#86 - Does a Resilient Society Need Resilient Organisations?
- Pawel Pietruszewski
- Jun 25
- 4 min read
Does a resilient organisation need resilient employees? This assumption is rarely questioned. In a recent post, I shared findings on building a resilient salesforce through psychological safety. But the same question extends beyond the workplace: Does a resilient society require resilient organisations?
Organisation Ecology Paradox
In their research on how firms respond to external shocks, Krammer et al. draw on the concept of organisational ecology—a framework that examines how populations of organisations evolve under environmental pressure. A central insight of this theory is that diversity and progress in the system result less from firms adapting to changes, and more from selection—where some organisations fail and are replaced by others better suited to current conditions.
Because individual firms have limited capacity to change, failure and turnover often become the system’s primary drivers of evolution. This may seem like a pessimistic view: it suggests that survival depends more on environmental fit than on adaptability. Yet it reflects hard statistical truths—especially in the startup world, where failure rates can exceed 90%.
Companies grow and fall. New ones quickly emerge, learn from past mistakes, and drive the system forward. What matters most is not the survival of any single organisation, but the collective learning that happens at the population level.
Over time, successful firms develop routines, structures, and processes tailored to specific environments. These features, while initially advantageous, can become rigid and resistant to change. Large, well-resourced companies may stay afloat during shocks but lose the ability to adapt. The companies, which have inherent advantage, do not change due to environmental shocks, because they don't have to, and because it is becoming more and more difficult for them to manage change. This tendency is known as organisational inertia.
Krammer et. al in deed, found out that older companies with more experienced managers were less successful in adapting to environmental shock caused by COVID pandemic. They found similar effect for the companies with high export intensity and foreign ownership [1]. Their strengths, under stress, became weaknesses. This is the paradox of organisational ecology: what makes an organisation succeed in the past may undermine its resilience in the volatile times.
Resilient You in the Society
Nassim Taleb in Antifragile shares a similar view but he extends this to the individual level. To him, systems evolve not despite fragility, but because of it.
"The economy to be antifragile and undergo evolution, every single individual business must necessarily be fragile."
In other words, progress requires failure—even destruction. Taleb argues that individual or organisational efforts to become resilient (or “antifragile,” as he defines it) may actually conflict with what’s best for the system as a whole. He advocates risk-taking, even collapse, as essential to broader societal learning.
"In order to progress, modern society should be treating ruined entrepreneurs in the same way as we honor dead soldiers."
This view highlights a deep evolutionary tension: the goals of individuals often diverge from the needs of the collective. Throughout human history, the push and pull between personal survival and group advancement has driven our development. And it's a tension we continue to navigate today.
Is There a Middle Ground?
Resilience is the ability to navigate change and continue to develop. It means staying relevant, learning, adapting, and evolving alongside shifting environments. On this point, I do not necessarily agree with Taleb: I don't believe that a resilient system must be made up of fragile parts.
What undermines resilience of the system is rigidity of the individual parts rather than their resilience. Units (whether individuals or organisations) that fall into inertia and resist adaptation become liabilities. But those that remain responsive and capable of evolving contribute positively to the resilience of the system as a whole.
Organisational ecology doesn’t argue against resilient units—it simply points out how rare they are. The theory is a reminder that evolution is indifferent to intention. If an organisation—or individual—loses its edge, it will be replaced. The system will move on.
It's a pattern we see everywhere, even in generational change: the older generation can support or resist the shift, but the shift happens regardless. Evolution doesn’t wait for consent. It favors relevance.
If you like this post, please join the growing community of forward-thinking readers and sign-up to my newsletter. My weekly posts explore how individuals and organisations adapt and evolve. Gain evidence-based insights to boost resilience across domains.
Resources and Notes
Krammer, S. M., Nuruzzaman, N., & Mukherjee, D. (2025). International connectedness, governmental interventions and firms’ adaptation to exogenous shocks: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Multinational Business Review, 33(2), 366-397.
[1] This finding is statistically significant yet not particularly insightful. COVID-19 pandemic has placed severe restrictions on international trade, therefore vulnerability of export intensive firms was expected for this specific environments shock. Firms with foreign ownership are typically managed as portfolio of companies, operating in multiple markets. Analysis at a country level can be in this case misleading. Overall they can adapt very well but differently than local organisations, relying more on portfolio management mechanics.
An interesting issue - I would never say but after reading of this article - became clear - experienced managers are not so adoptive... But this thesis is dangerous - does it mean that we are to be managed by ... not experienced? Maybe it is to simplified but that concluson came to my mind.