Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

 

 

From Decline to Dynamism-A Theory of Resilient Leadership for Business

 

 

Dr.Vijay Sampath

Department of Management,

Sri Balaji University, Pune

Pune, India

 

Dr Sanjit K. Dash

Department of Management,

Sri Balaji University, Pune

Pune, India

 

 

 

Abstract

This study researches managerial response to business decline and failure in India, seeking to initiate theory lacking in this subject in India. Using grounded theory methodology and in-depth interviews with 28 senior managers, the research explores how managers perceive, understand, and respond to these challenges. Integrating the findings with adaptive leadership and organizational resilience theories, the study proposes the "Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership" theory or framework, that posits that organizations can thrive in challenging environments, through leadership styles that foster individual and systemic resilience, thus enabling fluid, adaptable, dynamic structures.

The research contributes to academic discourse and also offers practical insights for managers and organizations navigating the dynamic Indian business landscape.

Keywords: Business decline, Organizational failure, Managerial response, Resilience, Leadership, Adaptability

 

 

From Decline to Dynamism-A Theory of Resilient Leadership for Business

 

Introduction

Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, wisely stated, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.”This research is a journey to understand how Indian businesses, like rivers, are ever-changing entities, and how managers, like the “proverbial man” ofHeraclitus, must adapt and evolve, to navigate these turbulent waters successfully.

It is a well-known fact that even the most mature businesses face decline and even disappear over time (Daepp et al., 2015).  The rate of decline and failure is more pronounced when it comes to new businesses or start-ups (Kotashev,2002). Indeed, the phenomenon is famously seen as a necessary part of the competitive process of capitalism (Schumpeter, 2013). Significant research and knowledge development has occurred globally, especially since the 1980’s, in studying business failure and decline (Kücher & Feldbauer-Durstmüller,2019). On the other hand, despite a large and diversified base of academic institutions and researchers, the subject has received sparse attention in India.

The central role of people in business management is a self-evident truth (Augier& Teece,2009). Thus, the need to understand the key driver behind the response to a business decline- the manager in command.

From a socio-economic perspective, there is a compelling need to understand and deal with business decline and failure, as the impact has far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate organization -

1. Business failure impacts national economies and societies. (Wu,2010); (Mbat & Eyo, 2013). They affect employment rates, leading to job losses and reduced productivity. Given the societal implications of business failures in straining national resources ,governments need to create regulatory mechanisms to avert failure (Stiglitz, 2009).
2. Business decline can affect diverse stakeholders associated with the firm (Daubie & Meskens,2002).
3. Due to the interconnectedness of the world economy, corporate failure can disrupt global financial systems and the credit markets. For example, the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 in the US,triggered a global financial crisis that led to global credit crunch, a collapse in the housing and stock markets, and a deep and prolonged global economic downturn (Wiggins et.al,2014).
4. When a company fails, it impacts the innovation and competitiveness of the economy, by wasting investments in human, physical, and intellectual capital. Industry failures also discourage investment and interest in peers and new firms in the same or related industries. This can lower the productivity of the economy, and its potential for long-term growth (Amankwah-Amoah et.al,2018).

Key Points that drive the research need:

• Business decline and failure have significant negative consequences for the economy and society.
• Paucity of research in India: As one of the world’s leading economies and probably heading towards the top 3 in good time (Srivastava,2023), the health of Indian business can impact the global economy.
• Unique challenges in India: Indian businesses face challenges that differ from developed economies. Understanding managerial responses can help improve business practices and contribute to the success of Indian companies.

Research Objectives

• The study investigates how Senior and C’suite managers in India perceive their strategic actions and responses to business decline and failure.
• It will illuminate pathways to develop theory on managerial response to business decline and failure in India. This will benefit both Indian and global enquiry into the subject

 

Research Methodology

We have inadequate theory, knowledge, or prior research in India on business decline and failure. This necessitates a research approach to generate new theory,rooted in the specific experiences of Indian businesses. Grounded theory methodology is ideally suited, as it allows us to exploreand build theory inductively from the ground up, by immersing ourselves in the lived experiences of Indian managers whose businesses faced decline or failure. This method, attributed to Barney Glaser, one of the founders of grounded theory, allows us to approach the research problem with an "abstract wonderment" about what lies beneath the surface and how it is managed (Stoupe,2016); (Glaser & Strauss 2017).

Our research design- A snapshot

 

Fig 1- Research process chart

 

We created a meticulous research project and methodology, delineating the broad question: "How do Indian managers interpret and respond to business decline and failure?" Within this overarching framework, we identified key theoretical anchors, drawing inspiration from studies on organizational decline, sense-making, and cultural influences on managerial decision-making (Bibeault,1998); (Amankwah-Amoah, 2016).

 

We began with a pilot studyand interviewed a small sample of managers from diverse industries, who had experienced decline. This pilot allowed us to refine our interview process, analytical tools, and gain valuable insights into emerging themes.

 

Incorporating the learnings ofthe pilot, we chose a diverse group of Indian managers from varied senior roles, industry size and type,across India, who hadexperienced different aspects of decline or failure. Eventually our interview sample comprised of 28 final subjects.

 

We ensured the interview process was open-ended, probing, and sensitive to the cultural context. We sought rich narratives, allowing managers to tell their stories of decline and response in their own words (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012). Following each interview, we embarked on the task of memoing and coding. Memos, akin to log entries, captured our initial impressions, emerging themes, and connections to existing literature. Through meticulous open coding, we arranged the interview data into discrete concepts, ensuring each fragment held analytical potential(Corbin &Strauss, 1990); (Charmaz, 2014).

We continued the interviews, guided by the principle of theoretical saturation, until no new concepts or insights emerged from the data. We started seeing saturation by the 15^th subject but carried on till the 28’th case(Thomson, 2010).

 

Through the constant comparison method, and after making multiple passes on the interview data and the open codes,wesaw how seemingly disparate open codes cluster together, forming into initial categories(Strauss & Corbin,1990). For example, open codes like “poor crisis management,” “faulty corrective actions further exacerbated the decline”, “poor post-crisis strategy” could coalesce into a broader category that we nominally titled as “Inadequate Crisis Management and Corrective Actions”. This category highlighted the shared experiences of the respondents, as to how their organizations faced crisis situations.

 

Findings

At the end of the coding process, we had unearthed 53 open codes(Annexure1), from which the axial coding exercisepresented six categories -

1. Lack of change management leadership capacity/ /Poor quality of leadership
2. Poor employee engagement
3. Inadequate crisis management and corrective actions
4. Lack of financial mismanagement skills and questionable financial practices
5. Effective leadership and management that successfully tackled decline
6. Comprehensive and successful business response

 

Discussion

Our aim was to integrate these categories into a possible unified model, anchored to a core around which other elements revolved. We needed to find, in Strauss and Corbin's (1990) words, "the central phenomenon around which all the other categories are integrated”.

As we reviewed extant theory on decline, and studied the detailed transcripts and codes,our thoughts started coalescing around the definition of a firm’s existential purpose. Understanding the firms’ purpose could be a benchmark to understand responses to its decline i.e. deviation from the purpose.

After studying multiple theories, studies, and literature, our attention was drawn to a unifying idea that explained the existential purpose of a firm, i.e. the ability of a firm to sustainably expand the duration of its productive and profitable existence, in the face of external and internal challenges. This ability to thrive indefinitely, while overcoming challenges, is a good definition of an organization’s existential purpose (Josefy et.al 2017).  Seeing that the premise of continuity and sustainable operations were represented both in our open and axial codes, we asked two questions to help us identify a central phenomenon-

1. What makes continuity possible?

When markets shift, technologies disrupt, competitors challenge or paradigms crumble, how do good organizations recalibrate? They pivot, innovate, and explore uncharted territories. In short, they adapt, i.e., demonstrate flexibility and suppleness to ensure survival and continuity. “Adaptability” emerges as primary characteristic that ensures continuity.

1. What sustains continuity?

To be viable consistently over time, firms need to have twin capabilities- not only do they have to grow proactively, they also need the capacity to keep overcoming disruptions, recover swiftly, and learn from setbacks. In our context of managing decline, the key word reflecting this condition is “Resilience.” Therefore, sustainable viability rests upon resilient foundations.

c.The Symbiosis

Adaptability and Resilience emerge as symbiotic partners of firm viability. Adaptive responses enhance resilience, and resilient practices foster adaptability. The interconnectedness of these qualities with leadership, employee engagement, crisis management, and financial practices highlights the need for a holistic approach to building organizational resilience.

Adaptability

Business Continuity

Resilience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 2- Business Continuity, Adaptability and Resilience

Characteristics of adaptability and resilience when applied to business decline and failure

• Adaptability and resilience are fundamental qualities that help organizations to successfully steer through the phases of their life cycles.
• Adaptability is the capacity to reorient when faced with changing circumstances and to cope with new situations. Resilience encapsulates the ability to rebound from adversities and emerge even more robust(Chakravarthy, 1982). Both adaptability and resilience are essential to organizational survival and prosperity,in a dynamic and fiercely competitive milieu.
• Both adaptability and resilience imply a voluntaristic approach, of purposefully overcoming challenges, rather than a deterministic or fatalistic view of being driven by changing circumstances (Astley & Van de Ven,1983); (Mellahi & Wilkinson, 2004).
• Adaptability and resilience are interconnected in several ways(Folke et.al ,2010). They are both related to the ability to cope with change and overcome challenges.
• Organizations need to possess strong human resource capacity to be adaptable and resilient to deal with change (Lengnick-Hall et.al ,2011).

Adaptability and resilience play pivotal roles at various junctures of the organizational life cycle

Whether we look at Stinchcombe’s Liability of Newness concept that studied the mortality of new organizations (Stinchcombe,1965), or if we look at the spectrum of organizational continuity presented in several studies (Josefy et.al,2017) ;(Amankwah-Amoah, 2016), we recognize that the process of failure does not correspond to,or follow typical linear or chronological organization life cycles. Decline or failure could occur at any of the developmental stages of an organization, as also consequent renewal or exit outcomes arising from a decline or failure.(Fig 3). And organization need not go through an orderly or deterministic cycle of birth, growth and maturity and then only encounter decline or failure. These crises could occur at any time.

As trouble can occur at any period in a firms’ existence,managers have to beever-ready to deal with a crisis situation. It is a well-known fact that even the most mature businesses face decline, and even disappear over time (Daepp et al., 2015). There is no real luxury of a growth phase or a maturity phase in the real world. We have seen examples of Jet Airways in India, or Salomon Bros in the US, both storied and strong brands, crashing and burning at a mature and seemingly stable stage.

 

Fig 3–Non-Linearnature of organization life cycles and mortality

 

 

The rate of decline and failure is even more stark when it comes to new businesses or startups (Kotashev,2022).

Continuing further on the subject of life cycles, let us examine how adaptability and resilience are critical to manage risks and challenges across stages and outcomes of the organization life cycle (Fathet.al 2015).

Phase 1- Birth phase

In the inception stage adaptability empowers organizations to try diverse concepts, absorb feedback, and build competitive niches. Meanwhile, resilience equips the firm to confront the inherent uncertainties, risks, and competitive dynamics of the early stage (Aldianto et.al, 2021).

Phase 2 -Growth phase

During the growth phase, organizations tend to formalize structures and processes(Hanks, 1990).The shift from the entrepreneurial culture of the startup phase can potentially destabilize the organization. Adaptability enables organizations to absorb these turbulent actions and capture the value of the growth phase successfully (Walker et.al ,2004).

Phase 3- Mature phase

During the mature stage, organizations develop rigid and sizeable bureaucracies that reduce adaptability. Being able to take proactive steps in this condition requires an adaptive and resilient organization (Bibeault,1998).Resilience becomes indispensable for mature firms to address potential threats, crises, or disruptions that could jeopardize reputation, operational continuity, or survival(Conz et.al, 2017).

Intervening Decline/Failure condition (This is a condition or situation and not a phase)

Decline is a condition that can appear in any life-cycle stage, and also repeatedly. Adaptability helps declining organizations manoeuvre, by enabling them to diagnose the root causes, formulate and implement remedies. Resilience allows organizations to surmount obstacles, such as personnel turnover, poor performance, or resource constraints (Clément & Rivera, 2017). These conditions then determine the outcomes that follow.

Outcome 1- Renewal

Adaptability guides organizations through the renewal journey, enabling them to glean wisdom from past encounters and harness their inherent strengths as they emerge anew. Meanwhile, resilience propels leaders and teams towards embracing a resolute strategy aimed at the rekindling of organizational vitality and vigour (Clément & Rivera, 2017).

Outcome 2- Exit

As the name suggests, adaptability and resilience cease to be relevant at this point.

These attributes, namely adaptability, and resilience, are not static but rather dynamic, serving as the lifeblood of organizational evolution and transformation across their life cycles(Gorshkova et.al ,2014).

How do the axial codes from our research relate to adaptability and resilience

To further establish how adaptability and resilience are key factors of managerial response to business failure/success in India, we linked our axial code findings to the major factors that underpin adaptive and resilient behaviours. From these insights we further the quest for a theoretical framework.

 

• Code 1-Lack of Change management leadership capacity/ /Poor quality of leadership

This axial code indicates that unsuccessful leaders are unable to adapt or cope with changes that occur in the business environment -such as customer preferences, market trends, competitor actions, technological innovations, regulatory requirements.

 

 

 

• Code 2- Poor employee engagement

This code indicates that employees in failing firms were not committed, motivated, or satisfied with their work and their organization. Disengaged employees do not have the strength, adaptability, and dedication to be a resilient resource.

• Code 3- Inadequate crisis management and corrective actions

The deficiency coded here points to leaders’ inadequacy in handling a threatening crisis situation. Adaptability and resilience are important for both, the leader, and the organization, to deal with a crisis situation

• Code 4- Lack of financial mismanagement skills and questionable financial practices

The axial code identified as “Lack of Financial Mismanagement skills and questionable financial practices” indicated that strong financial management equips organizations to respond swiftly to adversity and change. By prioritizing financial management, leaders can empower their organizations to be adaptable, resilient, and equipped to thrive in a dynamic and unpredictable world.

• Code 5- Effective leadership and management that successfully tackled decline

“Effective leadership and management that successfully tackled decline” is a code that demonstrates the benefits of dynamic leadership. Effective leaders are adaptable, resilient and can foster a culture of innovation, collaboration, and continuous improvement in their organization.

• Code 6- Comprehensive and successful business response

Leaders who achieved a “comprehensive and successful business response” were able to solve the business problem in a dynamic and sustainable manner that met or exceeded the expectations of the customers, employees, shareholders, and other stakeholders(Drewniak, 2023).

The main idea that emerged from our analysis was the notion that "Leadership, adaptability and resilience are key factors in the managerial response to business decline and failure in India.” Our grounded theory exploration points to two interconnected narratives–

 

• Effective leadership determine show organizations navigate downturn.
• The value of resilience and the need for a dynamic organization, capable of real-time adaptation to internal and external conditions

 

The next task before us is to build on theory development that could help understand and deal with the phenomenon

 

Proposing a theoretical framework

Based on the evidence of our grounded theory research and the developing themes of continuity, resilience, and adaptability, we looked at two existing theories or principles that can support the development of a theoretical framework:

1. The principle of Resilient leadership explains the ability of leaders to help their organizations survive and thrive in the face of adversity It serves as the foundation for building resilience (Singh & Dhoopar ,2023) ;(Bargavi et.al, 2017).
2. The Dynamic capability theory posits that when a company faces decline or failure, its leaders need to be able to develop and deploy dynamic capabilities in order to turn the company around (Teece et.al,1997);(Banerjee et.al ,2018) ;(Dutta, 2012)

 

Presenting the Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory.

Considering the evidence from our research and supporting theoretical narratives, we propose integrating the essence of these findings into a cohesive and contextually robust theoretical framework—The Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory.

The Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory proposes that organizations can thrive in challenging environments, through leadership styles that foster individual and systemic resilience, thus enabling fluid, adaptable, dynamic structures

This theory emphasizes proactive strategies to prepare for, and overcome both temporarysetbacks and cases of systemic decline.(Fig 4)

Resilient Leadership

Dynamic Organization

Business Continuity

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 4. Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership leading to Business continuity

 

Key components of the theory as derived from the coding process:

1. Characteristics of Resilient leadership:

• Planning, strategizing, and resourcing proactively to manage future disruptions
• Adaptive, growth mindset, emphasizing learning from new ideas, change and failures.
• Leaders prioritize psychological safety, providing space for open communication, risk-taking and innovation.

 

2. Characteristics of a Dynamic organizational structure:

• Adaptive to the ever-changing nature of the business ecosystem.
• Flexible and decentralized decision-making, allowing for swift response to changing conditions.
• Nurturing cross-functional collaboration and knowledge sharing to break down silos and encourage innovation.

 

Rationale for the integration of the principles of Resilient leadership and the Dynamic capability theory, into the Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory:

1. Balancing human and organizational factors: By acknowledging the interplay between leadership and dynamic organizational capabilities, the theory bridges the gap between human-centric leadership theories and organization-centric resilience theories.
2. Leadership dependence of managerial response: The codes derived from research highlight that managerial responses in India are heavily contingent upon top management capacity and response. Of the 53 basic codes identified in our research process, 21 were directly attributed to the failure of leadership. Of the rest, many had a direct implication on the preparedness or quality of inputs provided by the larger management team.

 

Implications of the Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory on managerial practice in India

The theory specifically addresses the challenges of managerial response to business decline and failure in India. In India, where hierarchy is ingrained, organizations depend heavily onleadership. Resilient leaders who navigate cultural nuances, drive strategic alignment, and empower their teams are essential for sustained success.

Key implications of this theory for managerial practice:Offering a long-term framework in a constantly evolving business landscape

The Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory builds anti-fragility, equipping organizations to not just survive but thrive in the VUCA world

 

• Focus on adaptability: This theory does not prescribe rigid structures but emphasizes constant adjustment to changing external and internal environments. This keeps organizations nimble and responsive in the face of unforeseen challenges.
• Embracing paradox: Unlike traditional theories that are definitive, this framework acknowledges the inherent tensions and contradictions within complex systems. Leaders must learn to manage these paradoxes and leverage them for creative solutions and growth.
• Continuous learning: The emphasis on adapting and experimenting fosters a culture of lifelong learning, where individuals and teams actively seek and share knowledge to stay ahead of the curve. Managers and leaders should train to develop resilient leadership qualities, including fostering emotional intelligence, adaptability, and the ability to make tough decisions in the face of adversity.
• Dynamic leadership requires staying updated on industry trends, evolving market conditions, and emerging technologies.
• Hierarchical organizations in India are over-reliant on strong leaders. The theory encourages enterprise-wide professional leadership, driven by strategy and process, instead of personality driven styles.
• Leaders mould organizational culture and their behavior, values, and communication style

set the tone. In India, where tradition and modernity coexist, leaders must balance

heritage with innovation.

• In an increasingly globalized Indian business ecosystem, leaders have to quickly learn to

collaborate and cooperate, both with Indian and foreign partners.

 

Implications of the theory on academic research and knowledge development

This integrated theory, synthesizing the dynamic organization framework and resilient leadership theory, opens new avenues for research exploration. Here are the key implications and opportunities:

1. Interdisciplinary research opportunities:

The theory bridges the gap between leadership studies and organizational resilience, encouraging interdisciplinary research collaborations. Researchers from diverse backgrounds, including management, psychology, sociology, and economics, can explore the theory's applications and implications.

2. Research focus contextual to the Indian business landscape:

Researchers can investigate how cultural, regulatory, and market factors in India influence the theory's application and effectiveness.

3. Longitudinal and case study research:

• Tracking adaptability and resilience over time: Researchers can conduct longitudinal studies to track these phenomena for organizations and leaders
• In-depth case analyses: Case studies can explore the strategies and practices adopted by Indian organizations facing business decline and failure, offering detailed insights into the theory's nuances.

4. Measurement and assessment tools:

• Developing metrics: Researchers can evaluate the possibility of creating non-financial measurement tools and metrics to assess resilient leadership and dynamic capabilities, offering practical assistance to managers and scholars. The Altman Z-score and other financial models are the only well-known examples of existing predictive or descriptive tools(Ranganathan, 1988); (Singla & Singh ,2017) ;(Bhunia & Mukhuti, 2011) ;(Deb Nath and Deb Nath ,2019).
• Benchmarking: Comparative research can lead to benchmarking frameworks that help organizations gauge their resilience and leadership effectiveness in relation to industry peers.

 

5. Pedagogical Applications:

• Curriculum development: Academic institutions can incorporate this theory into management curricula, ensuring that future business leaders are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate decline and failure effectively.
• Case studies and teaching materials: Developing case studies and teaching materials based on the theory's principles can enhance pedagogical practices in management education.

 

Limitations of the Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theory, and the research study

While the theory presents a novel framework for studying managerial responses to business decline and failure in India, it is important to acknowledge its limitations:

1. Cultural and diversity heterogeneity: The theory may not capture the full spectrum of cultural and diversity variations across regions and industries.
2. Complexity of leadership styles: Indian leadership styles are not solely characterized by hierarchical styles. There is a growing trend towards more participatory and collaborative leadership styles, particularly in certain industries and among younger leaders.
3. We lack longitudinal data to assess the consistency of the researched managerial responses.
4. Ethical considerations: While the theory emphasizes the role of leadership in decision-making during business decline, it does not delve deeply into ethical considerations that emerge in such situations.

 

 

 

Recommendations for future research

Future research could explore the following areas:

• Conduct a longitudinal study to track the progress of businesses that have successfully turned around after facing decline.
• Identify best practices for crisis management and recovery across different industries.
• Investigate the role of government policies and regulations in supporting businesses facing decline.

 

Conclusion

The Dynamic organization and Resilient leadership theoryunderscores the importance of leadership, dynamic capabilities, and a resilient organizational culture in effectively responding to business decline and failure. Managers in India can embrace this theory to navigate the complex and rapidly changing business environment successfully, ultimately ensuring the long-term sustainability and growth of their organizations.

 

 

 

 

Annexure 1 – Open Codes

1.        Company closed down	2.        Unmotivated leadership	3.        Inadequate attention to non-technical aspects of the business especially finance related
4.        Business declined	5.        Complacency among employees	6.        Financial corruption
7.        Business division is doing badly	8.        Lack of trust in the employees	9.        Well-prepared leaders.
10.     Problems led to business bankruptcy	11.     Poor crisis management.	12.     Well-trained leaders.
13.     Company has maintained growth in spite of challenges	14.      Faulty corrective actions further exacerbated the decline	15.     Leadership tried to minimize the impact of the crisis.
16.     Successful turnaround was achieved	17.     Poor post-crisis strategy.	18.     Good communication with the workforce.
19.     Chaotic conditions	20.     Lack of ability in creating recovery processes.	21.     Forceful and committed to strong measures.
22.     Company no longer growing	23.     Self-created financial mess.	24.     Change in leadership.
25.     Market share loss	26.     Financial mismanagement and fraud.	27.     Improved operational efficiency
28.     Business declined due to multiple reasons	29.     Selfish focus on personal gain.	30.     Cost control
31.     Poor leadership quality	32.     Skewed priorities.	33.     Financial Restructuring
34.     Incompetent personnel	35.     No consumer research or market understanding.	36.     Cognitive bias- Upper echelon thinking, Group Think etc
37.     No accountability in family run leadership	38.     Inadequate attention to all aspects of the business.	39.     Poor employee alignment with management goals
40.     Poor leadership transition	41.     Resistance to change.	42.     Inadequate incentives to employees
43.     Lack of vision and readiness to face market forces.	44.     Unrealistic timelines for response.	45.     Lack of diversification.
46.     Product Diversification>Strategy changes	47.     Strategic alliances	48.     Corporate restructuring
49.     Global Expansion	50.     Debt restructuring	51.     Focus on core business
52.     Focus on customer experience	53.     Sold non-core assets

 

 

 

Bibliography

Aldianto, L., Anggadwita, G., Permatasari, A., Mirzanti, I. R., & Williamson, I. O. (2021). Toward a business resilience framework for startups. Sustainability, 13(6), 3132.

Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2016). An integrative process model of organisational failure. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3388-3397

Amankwah-Amoah, J., Boso, N., & Antwi-Agyei, I. (2018). The effects of business failure experience on successive entrepreneurial engagements: An evolutionary phase model. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 648-682.

Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative science quarterly, 245-273.

Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization science, 20(2), 410-421.

Banerjee, C. S., Farooq, A., & Upadhyaya, S. (2018). The relationship between dynamic capabilities, competitive advantage & organizational performance. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations, 6(3), 603-610.

Bargavi, N., Samuel, A. A., & Paul, P. J. D. (2017). Resilience of millennial leaders in the Indian IT industry. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 43(2), 211-221.

Bhunia, A., Khan, S. I. U., & Mukhuti, S. (2011). Prediction of financial distress-A case study of Indian companies. Asian Journal of Business Management, 3(3), 210-218.

Bibeault, D. B. (1998). Corporate turnaround: How managers turn losers into winners!. Beard Books.

Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of management review, 7(1), 35-44.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 2, 347-365.

Clément, V., & Rivera, J. (2017). From adaptation to transformation: An extended research agenda for organizational resilience to adversity in the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 30(4), 346-365.

Conz, E., Denicolai, S., & Zucchella, A. (2017). The resilience strategies of SMEs in mature clusters. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(1), 186-210.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Daepp, M. I., Hamilton, M. J., West, G. B., & Bettencourt, L. M. (2015). The mortality of companies. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12(106), 20150120.

Daubie, M., & Meskens, N. (2002). Business failure prediction: a review and analysis of the literature. New trends in banking management, 71-86.

Deb Nath, Dr Bimal, and Sugata Deb Nath. (2019)."Prediction Model of Success or Failure for Small Business in North East India." Journal of Management 6.1: 197-201.

Drewniak, R. (2023). The Birth of Resilience Enterprise: A Dynamic Approach to Absorptive and Adaptive Resilience Capabilities.

Dutta, S. K. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Fostering ambidexterity. SCMS journal of indian management, 9(2).

Fath, B. D., Dean, C. A., & Katzmair, H. (2015). Navigating the adaptive cycle: an approach to managing the resilience of social systems. Ecology and Society, 20(2).

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and society, 15(4)

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.

Gorshkova, L. A., Trifonov, Y. V., & Poplavskaya, V. A. (2014). Ensuring adaptability of a company using life cycle theory. Life Science Journal, 11(10), 705-708.

Hanks, S. H. (1990). The organization life cycle: Integrating content and process. Journal of small business strategy, 1(1), 1-12

Josefy, M. A., Harrison, J. S., Sirmon, D. G., & Carnes, C. (2017). Living and dying: Synthesizing the literature on firm survival and failure across stages of development. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 770-799.

Kotashev, K. (2022, January 9). Startup Failure Rate: How Many Startups Fail and Why? https://www.failory.com/blog/startup-failure-rate

Kücher, A., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2019). Organizational failure and decline–A bibliometric study of the scientific frontend. Journal of Business Research, 98, 503-516.

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.

Mbat, D. O., & Eyo, E. I. (2013). Corporate failure: Causes and remedies. Business and Management Research, 2(4), 19-24.

Mellahi, K., & Wilkinson, A. (2004). Organizational failure: a critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework. International Journal of Management

Ranganathan, K. (1988). Industrial Sickness. Suneja Publishing Corporation.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. routledge, (2013)

Singh, R., Sihag, P., & Dhoopar, A. (2023). Role of resilient leadership and psychological capital in employee engagement with special reference to COVID-19. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(1), 232-252.

Singla, R., & Singh, G. (2017). Assessing the Probability of Failure by Using Altman’s Model and Exploring its Relationship with Company Size: An Evidence from Indian. Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies, 8(2), 167-180

Srivastava, D.K (2023), https://go.ey.com/3YNJ96H

Stiglitz, J. (2009). Regulation and failure. New perspectives on regulation, 576.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L., 1965. Social structure and organizations. In: March, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 142-193).

Stoupe, D. (2016). Understanding Abstract Wonderment: The Reflections of a Novice Researcher. Grounded Theory Review, 15(2).

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Thomson, S. B. (2010). Sample size and grounded theory. Thomson, SB (2010). Grounded Theory-Sample Size. Journal of Administration and Governance, 5(1), 45-52.

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2).

Wiggins, R., Piontek, T., & Metrick, A. (2014). The Lehman brothers bankruptcy a: overview. Yale program on financial stability case study.

Wu, W. W. (2010) .Beyond business failure prediction. Expert systems with applications, 37(3), 2371-2376