and medium enterprises (SME)

Psychological capital (PsyCap) of tourism business owners and managers in the face of adversity has received scant attention. This study explores how the four components (self-efficacy, hope, optimism and psychological resilience) of PsyCap affect organizational resilience in a post-quake environment. Using a case-study approach and in-depth interviews with small tourism business owners and managers in Kaikoura, New Zealand, we found that problem-focused and emotion-focused coping mechanisms enabled participants to activate PsyCap components to build organizational resilience. Realistic optimism of owners and managers, for example, fuelled problem-focused coping strategies that led to greater situation awareness of changes in both the internal and external business environment. The findings have implications for small tourism businesses as they navigate the recovery process following major disasters.

1. Introduction Disasters are becoming more common worldwide with an increase in frequency and effects (Eshghi & Larson, 2008; Newkirk, 2001; Rodriguez, Vos, Below, & Guha-Sapir, 2009). Recent data suggests an emerging trend in natural disaster events demonstrating lower mortality but higher cost (Below & Wallemacq, 2018). The tourism industry is particularly vulnerable to natural hazard events (Hall, Prayag, & Amore, 2018). Disasters such as hurricanes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, and epidemics affect both tourism supply and demand (Wang, 2009). For instance, Huang and Min (2002) discuss the significant impacts on tourism following a major earthquake that hit the island of Taiwan, and Orchiston, Seville, and Vargo (2014) argue that the effects of the Christchurch earthquakes on the tourism industry were “immediate, significant and sustained” (p. 32). Despite the literature pointing to the need to explore how the tourism industry prepares for and responds to disasters (e.g., Orchiston & Higham, 2016), little is known about how small tourism businesses build resilience and recover from disasters (Orchiston, 2013). Previous studies suggest that organizational resilience can help small tourism businesses respond to and recover from disturbances (Biggs, Hall, & Stoeckl, 2012; Orchiston, 2013). However, how organizational resilience is developed post-disaster is less clear for small tourism enterprises. In this study, we explore how the psychological capital

(PsyCap) of 21 owners/managers of 17 small tourism businesses contributes to building organizational resilience through individual coping strategies post-disaster. Both organizational resilience and PsyCap are concepts that are relevant to organizations facing not only sudden changes (e.g. crisis and disasters) but also incremental changes as part of business continuity (Hall et al., 2018; Lew, 2014; Prayag, 2018). The key resource for organizational success is no longer related solely to tangible assets but now also includes intangible assets such as human capital (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). Scholars suggest that PsyCap, in particular, can generate competitive advantage for organizations when properly invested, developed and managed (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). PsyCap has been defined as “an individual's positive psychological state of development …” (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 3) and focuses on an individual's strengths rather than their weaknesses (Luthans et al., 2007). In this study, we adopt Luthans et al. (2007) conceptualisation and view PsyCap as an entrepreneur's positive state of development. This state of development comprises four aspects namely, self-efficacy, hope, optimism and psychological resilience as suggested in previous studies (Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). The disaster management literature highlights the challenges faced by individuals and their enterprises in the post-disaster recovery environment. Entrepreneurs have to find ways to cope with the changed environment (Bullough & Renko, 2013). Coping encompasses cognitive

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.E. Fang), [email protected] (G. Prayag), [email protected] (L.K. Ozanne), [email protected] (H. de Vries). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100637 Received 26 March 2019; Received in revised form 21 January 2020; Accepted 25 January 2020 2211-9736/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

PsyCap has a positive effect on employee individual performance (Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Zhang, 2011) and can reduce employee absenteeism (Avey, Patera, & West, 2006), and stress and turnover (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009). A recent meta-analysis of the impact of PsyCap on employee attitudes, behaviours and performance has shown that desirable employee attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment and psychological well-being are all positively related to PsyCap (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). The same meta-analysis also shows that PsyCap has significant positive relationships with employee citizenship behaviours while reducing undesirable employee attitudes such as cynicism and anxiety (Avey et al., 2011). Given that PsyCap can reduce employee stress and anxiety, which are major negative outcomes of disasters on employees, the next section examines the components of PsyCap in more detail, its application in the tourism field and in the context of disasters. PsyCap's four elements of self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience meet the criteria of being state-like and demonstrating performance impact (Avey et al., 2008). Self-efficacy refers to the ability of people to positively execute courses of action to deal with potential situations (Bandura, 1982). Hope refers to the perceived capability of an individual to derive pathways to reach the desired goals, and motivate oneself through agency thinking to use these pathways (Snyder, 2002). Optimism refers to holding positive expectations for the future (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010) and psychological resilience refers to the capacity for an individual to bounce back from adverse situations (Luthans, 2002). In tourism and hospitality studies, PsyCap has been linked to a range of organizational behaviours and outcomes. For example, the leadership style of hotel managers has been shown to positively influence the PsyCap of front-line employees (Schuckert, Kim, Paek, & Lee, 2018). In addition, PsyCap can positively influence hotel employees' perceived quality of work life and reduce turnover intention (Kang, Busser, & Choi, 2018; Karatepe & Karadas, 2015). PsyCap increases work engagement, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment (Paek et al., 2015) and reduces work related burnout (Min, Kim, & Lee, 2015). PsyCap can lead to positive organizational citizenship behaviours (Jung & Yoon, 2015). These studies, however, have not been conducted in either the post-disaster or small firm contexts. In this research we adopt the definition of disaster by McFarlane and Norris (2006) who define the term “as a potentially traumatic event that is collectively experienced, has an acute onset, and is time-delimited; disasters may be attributed to natural, technological, or human causes” (p.4). Disasters can bring pervasive and prolonged periods of stress for people who have experienced the trauma (Benight & Bandura, 2004). Those who experience disasters need to find mechanisms to deal with these situations. Bandura (1997) suggests self-efficacy plays a key role in people's reactions to stressful situations and coping with threatening situations. Self-efficacy can reduce post-traumatic stress (Benight & Bandura, 2004) and distress arising from disasters (Sumer et al., 2005). It can also contribute to post-traumatic growth (Cieslak et al., 2009) and improve the ability of individuals to take precautionary action (Kim, Sharman, Cook-Cottone, Rao, & Upadhyaya, 2012). Optimism can contribute to a reduction in post-traumatic stress (Kuijer, Marshall, & Bishop, 2014). These studies, however, focus on individual recovery in a post-disaster context rather than business recovery through the role of the entrepreneur. This is a significant omission in the disaster recovery literature. In an organizational context, when stressors are perceived as challenging by employees, they can create positive organizational outcomes. However, if they are perceived as threatening, negative organizational outcomes may occur (Min et al., 2015). Positive PsyCap can play an important role in individuals bouncing back from disasters (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Crabtree, 2013; Kuijer et al., 2014).

and behavioural strategies used to manage a stressful situation (problem- focused coping) and the attendant negative emotions (emotionfocused coping) (Havlovic & Keenan, 1991). Emphasis has been placed in the disaster management literature on the critical role that individual components of PsyCap play in coping with and recovering from challenging situations. Existing research prioritises the “individual” rather than the “business” perspective in coping with disasters. One significant omission in this literature is how coping strategies of individuals facilitate or hinder the building of resilient small tourism businesses. In small enterprises the role of the entrepreneur's psychological resilience is often critical to the recovery of the business (Ayala & Manzano, 2014; Bullough & Renko, 2013; de Vries & Shields, 2006), and hence, may affect the resilience of the business. However, how this psychological resilience manifests itself and its influence on organizational resilience is not clearly understood. de Vries and Hamilton (2016) particularly emphasise that scant attention that has been given to how entrepreneurs build or sustain organizational resilience in postdisaster contexts. More importantly, how psychological resilience and other facets of PsyCap influence the resilience of small tourism enterprises have not received much attention in the tourism literature. It has been argued that individuals tend to employ various coping strategies post-disaster (Ibanez, Buck, Khatchikian, & Norris, 2004; Sumer, Karanci, Berument, & Gunes, 2005) but neither have these strategies nor whether they have an influence on organizational resilience been investigated among entrepreneurs. Given that coping is embedded in PsyCap, implying that individuals have to positively cope with and adapt to change to be resilient (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008), there is a dire need for studies exploring the relationship between PsyCap, coping strategies and organizational resilience. This study, therefore, contributes to the tourism literature by integrating the psychology literature on PsyCap and coping strategies to explain the resilience of small tourism enterprises post-disaster. The study theorizes that various coping mechanisms (problem-focused versus emotion-focused) act as conduits for PsyCap to influence organizational resilience. Existing studies on resilience of small tourism enterprises (Biggs et al., 2012; Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Orchiston, 2013; Orchiston, Prayag, & Brown, 2016) fail to recognise how small business owners and managers activate the different facets of PsyCap through coping strategies to build organizational resilience post-disaster. Likewise, the PsyCap literature in tourism and hospitality (e.g., Karatepe & Karadas, 2015; Paek, Schuckert, Kim, & Lee, 2015) neither investigates organizational resilience nor coping strategies as outcomes. With the exception of the study by Prayag, Spector, Orchiston, and Chowdhury (2019) that examines the relationship between individual, employee and organizational resilience, the relationship between psychological resources of entrepreneurs and organizational resilience has not been investigated. However, Prayag et al. (2019) only examine psychological resilience as having an indirect influence on organizational resilience through employee resilience rather than through coping strategies. Hence, the two key research questions this study seeks to answer are: (i) how components of PsyCap influence the resilience of tourism SMEs (small and medium enterprises) post-disaster; and (ii) what role problem and emotion-focused coping play in building organizational resilience of SMEs. 2. Literature review 2.1. PsyCap and disasters PsyCap has a long research tradition in positive psychology and positive organizational behavior theory (Avey et al., 2008; Luthans, 2002). PsyCap has been proposed as a positive, unique and durable approach that moves beyond the traditional organizational behaviour and human resource management fields to recognise the full potential of employees, which requires investing in and developing them (Avolio, 2005; Luthans et al., 2007). Research in these fields has shown that 2

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

multiple levels within the organization (individual and group) and these levels interact to determine the resilience of the organization. Lengnick-Hall, Beck, and Lengnick-Hall (2011) argue that organizational capabilities and routines that contribute to resilience are derived from a combination of individual level knowledge, skills, abilities and other attributes. Thus, those entrepreneurs that possess self-efficacy, hope, optimism and psychological resilience are likely to influence the resilience of their business but this proposition has not been explored in the tourism literature.

2.2. PsyCap and coping mechanisms Coping reflects attempts by an individual to manage stressors (Latack & Havlovic, 1992). Many classifications of coping have been proposed, the most widely used distinction is between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping (Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010). Problem-focused coping strategies include generating options to address the problem, evaluating each option, and engaging in steps to solve the problem (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007). Emotion-focused coping strategies include denial, venting, and positively reinterpreting events (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007). The literature on coping outcomes suggests that emotion-focused coping can be more effective in situations where the individual has little control over stressors (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Others suggest it is important to examine the context or situation in order to determine coping effectiveness (Coyne & Racioppo, 2000). The tourism literature has examined coping mechanisms of tour guides in relation to stress and emotions during guiding (Mackenzie & Kerr, 2013), and how residents cope with the proposed effects of tourism development (Jordan, 2015). However, these studies do not examine the post-disaster context. For example, Mason, Andrews, and Upton (2010) found that both problem and emotion focused coping strategies such as rationalisation, detachment, and avoidance were the most frequent among flood victims. Prayag (2016) found that residents used a combination of problem and emotion focused coping strategies to deal with dark tourism sites emerging from the Canterbury earthquakes. The existing tourism literature on PsyCap (Karatepe & Karadas, 2015; Kim et al., 2017; Paek et al., 2015) does not consider employees and/or entrepreneurs coping mechanisms in achieving individual or organizational outcomes. Possessing hope can enable the individual to manage the emotional distress that is associated with the situation but also motivate individuals to solve problems at hand. Similarly, optimism is an emotion-focused coping approach that can enable the individual to reframe the situation in a more positive light. Self-efficacy can be thought of as a problem-focused coping approach as it enables individuals to execute courses of action to address the situation. Finally, psychological resilience is the capability of individuals to cope successfully in the face of significant change and includes social competence, problem solving skills, and a sense of purpose (Luthans, 2002). Thus, psychological resilience provides dimensions of both problem and emotion-focused coping.

2.4. Developing organizational resilience Organizational resilience is developed through a number of factors. A systematic review of the empirical literature by Barasa, Mbau, and Gilson (2018) finds several organizational factors that affect resilience building activities: material resources, preparedness and planning, information management, collateral pathways and redundancy, governance processes, leadership practices, organizational culture, human capital, social networks and collaboration. We discuss each of these factors briefly. The availability of various material resources is considered a key enabler of organizational resilience (McManus, Seville, Brunsdon, & Vargo, 2007). These authors find that an organization's financial position was a key component of resilience and enabled the mobilization of other resources. In addition, other resources such as raw materials and technology may be important to overcome disruptions (Pal, Torstensson, & Mattila, 2014). Prior planning enhances, for example, planned resilience. Thus, organizations should formulate business continuity and risk management plans (Achour & Price, 2010), and determine how they will ensure the continued supply of essential goods and serviced during disasters (McManus et al., 2007). How information is managed and used is key during disasters (Kachali et al., 2012; Mafabi, Munene, & Ahiauzu, 2013). Research suggests that organizational resilience is enhanced by developing the situation awareness of an organization, or an organization's perception and understanding of its environment (Barasa et al., 2018), which can be enhanced through pre-crisis scenarios (McManus et al., 2008). Organizations that have multiple, alternative courses of action during a disruption are more likely to exhibit resilience (McManus et al., 2007). Also, organizations that keep additional or redundant resources in reserve, to be used in case of an emergency, are found to be more resilient (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). The governance practices of organizations can also impact their resilience. For instance, research indicates that organizations that exhibit decentralized governance provide the necessary flexibility that facilitates timely responses during times of crisis (Stephenson, Seville, Vargo, & Roger, 2010). Seville et al. (2006) found that organizational resilience is influenced by the leadership capacity of the organization. Leaders build trust and empower, motivate and create commitment among staff and other stakeholders during disasters (Barasa et al., 2018). A number of factors identified by Barasa et al. (2018) are particularly relevant to understanding the resilience of tourism enterprises post-disaster. For instance, organizational culture is related to resilience. For instance, the ability of both leaders and staff to view crises from a positive and opportunistic perspective is important in adapting to crises (McManus et al., 2008; Orchiston et al., 2016). Resilient organizations see challenges as learning opportunities and use these experiences to develop capabilities that improve their resilience (Walker, Nilakant, & Baird, 2014). Human capital is also critical for organizations to develop resilience (Biggs et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2018). Beyond ensuring there are a sufficient number of staff with the required skills, organizations need to ensure that staff well-being is prioritized (Walker et al., 2014). Finally, Barasa et al. (2018) point to the importance of social networks to resilience or the need to develop social capital. Social capital refers to the resources that are embedded in relationships and mobilized by actors in purposive actions (Lin, 1999; Nahapiet &

2.3. Organizational resilience Organizational resilience refers to the ability of an organization to generate awareness and reduce vulnerability to risky environments, to reinvent business strategies in the face of changes, to continuously be aware of and adjust to changes, and to proactively react before the need for a change becomes obvious (Burnard & Bhamra, 2011). Embedded within this definition is the notion of survival and bouncing back from adverse conditions. An organization's adaptive capacity is central to its resilience (Smit & Wandel, 2006). Organizations should not only react and adapt to environmental jolts but also proactively initiate, restore, renew and redesign organizational structure and relationships so that they are capable of thriving in times of adversity (Vargo & Seville, 2011). Two dimensions of organizational resilience are recognised in the literature, namely planned and adaptive (Lee, Vargo, & Seville, 2013; McManus, Seville, Vargo, & Brunsdon, 2008). Planned resilience involves the use of existing, predetermined planning, and capabilities, as exemplified in business continuity and risk management planning. These are predominantly pre-disaster activities. Adaptive resilience emerges during the post-disaster phase as organizations develop new capabilities through dynamically responding to emergent situations that are outside of their plans (Lee et al., 2013). Adaptive resilience is built from the organization's risk intelligence, flexibility and readiness to change (Seville, Van Opstal, & Vargo, 2015). Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) suggest that resilience takes place at 3

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

reality (Johnson, Buehring, Cassell, & Symon, 2006), through the case study method (Yin, 2003). This consisted of: (1) broad questions, which asked about PsyCap elements and organizational resilience of small tourism firms post-disaster; (2) intended area of examination which was small tourism firms that continued to operate following the 2016 earthquake experienced in Kaikoura, New Zealand; (3) the unit of analysis which was owners and general managers of small tourism businesses; and (4) interpretation using thematic analysis. Since we were studying a phenomenon that was fluid and dynamic, an interpretive and open-ended methodology was considered appropriate in collecting and analysing the data given its precedence in disaster management and resilience research in the tourism field (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Orchiston & Higham, 2016). The open-ended method employed appropriate ‘grounded’ principles in the data collection and analysis stages with features such as minimising preconceived ideas, being open to varied explanations, constant comparisons, axial coding, and theoretical saturation (Glaser, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Data was collected during September and October 2017 by conducting semi-structured interviews with 21 owners/managers from 17 small tourism firms in Kaikoura (See Appendix A for a timeline of key events). Sampling criteria was based on the Bolton report (Bolton, 1971) conceptualisation of small firms as independently owned, managed in a personalised way, and small market share in serving a local or regional market as well as the New Zealand classification of 6–19 staff (MBIE, 2014). While the exact number of tourism businesses in Kaikoura is not available in official tourism industry statistics, the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) reported that the New Zealand accommodation and restaurants industry– a significant contributor to the tourism industry - had approximately 4600 such sized firms and 2500 in ‘other services’ (MBIE, 2014). However, Kaikoura as a destination has only 95 people employed in the accommodation and restaurants industry (Stats, 2019), suggesting that our sample size is adequate for the purpose of our study. Data saturation was used to determine when data collection should stop. It refers to the point in data collection when no substantive new additional idea or theme emerges. It is a function of the purpose of the study and the complexity, range and distribution of experiences of participants rather than of the statistical parameters used in quantitative research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This is in line with the practice of theoretical saturation, which occurs when “gathering more data sheds no further light on the properties of their theoretical category” (Charmaz, 2008, p. 167). The sample size is consistent with theoretical saturation (Glaser, 1998; Goulding, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which we found at 21 interviews, given that no further significant codes were generated. This is also consistent with Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) experiment with data saturation and variability which concluded that saturation for the most part occurred after the analysis of 12 interviews. Regarding code creation over the course of their data 88% of codes were generated within 7–12 interviews, whilst 19–24 interviews (as with our sample) generated, overall, 94% of the code in their experiment. We used a convenience sampling approach to identify participants (Table 1).

Ghoshal, 1998). Disaster researchers argue that social capital is critical for building resilience (Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008). Social capital is also the resource least likely to be damaged in a disaster and, thus, organizations can activate this resource as they adapt to change (Walker et al., 2006). Thus, organizations that operate in a networked environment may be able to mobilize resources that reside in those networks. Those resources may include information, emotional support, mutual trust and instrumental support (Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006). Utilizing external networks to link and collaborate with others expands an organization's resources, ability to learn, and its capacity to respond to disasters (Walker et al., 2014). Resilient organizations can thrive despite facing a business environment characterised by uncertainty, adverse conditions, and instability (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). As argued earlier, access to broad resource networks can create the conditions that support resilience development and through their social networks and collaboration organizations can secure resources needed to support adaptive initiatives (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). One such initiatives that has been shown to support adaptive resilience is innovation (Lee et al., 2013; Orchiston et al., 2016). Organizational resilience is driven by the ability to adapt creatively and constructively to change (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2010). Resilient organizations nurture creativity by providing time and resources for experimentation, rewarding innovation, and create an atmosphere in which employees feel safe to share new ideas (Barasa et al., 2018). In post-disaster contexts, several studies (Biggs et al., 2012; Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Orchiston et al., 2016) have highlighted the importance of innovation for tourism enterprises to bounce back. Stephenson's (2010) model of organizational resilience particularly emphasises creativity and innovation as a key facet of the adaptive capacity of a business. The role of rapid decision making has also been noted in previous studies (Lee et al., 2013; McManus et al., 2007) as being important for building adaptive resilience. Beyond adaptive capacity, Stephenson's (2010) model suggests that internal and external monitoring of the environment facilitate the building of a resilient organization. This forms part of the broader situation awareness for a business, which also includes aspects such as awareness of roles and responsibilities, awareness of the range of hazard types and their consequences on the organization, and awareness of recovery priorities (McManus, 2008). Situation awareness is considered a facet of planned resilience (Lee et al., 2013; McManus et al., 2007; Orchiston et al., 2016). 3. Research methodology 3.1. Study context Kaikoura is a small town in the South Island of New Zealand. When the magnitude 7.8 (Mw) earthquake struck on 14 November 2016, causing two deaths and over NZ $900 million in damages, the population of the town was approximately 3700 residents (MBIE, 2017). Furthermore, a quarter of the jobs in the Kaikoura District were in the tourism sector and 34.1% of the GDP came from international tourist expenditure (MBIE, 2017). Due to limited transport into the town, as well as negative media attention following the earthquake, tourism expenditure decreased by NZ$21 million as guest nights fell by 80% (MBIE, 2017). The largest percentage loss to business operability in Kaikoura was in trade and hospitality, with a 75% reduction in business in the first week and still a 35% reduction six months following the earthquake. This equates to an approximate loss in regional economic value added of $4.7 million at six months following the earthquake (MBIE, 2017).

3.3. The interview protocol The interviews sought to capture participant's voices and how they created meaning from their personal experiences (Rabionet, 2011). Questioning (see Appendix B for questions) firstly established the participant background (Polkinghorne, 1995) and then followed Luthans et al. (2007) PsyCap framework and Lee et al. (2013) framework for organizational resilience. The PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ) (Luthans et al., 2007) was used as the basis for developing questions on selfefficacy, hope, optimism and psychological resilience. From the PCQ and the list of indicators for measuring organizational resilience (Lee et al., 2013), we developed a semi-structured interview protocol with questions that were appropriate for the Kaikoura earthquake context.

3.2. Sample and participants With an interpretivist paradigm, data collection and analysis for this study was focused on placing meaning to human actions and their social 4

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

previous studies suggest that self-efficacy has a positive influence on precautionary action and emergency management ability (Kim et al., 2012) and these can reduce post-disaster distress (Benight & Harper, 2002). However, the low level of self-efficacy of some participants seems to point to the use of more emotion-focused coping mechanisms, which can be more effective in situations where the individual has little control over stressors (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). For example, the following quote illustrates this point:

Table 1 Sample participants. Participants

Descriptor

Sample

Single versus paired interviews

Single Paired Male Female 25–35 36–45 46–55 Over 55 Owner General Manager Accommodation only Tourism Activities only Accommodation and tourism activities

13 4 11 10 6 3 6 6 18 3 7 7 3

Gender Age group

Position Business type

“I didn't feel that my psychological state was completely under control after the earthquake. I was very exhausted, and I was monitoring and I was aware…but, I didn't feel like I had control. I always felt that it was just something that needed time, and that I had to be easy on myself and look after myself to get through it.” (Participant 15, owner-operator) Reich (2006) highlights the role of personal control following a disaster for rebuilding homes and businesses. The author argues that efforts to regain personal control affects the ability to achieve goals. As highlighted in the quote, the lack of personal control negatively impacted their task-completing ability post-disaster. Participants who were confident and had strong beliefs in their ability to overcome challenges suggested this was developed from their business leadership qualities. These participants demonstrated capabilities for direction-setting, gaining commitment and overcoming challenges, as in:

Interviewing was conducted in the field to give context (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and analysed using axial coding as itemised in Table 2. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The study was approved by the Human Ethics committee of the university.

4. Findings 4.1. Self-efficacy, coping and organizational resilience

“…but, I guess in the role as a manager, it's either in you, or it's not. Leadership is probably one of the most important aspects in recovery. Because your people are looking to you for direction …so, the role of a leader is to bring people together, and to very much charter direction going forward.” (Participant 10, general manager)

The challenges arising from the earthquake disaster seemed to be managed through strong beliefs and confidence by owners and managers in their personal abilities to perform specific tasks or get through a specific challenge. Those who demonstrated self-efficacy primarily used problem-focused coping mechanisms, as illustrated in the quote below:

When combined with self-efficacy, a leader can successfully gain commitment to change goals and overcome obstacles to change by setting a direction for and building relationships with followers (Paglis & Green, 2002). In post-disaster settings, Nilakant et al. (2016) found that effective leaders are those that did not get caught up in the immediate crisis, balanced risk with opportunity, were clear about their goals, shared information, collaborated readily, and were open to new approaches. Some of these practices could be found in the transcripts. Furthermore, sound leadership enhanced by self-efficacy seems to be driven by the ability of the owner or manager for fast decision making. This contributed to building adaptive resilience during times of crisis as suggested in previous studies (e.g., Lee et al., 2013; Stephenson, 2010), and illustrated in the quote below:

“…So, we are very strong and say, ‘this is what we want to achieve’, and we ask ‘what are the barriers that prevent us from getting there’, ‘how do we remove those barriers’, and then, persevere… So, I guess you could probably say how do I deal with things that I cannot control? I look at the impact of that, and then I make changes, and I adapt my situation to deal with it.” (Participant 10, general manager) This implies that self-efficacy can play a key role in reacting to stressful situations and coping with threatening situations as described by Bandura (1997). The extent of the perceived threat to the business seems to be the result of the match between perceived coping capabilities and detrimental impacts of the disaster on the business. In fact, Table 2 Coding scheme. Interview question

Response

Open code

Axial code

If you are confronted with a challenge in your business or personal life how would you describe your approach to dealing with that challenge?

Yeah I believe in myself absolutely. I am very ambitious, and I like feel that I'm in control of what I do and what I can do. If I almost dream on something that I want to do, and generally, I will make it happen

1. Self-efficacy –strength 2. Self-efficacy –magnitude 3. Self-efficacy –generality 4. Self determination – creative 1. Psychological reliance – adaptiveness 2. Optimism – sees the constructive side 3. Coping mechanism – ration thinking 4. Coping mechanism – positive thinking 5. Integrity 6. Awareness

Psycap (self)/organizational resilience (creative)

Just stay strong, I believe. And, stood for what we believed in. But still have to be submissive to changes as well. Accept what we didn't want to accept, which is very hard. I always believe anything happens in life happen for a reason, and it was a fantastic learning curve for us in our life. Then, we didn't realise, but now when we look back, I learned so much… So, there's never really anything negative, really, And anything that happened. Because there's always good that comes out of it. Even with the earthquake, there's been lots of good that come out of it.

5

Psycap (Optimism, coping)/ organizational resilience (adaptive, awareness)

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

out alternative pathways for business recovery. The quote below illustrates how post-disaster a manager was using goal setting and strong determination by having a sense of control to work out pathways for business recovery.

“The staff didn't know how it was going to change, so my husband and I did it really quickly and said, we do this, and we do this …and then they followed.” (Participants 14, owner-operator, mother and son)

“Both my wife and I are goal setting people. We set goals about what we want to achieve in three or five years. And then, we persevere, keep the big goal in mind. We think about what is the path to get there, what are the barriers that prevent us from getting there, and how do we remove those barriers.” (Participant 10, general manager)

Participants who could manage and complete difficult tasks had the conviction to do so through their ability to generate innovative and creative business ideas during and after the disaster. Creativity requires people to facilitate the business process in a new way and entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy tend to be more creative (Ahlin, Drnovšek, & Hisrich, 2014). Some participants could apply innovative ideas and introduce new business strategies post-disaster regardless of the obstacles they faced. For example, participants 8 (couple, paired interview), being confident in their abilities, introduced a new event in the community to attract visitors to the town.

From the data, it became clear that once goals and plans were set, owners and managers were thinking about both the chosen path and alternative paths to achieve each particular desired goal. Goal setting is the premise of hope, while way power and will power show pathway and agency thinking respectively. Underlying these are problem-focused coping strategies. Hope is a coping mechanism that helps people overcome challenges and difficulties (Snyder, 2002). In particular, hopeful people in the face of adversity tend to set goals for themselves, view obstacles as a challenge, and focus on their successes rather than their failures (Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000). By setting both shortterm and long-term goals, coming up with a plan of action, and modifying the plan according to the changing environment, infers that not only problem-focused coping mechanisms are evident but also how hope influences planned resilience of a business. While the plans are generally informal as shown in the quote below, there were several instances where business owners and managers did not engage in any form of planning at all. For example, one accommodation owner never expected an earthquake, thus no prior planning strategies were developed.

“…We are quite used to just being the two of us and being able to deal with any situation, because we have to …we put on a beer festival here in March, the ‘Kegkoura’, mainly to attract people to town.” This illustrates one aspect of the adaptive capacity of small firms, innovation and creativity, which is key to successful recovery of tourism businesses following a disaster (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Hall et al., 2018; Orchiston et al., 2016). A further instance is one business owner introducing a new earthquake tour. By quickly adapting its current products and services to the Chinese market, another business owner was able to recover from the sharp decrease in tourist numbers. These examples not only illustrate self-efficacy but also problem-focused coping mechanisms on the part of the business owners and managers. In this way, it can be argued that owners and managers who used innovation and creativity capacity as part of their problem-focused coping were able to build the adaptive resilience of their business as in:

“We have an emergency plan for here, which we've always had well before the earthquake. The final detail of that plan doesn't exist, it's the broad…saying, get the staff out of there, after that, you know, we just deal with it.” (Participant 10, general manager)

“… where we have shown good resilience, we've got good abilities to change. We are just meeting that new Chinese market, and quickly establishing ourselves” (Participants 11, owner and general manager)

The findings also suggested that through hope, small firm owners and managers built the adaptive resilience of the business. By changing plans and finding alternative pathways these businesses showcased adaptive capacity driven by the owners and managers in the post-quake period. Similar to self-efficacy, hope seems to also inform innovation and creativity that allows these small firms to adapt post-quake. Owners and managers who were hopeful were capable of coming up with innovative strategies, products, and business models. Innovation and creativity seems to flow from actively seeking alternative pathways for the business as shown in the quote below:

More importantly, it was evident that using innovation and creativity, the small firms were charting unique paths of business recovery post-disaster with owners and managers facilitating this process through commitment and direction setting. Commitment and direction setting are key facets of leadership in post-disaster settings (Nilakant et al., 2016). 4.2. Hope, coping and organizational resilience Three components of hope are commonly reported as goal, pathway and agency thinking. Goal stands for the guiding assumption and is considered the cognitive component of hope. Pathway refers to the means to meet goals while agency thinking is the self-determination of completing a specific goal, which is also the motivational component of hope (Snyder, 2002). Hope is the most unique positive organization behaviour capacity that espouses the duality of agency-thinking (will power) and pathway (way power), which sets hope apart from the other components of PsyCap (Luthans, 2002; Luthans et al., 2007). The owners and managers in this study showed strong agency-thinking given their willpower to achieve specific goals. As argued in the previous theme, the ability to complete tasks and set goals for others to follow resonates with effective leadership post-disaster (Nilakant et al., 2016). Beyond this, participants in this study also displayed way power through their ability to find alternative pathways. Monllor and Murphy (2017) highlight the importance of entrepreneurial opportunities postdisaster. While some entrepreneurs are focused on the destruction and negative impacts of the disaster on their business, others can focus on the entrepreneurial opportunities in the changed environment and seek

“Every time we start a business, there's always things that don't work. But we can always make money, you know, we've got skills to back it up. Well, especially in the after quake period, you know that you've got to be creative. You know, if we haven't been through that event, we probably wouldn't have put a craft beer festival on. You've got to constantly be upgrading and training and…trying something new. Eventually we will have the escape room, a bar, a brewery and the mini golf course. At least one of those is going to be successful, and that's the hope for this site.” (Participants 8, owner-operator, couple) Sweetman, Luthans, Avey, and Luthans (2011) argue that high-hope people who possess high willpower (agency thinking) and way power (alternative pathways) can come up with pathways through creative problem solving. These reflect a focus on the situation and the future possibilities that a post-disaster context offers, and can be thought of as a sign of effective coping as suggested in previous studies (Hackbarth, Pavkov, Wetchler, & Flannery, 2012; Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000). Finding alternative pathways is a problem-focused coping 6

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

Unrealistic optimism can lead to misplaced hope and disappointment when the outcome of an event falls short of people's expectations (Shepperd, Waters, Weinstein, & Klein, 2015). High optimism may not always result in beneficial business outcomes for small businesses (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). However, most owners and managers in this study knew how to “moderate” their optimism post-quake. The term “realistic optimism” is used to describe their beliefs. This implies that people would not easily feel overwhelmed when things did not live up to their expectations (Shepperd et al., 2015). In many instances participants in this study were able to adjust their expectations for the future to feel more comfortable when difficulties arose. The following quotes illustrate the above arguments:

mechanism. Thus, with innovation and creativity capacity being an indicator of adaptive resilience (e.g., Lee et al., 2013; Stephenson, 2010), it can be argued that through problem focused coping mechanisms, owners and managers used hope as a component of psychological capital to build adaptive resilience of their business. 4.3. Optimism, coping and organizational resilience As previously stated, optimism refers to holding positive expectations for the future (Carver et al., 2010) but it is also the ability to recognise and explain the reasons and causes of possible outcomes in an optimistic way (Luthans et al., 2007). This suggests that optimistic people interpret unfavourable situations by attributing a negative situation to external and temporary causes (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Optimism is essential for individual well-being and post-traumatic growth following an earthquake (Kuijer et al., 2014) and along with hope, optimism contributes to effective leadership during a crisis (Vargo & Seville, 2011). Participants displayed optimism, as shown below:

“…As we have to be optimistic, but very reserved…You have to be cautious in spending and things like that. So, you have to almost moderate your optimism.” (Participant 15, owner-operator) “…So, optimism for me is being positive, but also being realistic at the same time. Not always being happy about ‘well, you should be alright’, but being realistic. We are not that type of people that we will keep going to something and then ignoring all the impacts along the way. We have an emergency plan for here, which we've always have had well before the earthquake. But at the same time, we are very aware that you need to alter your plans depending on what's going on.” (Participant 10, general manager)

“I think I'm a very optimistic person. I always look for the positive things in life. The earthquake, it's not in my control, 7.8 [magnitude], it was the biggest one I've experienced. Well, what happens happens, life goes on.” (Participant 1, owner-operator) More importantly, optimistic owners and managers were likely to use emotion-focused coping mechanisms, such as positive and rational thinking. Positive thinking, for example, was evidenced by owners and managers believing that any progress in infrastructure rebuilding activities would enable business recovery and, therefore, was a good sign of community spirit, as in:

The quote from participant 10 also illustrates how realistic optimism influenced adaptive resilience. This participant was aware of the uncertainties along the way and thus displayed a higher capacity for situation awareness through vigilance for both the internal and external business environment. Businesses that are capable of situation monitoring tend to be more resilient (Stephenson, 2010). Participants who had realistic optimism were more likely to be aware of the changing environment and knew when to adapt strategies to navigate changes. Thus, it can be argued that participants who displayed realistic optimism have the ability to improve the adaptive resilience of their businesses through an enhanced situation awareness capacity.

“For me, optimism means going forward and seeing changes for the better… Especially, the road project, they are dedicating extra money to it. And, I see that as a good thing. They are putting in cycle lanes as well, that's going be a drawcard for people to come in as well.” (Participant 9, owner-operator) Along with positive thinking, optimistic participants used rational thinking as another emotion-focused coping mechanism. Rational thinking enables individuals to step back from the negative situation and take an objective view (Prayag, 2016). It was evident that many of the business owners and managers were focusing on the positive consequences of the earthquake:

4.4. Psychological resilience, coping and organizational resilience Psychological resilience, the individual capacity to bounce back from adverse events (Luthans, 2002), was identified among all participants, although to different degrees. For instance, both participants 12 and 10 were very resilient individuals based on their positive outlook.

“I figure that the things happen for a reason. Like the earthquake, just shocked us all out …I like to look at the adverse events as challenges rather than reasons to excuse us and to give up. So, no, I've been pretty lucky, really.” (Participant 4, owner-operator)

“Because I was involved in Christchurch earthquakes… I know that you have to be positive and look at all of the opportunities that are in front of you.” (Participant 12, owner-operator)

Treating the consequences of the earthquake as an opportunity rather than as “an excuse to give up”, illustrates the thought-action process of owners and managers that allows small businesses to recover. By displaying positivity, individuals can broaden their problem-solving skills and adaptive capacities (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). The following quote from participant 12, an accommodation business owner, highlights how this thought-action process can potentially lead to enhanced business performance in the post-quake period:

“Resilience is part of our DNA, that we are not panickers… but someone that will see a situation, and will assess it very quickly… make a decision, and move.” (Participant 10, general manager) Resilient individuals can often use positive emotions to bounce back from negative experiences (Gloria & Steinhardt, 2016). Participants used emotion-focused coping mechanisms such as avoidance, seeking emotional support, and doing things for others to regulate negative emotions, thus becoming more resilient post-quake as in:

“If something is positive, it means there's a way to make money in it. The earthquake provided us with a way to make money, believe it or not. It's the earthquake, with its repairs, that is going to stabilise our growth. And, there is the opportunity to make money. More people coming in because of the accommodation rebuild process, so, you need food, you need accommodation. So, there's the opportunity.” (Participant 12, owner-operator)

“The other way of coping is socialising with people…usually outside of the business for social support.” (Participant 9, owner-operator) “…Sometimes the worst thing you can do is not tell people how you feel and not share. Like, my brother is here at the moment, and he is 7

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

kind of like a life mentor for me. So, when things are hard I can talk to him.” (Participant 12, owner-operator)

In addition, this owner points to both the emotional and instrumental support provided by their network of suppliers: There's been some [suppliers] that have let us go a bit longer to pay, the payments, which has been great. They've been really understanding, very supportive, so, our suppliers have been absolutely amazing. We are very appreciative about that, yeah.” (Participant 15, owner-operator)

However, it was participants' ability to use problem-focused coping mechanisms that actually distinguished resilient individuals from those who were less resilient. After the earthquake, the main stressors for the participants were coping with damage of the business property and recovery. Consequently, participants activated several strategies to cope with the stressors such as taking a pragmatic approach which meant they focused on the problems at hand rather than their emotions.

Our results support that the ability to build effective business partnerships and networks contributes to adaptive resilience (Hall et al., 2018; Stephenson, 2010). Psychological resilience also enabled participants to employ a firefighting approach to problem solving. A firefighting approach implies generating immediate plans and being adaptive in the face of change, thus improving the adaptive resilience of a business post-disaster (Ates & Bititci, 2011). Resilient owners and managers were more likely to take on challenges and use rapid decision making to solve problems as shown in the following quotes:

“…I will make a list of things of what I should do to overcome this problem. So, I'll make a list, I'll do some research online, and I'll probably talk to people…talk to friends.” (Participant 1, owner-operator) These participants also quickly found ways to settle their anxieties. They put their energy and efforts into business recovery rather than focusing on adversity as in: “…So, to survive in a small business, you have to be very strong and thinking outside the square as to how you are going to manage and how are you going to…make it work for you” (Participants 14, owner-operator, mother and son)

“The key thing is, by our nature, we are resilient …because we are daily being affected by other influences. It's not so much that we don't have a plan in place, it's just that we are very happy to evolve a plan. We are quite flexible, if something comes up, we deal with it.” (Participants 11, business owner and general manager)

Psychological resilience also depends on the other components of psychological capital. The transcripts showed that hope and optimism contributed to the participants being resilient. As suggested by Vargo and Seville (2011), these two factors enable an individual to become an effective leader during crisis management. A combination of self-efficacy and psychological resilience provides individuals with more entrepreneurial power, especially under severe conditions, allowing them to identify new business opportunities (Bullough & Renko, 2013). More resilient participants were better at finding alternative pathways for business recovery. There was also evidence of how resilient participants used coping mechanisms such as social referencing and social support from family, friends and co-workers, to facilitate personal or business goals. More importantly, participants who utilised these coping mechanisms seemed to be effective at establishing personal and business relationships and valued the importance of building such networks as illustrated below:

“I don't plan for them, but when it happens, you just deal with it as in the best way you can …with recovery, you have just got to see what is put in place, and then deal with that at the end …We've sort of just got to have emergent plans … we adjusted and adapted to the market.” (Participant 2, owner-operator) Owners and managers that capitalised on their psychological resilience were more responsive to changes and challenges post-quake. This responsiveness enabled them to put in place adaptive strategies. However, the findings also suggest that owners and managers were more likely to generate an emergent plan instead of having “a plan in place”. Lack of long-term planning and focusing more on emergent responses suggest that the planned resilience of their businesses were generally weak.

“I do have some very good mentors, and people who I talk to… he's a very successful business man, and he has been able to teach me how to get through things …So, I tried to surround myself with the people who were positive, and could see, you know, that life is a very long tunnel. But, if you could see that something happens…you go out and you help other people…By doing something for somebody else that helps you to recover.” (Participant 4, owner-operator)

5. Discussion and implications This study sought to identify how the PsyCap of owners and managers influences organizational resilience in small tourism businesses through problem and emotion focused coping strategies post-disaster. Previous studies have examined either PsyCap in large tourism organizations (Kang et al., 2018; Karatepe & Karadas, 2015) or organizational resilience in small tourism businesses (Biggs et al., 2012; Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Orchiston, 2013) without examining how coping strategies serve as conduit between the PsyCap and organizational resilience. Fig. 1 summarizes our findings and highlights that problemfocused coping mechanisms are deployed by owners and managers as ways to activate self-efficacy, hope and psychological resilience postdisaster. Emotion-focused coping mechanisms are primarily deployed to activate optimism and low self-efficacy. These findings highlight how different coping strategies are used by small business owners and managers to activate both individual and business recovery post-disaster. The findings extend the study of Prayag et al. (2019) by showing that besides psychological resilience, self-efficacy, hope and optimism have an indirect influence on organizational resilience through various individual coping strategies post-disaster. High self-efficacy owners and managers through problem focused coping strategies were able to positively influence the adaptive capacity of their small business. Also, self-efficacy and hope activated through problem focused coping strategies enabled business owners and

Reich (2006) suggests that following a disaster, psychological resilience is dependent on connectedness as embeddedness through, for example, banding together with other people and establishing connections even with strangers. As previously discussed, social capital describes the networks built through connections to others through which resources flow, and has been found to be beneficial for postdisaster recovery (Aldrich, 2012; Ozanne & Ozanne, 2016). These resources may include information, emotional support, mutual trust and instrumental support (Oh et al., 2006). Through their networks, participants in this study leveraged social capital as a mechanism to improve business resilience as shown in the quote below where the owner discusses the emotional support provided: “Other businesses helped a lot. There was a lot of kindness coming from our suppliers. It was very, very helpful that a lot of them showed a lot of flexibility and generosity, and they are really willing to see us get through it.” (Participant 15, owner-operator) 8

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

Fig. 1. Relationships between PsyCap, coping strategies and organizational resilience.

lack awareness of how to identify and manage risk. This is, however, not uncommon in small businesses given that they often launch themselves into change initiatives without due consideration to advanced planning (Ates & Bititci, 2011). Unlike previous studies on small businesses resilience and recovery strategies post-disaster (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Orchiston, 2013; Orchiston et al., 2016; Prayag et al., 2019), we demonstrate that various components of psychological capital have much to do with both coping and resilience strategies deployed by entrepreneurs. The findings extend previous studies (Biggs et al., 2012; Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Orchiston et al., 2016) that have highlighted the importance of innovation and creativity in building organizational resilience post-disaster by showing the influence of problem-focused coping strategies such as seeking social support and planful problem solving on adaptive resilience. Connections through personal and business networks to develop organizational resilience as highlighted in the findings extends the social capital literature (Aldrich, 2012; Norris et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2006) by showing the intervening role of coping strategies between psychological resilience of individuals and organizational resilience. Emotion-focused coping mechanisms such as positive thinking and self-controlling were also evident through optimism and psychological resilience as ways to build adaptive resilience of the business. The findings also suggest that leadership plays a critical role in building adaptive resilience of a business as suggested in previous studies (Lee et al., 2013; McManus et al., 2008; Nilakant et al., 2016; Stephenson, 2010). Extending this research, our findings show that leaders displayed realistic optimism and exerted leadership through direction-setting, gaining commitment and overcoming challenges. Optimistic owners and managers could effectively use emotion-focused coping mechanisms such as positive and rational thinking and selfcontrolling. Effective leaders also relied on self-efficacy and psychological resilience to cope with the effects of the disaster on the business.

managers to be innovative and creative for building organizational resilience post-quake. Hope, in particular, was activated through both problem and emotion focused coping strategies, highlighting the importance of hope as a critical psychological resource for finding alternative pathways post-disaster as suggested in previous studies (Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 2002). This focus on future possibilities is a sign of effective coping (Hackbarth et al., 2012). Using a combination of problem or emotion-focused coping mechanisms, associated with the four components of PsyCap, these owners and managers were also able to develop stronger networks, situation awareness and rapid decision making, which are indicators of a resilient organization as suggested in previous studies (Lee et al., 2013; McManus et al., 2007; Stephenson, 2010) (see Fig. 1). Hence, this study advances resilience theory by showing the intervening role of different coping mechanisms on how psychological capital influences organizational resilience. As such, we demonstrate that both problem and emotion focused coping strategies activated through PsyCap enable entrepreneurs to buffer the effects of a disaster on small tourism businesses. More importantly, we show that several factors such as innovation and creativity, social capital, and rapid decision making, among others can build the resilience of small tourism enterprises. These findings echo previous research (e.g., Biggs et al., 2012; Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Hall et al., 2018; Orchiston et al., 2016) on practices of small tourism businesses post-disaster that build resilience, which extends the organizational resilience literature that is largely based on the resilience of large firms (Lee et al., 2013; McManus et al., 2007). The findings suggest that small tourism businesses are typically geared towards building adaptive rather than planned resilience (Orchiston, 2013). Planning strategies refers to the development and evaluation of business plans to manage the vulnerabilities of the business environment and stakeholders (Lee et al., 2013). Although some of the businesses in this study have engaged in recovery planning, they generally 9

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

enabling business recovery. It is also suggested that local tourism businesses should build social capital to reinforce and develop networks that can facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources. In this way, the owners and managers can develop their psychological resilience but the resilience of their business as well. In doing so, the connectedness among the local businesses can also be enhanced, which is another effective way to build psychological resilience (Reich, 2006). In conclusion, the study is not without limitations given that it focuses on one specific disaster and the views of a sub-set of tourism businesses in Kaikoura. However, several areas of further research can be identified. First, the different coping mechanisms of individuals in response to tourism activities (Jordan, 2015) and in post-disaster contexts (Prayag, 2016) remain nascent as an area of study in tourism. Second, the individual components of PsyCap can be investigated further to examine how they ultimately influence small business performance and recovery. Third, organizational resilience can be treated as either an outcome or a process (Seville et al., 2015) and these differing perspectives can be explored further in the small business context.

Thus, we extend the tourism (Jordan, 2015) and disaster management literatures (Mason et al., 2010) that focus on individual's coping strategies with stressful events to highlight how such individuals use psychological resources to activate coping strategies that have beneficial influences on their small tourism business. From a managerial perspective, our results have clarified the important role of PsyCap for small tourism businesses. As suggested by Luthans et al. (2007), self-efficacy can be developed through vicarious learning and modelling. Owners and managers seem to have built adaptive resilience of the business by modelling behaviours and strategies employed by successful role models or peer-mentors. Hence, offering small tourism businesses opportunities to be mentored by industry leaders or business owners who have successfully navigated the recovery of their business post-disaster, would be an effective strategy to facilitate business recovery. Hope can also be developed in the workplace among managers and employees. For example, the process of stepping, which stands for breaking down difficult and long-term goals into smaller and manageable milestones, can be learned by small business owners and managers to develop hope in the workplace (Luthans et al., 2007). Drawing from Schneider (2001) and Luthans et al. (2007), realistic optimism can be developed through leniency for the past, appreciation for the present, and opportunity-seeking for the future. Leniency for the past is a positive reframing technique that allows owners and managers to realistically reinterpret the adverse events that happened in the past to search for positive aspects of the events and neutralise negative aspects (Schneider, 2001). Future goals and plans are particularly important for business recovery. Hence, it is crucial for owners and managers to focus on the dynamic environment, to adapt to the changing situations, and to set future goals based on the opportunities that the future presents (Luthans et al., 2007; Schneider, 2001). In this instance external support also assisted optimism, as was evidenced in the findings where the government agencies rapid undertaking of infrastructure rebuild activities was perceived positively as

Authors' contribution Shupin (Echo) Fang (60%), Girish Prayag (15%), Lucie K. Ozanne (15%), Herb de Vries (10%). Credit Author Statement This paper is based on the first author master’s dissertation at the University of Canterbury. The first author’s contribution to this manuscript is 50% and the second author contributed 30% to writing the first draft and subsequent revisions. The third author contributed 15% to writing the first draft and subsequent revisions and final author contributed 5% to writing the first draft and subsequent revisions.

Appendix A. Timeline of key events

Time

Annual tourist spend Millions $

April 2016 14 November 2016 12 December 2016 April 2017 September–October 2017 December 2017 April 2018 1 April 2018 April 2019

117,683

Event

7.8 M Earthquake Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Act 2016 comes into effect 68,296 Interviews State Highway 1 Reopens 91,480 Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Act 2016 expires 117,980

Appendix B. Examples of interview questions Background

• Can you give me a very brief introduction of your business and your role in the business? • How has the earthquake affected the business? Psychological Capital

• Can you give me some examples from your personal life of how you have dealt with challenges? When challenges occur, do you persevere? Can you give some examples? • Can you tell me the story of what your goals and direction have been for the business after the earthquake? How have these changed from before the earthquake? • If you are confronted with a challenge in your business or personal life how would you describe your approach to dealing with that challenge? • Do you feel you are in control of your own destiny? If yes, can you give me some examples from your personal life that show that you are in control of your destiny. If no, please tell me why. • Think of one positive event in your life. Of the factors that you believe to have contributed to the positive event, which ones do you think are 10

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

within your control, which ones do you think are not within your control?

• What factors do you think you need as a person to bounce back from the 2016 earthquake? • Can you give me some examples of when you have shown resilience? Organizational Resilience

• What are the factors that you think make your business resilient or not? • Can you give me some examples of when your business has shown resilience following the earthquake? Dahles, H., & Susilowati, T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth and crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 34–50. Denhardt, J., & Denhardt, R. (2010). Building organizational resilience and adaptive management. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.). Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 333–349). Guildford Press: London, UK. Eshghi, K., & Larson, R. C. (2008). Disasters: lessons from the past 105 years. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 17(1), 62–82. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150–170. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Gloria, C. T., & Steinhardt, M. A. (2016). Relationships among positive emotions, coping, resilience and mental health. Stress and Health, 32(2), 145–156. Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. Hackbarth, M., Pavkov, T., Wetchler, J., & Flannery, M. (2012). Natural disasters: An assessment of family resiliency following Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(2), 340–351. Hall, C. M., Prayag, G., & Amore, A. (2018). Tourism and resilience: Individual, organisational and destination perspectives. Bristol, UK: Channelview Press. Havlovic, S. J., & Keenan, J. P. (1991). Coping with work stress: The influence of individual differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 199–212. Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473–488. Huang, J., & Min, J. (2002). Earthquake Devastation and Recovery in Tourism: the Taiwan Case. Ibanez, G. E., Buck, C. A., Khatchikian, N., & Norris, F. H. (2004). Qualitative analysis of coping strategies among Mexican disaster survivors. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(1), 69–85. Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(3), 131–156. Jordan, E. J. (2015). Planning as a coping response to proposed tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3), 316–328. Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2015). The impact of employees' positive psychological capital on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1135–1156. Kachali, H., Stevenson, J. R., Whitman, Z., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Wilson, T. (2012). Organisational resilience and recovery for Canterbury organisations after the 4 September 2010 earthquake. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1, 11–19. Kang, H. J., Busser, J., & Choi, H. M. (2018). Service climate: How does it affect turnover intention? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 76–94. Karatepe, O. M., & Karadas, G. (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees' satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1254–1278. Kim, M., Sharman, R., Cook-Cottone, C. P., Rao, H. R., & Upadhyaya, S. J. (2012). Assessing roles of people, technology and structure in emergency management systems: A public sector perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(12), 1147–1160. Kim, T. T., Karatepe, O. M., Lee, G., Lee, S., Hur, K., & Xijing, C. (2017). Does hotel employees’ quality of work life mediate the effect of psychological capital on job outcomes? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 154–166. Kuijer, R. G., Marshall, E. M., & Bishop, A. N. (2014). Prospective predictors of short-term adjustment after the Canterbury earthquakes: Personality and depression. Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy, 6(4), 361–369. Latack, J. C., & Havlovic, S. J. (1992). Coping with job stress: A conceptual evaluation framework for coping measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 479–508. Lee, A. V., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Developing a tool to measure and compare organizations' resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 14(1), 29–41. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.

References Achour, N., & Price, A. D. (2010). Resilience strategies of healthcare facilities: Present and future. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(3), 264–276. Ahlin, B., Drnovšek, M., & Hisrich, R. D. (2014). Entrepreneurs' creativity and firm innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 101–117. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ates, A., & Bititci, U. (2011). Change process: A key enabler for building resilient SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5601–5618. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 677–693. Avey, J. B., Patera, J. L., & West, B. J. (2006). The implications of positive psychological capital on employee absenteeism. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 42–60. Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127–152. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70. Avolio, B. J. (2005). The chief integrative leader: Moving to the next economy's HR leader. In M. Losey, S. Meisenger, & D. Ulrich (Eds.). The Future of Human Resource Management: 63 Thought Leaders Explore the Critical HR Issues of Today and Tomorrow (pp. 95–102). Washington, DC: Society of Human Resource Management. Ayala, J. C., & Manzano, G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur influence on the success of the business: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 42(3), 126–135. Baker, J. P., & Berenbaum, H. (2007). Emotional approach and problem-focused coping: A comparison of potentially adaptive strategies. Cognition and Emotion, 21(1), 95–118. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Barasa, E., Mbau, R., & Gilson, L. (2018). What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 7(6), 491–503. Below, R., & Wallemacq, P. (2018). Natural disasters 2017. Brussels: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), 1129–1148. Benight, C. C., & Harper, M. L. (2002). Coping self-efficacy perceptions as a mediator between acute stress response and long-term distress following natural disasters. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(3), 177–186. Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 645–665. Bolton, J. E. (1971). Small Firms, Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms (Cmnd.4811). London: HMSO. Bullough, A., & Renko, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times. Business Horizons, 56(3), 343–350. Burnard, K., & Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: Development of a conceptual framework for organisational responses. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5581–5599. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, & P. Leavy (Eds.). Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–172). New York: The Guilford Press. Cieslak, R., Benight, C., Schmidt, N., Luszczynska, A., Curtin, E., Clark, R. A., & Kissinger, P. (2009). Predicting posttraumatic growth among Hurricane Katrina survivors living with HIV: The role of self-efficacy, social support, and PTSD symptoms. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 22(4), 449–463. Coyne, J. C., & Racioppo, M. W. (2000). Never the twain shall meet? Closing the gap between coping research and clinical intervention research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 655. Crabtree, A. (2013). Questioning psychosocial resilience after flooding and the consequences for disaster risk reduction. Social Indicators Research, 113(2), 711–728.

11

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al.

with dark tourism sites. In C. M. Hall, S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber, & R. Wordworth (Eds.). Business and post-disaster management: Business, organizational and consumer resilience and the Christchurch earthquakes (pp. 215–232). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Prayag, G. (2018). Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience and crisis management in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 133–135. Prayag, G., Spector, S., Orchiston, C., & Chowdhury, M. (2019). Psychological resilience, organizational resilience and life satisfaction in tourism firms: Insights from the Canterbury earthquakes. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–18 in press. Rabionet, S. (2011). How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), 563–566. Reich, J. W. (2006). Three psychological principles of resilience in natural disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 793–798. Rodriguez, J., Vos, F., Below, R., & Guha-Sapir, D. (2009). Annual disaster statistical review 2008—The numbers and trends. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Rodriguez-Hanley, A., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). The demise of hope: On losing positive thinking. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 39–54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56(3), 250–263. Schuckert, M., Kim, T. T., Paek, S., & Lee, G. (2018). Motivate to innovate: How authentic and transformational leaders influence employees' psychological capital and service innovation behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 776–796. Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J., Wilkinson, S., & Vargo, J. (2006). Building organisational resilience: a New Zealand approach. Auckland: Resilient Organizations Research Group (ResOrgs). Seville, E., Van Opstal, D., & Vargo, J. (2015). A primer in resiliency: Seven principles for managing the unexpected. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 34(3), 6–18. Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41–48. Shepperd, J. A., Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (2015). A primer on unrealistic optimism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 232–237. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275. Stats, N. Z. (2019). 2013 Census quickstats about a place: Kaikoura Rural. Retrieved 16 December, 2019, from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-andsummary-reports/quickstats-about-a-place.aspx?request_value=14706&parent_id= 14704&tabname=&p=y&printall=true. Stephenson, A. (2010). Benchmarking the resilience of organisations. PhD thesisChristchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury. Stephenson, A., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Roger, D. (2010). Benchmark resilience: A study of the resilience of organizations in the Auckland region. Auckland: Resilient Organizations Research Group (ResOrgs)1–49. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sumer, N., Karanci, A. N., Berument, S. K., & Gunes, H. (2005). Personal resources, coping self-efficacy, and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(4), 331–342. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.). Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 94–110). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011). Relationship between positive psychological capital and creative performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(1), 4–13. Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2011). Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: Finding the silver lining. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5619–5635. de Vries, H. P., & Hamilton, R. T. (2016). Why stay? The resilience of small firms in Christchurch and their owners. In C. M. Hall, S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber, & R. Wordsworth (Eds.). Business and post-disaster management: Business, organizational and consumer resilience and the Christchurch earthquakes (pp. 23–34). Abingdon: UK: Routledge. de Vries, H. P., & Shields, M. (2006). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial resilience: An analysis of New Zealand SME owner–operators. The New Zealand Journal of Applied Business Research, 5(1), 33–44. Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in socialecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 13–28. Walker, B., Nilakant, V., & Baird, R. (2014). Promoting organisational resilience through sustaining engagement in a disruptive environment: What are the implications for HRM? Research Forum, 1–20. Wang, Y. (2009). The impact of crisis events and macroeconomic activity on Taiwan's international inbound tourism demand. Tourism Management, 30(1), 75–82. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Designs and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lew, A. A. (2014). Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning. Tourism Geographies, 16(1), 14–22. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706. Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50. Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate: Employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219–238. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–349. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mackenzie, S. H., & Kerr, J. H. (2013). Stress and emotions at work: An adventure tourism guide's experiences. Tourism Management, 36(3–14). Mafabi, S., Munene, J. C., & Ahiauzu, A. (2013). Organisational resilience: Testing the interaction effect of knowledge management and creative climate. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 13(1/2), 70–82. Mason, V., Andrews, H., & Upton, D. (2010). The psychological impact of exposure to floods. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 15(1), 61–73. MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) (2014). The small business sector report 2014. Wellington: New Zealand Government. MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) (2017). Economic impact of the Kaikoura earthquake. Auckland: Market Economics. McFarlane, A., & Norris, F. H. (2006). Definitions and concepts in disaster research. In F. H. Norris, S. Galea, M. J. Friedman, & P. J. Watson (Eds.). Disaster mental health research (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. McManus, S. (2008). Organisational Resilience in New Zealand. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury. McManus, S., Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., & Vargo, J. (2007). Resilience management: A framework for assessing and improving the resilience of organisations. Resilient Organisations Research Report, 1–70. McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Brunsdon, D. (2008). Facilitated process for improving organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 9(2), 81–90. Min, H., Kim, H. J., & Lee, S. B. (2015). Extending the challenge–hindrance stressor framework: The role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 105–114. Monllor, J., & Murphy, P. J. (2017). Natural disasters, entrepreneurship, and creation after destruction: A conceptual approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(4), 618–637. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Newkirk, R. (2001). The increasing cost of disasters in developed countries: A challenge to local planning and government. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 9(3), 159–170. Nilakant, V., Walker, B., Kuntz, J., de Vries, H. P., Malinen, S., Näswall, K., & van Heugten, K. (2016). Dynamics of organisational response to a disaster: A study of organisations impacted by earthquakes. In C. M. Hall, S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber, & R. Wordsworth (Eds.). Business and post-disaster management: Business, organizational and consumer resilience and the Christchurch earthquakes (pp. 35–47). Abingdon:UK: Routledge. Norris, F., Stevens, S., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K., & Pfefferbaum, R. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1/2), 127–150. Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, J. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 569–582. Orchiston, C. (2013). Tourism business preparedness, resilience and disaster planning in a region of high seismic risk: The case of the Southern Alps, New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(5), 477–494. Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. E. S. (2016). Knowledge management and tourism recovery (de)marketing: The Christchurch earthquakes 2010–2011. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 64–84. Orchiston, C., Prayag, G., & Brown, C. (2016). Organisational resilience in the tourism sector. Annals of Tourism Research, 56, 145–148. Orchiston, C., Seville, E., & Vargo, J. (2014). Regional and sub-sector impacts of the Canterbury earthquake sequence for tourism businesses. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 29(4), 32–37. Ozanne, L. K., & Ozanne, J. L. (2016). How alternative consumer markets can build community resiliency. European Journal of Marketing, 50(3/4), 330–357. Paek, S., Schuckert, M., Kim, T. T., & Lee, G. (2015). Why is hospitality employees' psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 9–26. Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers' motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215–235. Pal, R., Torstensson, H., & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—An empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 410–428. Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 427–450. Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23. Prayag, G. (2016). It's not all dark! Christchurch residents' emotions and coping strategies

12

Tourism Management Perspectives 34 (2020) 100637

S.E. Fang, et al. Shupin (Echo) Fang graduated from a Masters' degree in management from UC Business School. Her research interest is related to organizational resilience in small firms.

Herb de Vries is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at the UC Business School. His research interests are in entrepreneurship and small business, with a publishing record in business resilience, and ethnic minority and indigenous entrepreneurship.

Girish Prayag is a Professor of Marketing at the UC Business School. His research interests are related to tourists' emotions, place attachment, and organizational resilience of tourism firms.

Lucie K. Ozanne is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the UC Business School. She is also the head of the Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship. Her research interests include corporate social responsibility, the sharing economy and organizational resilience.

13