Abstract (EN)

Organizations adopt resilience frameworks to deal with increasingly unstable environments, yet they are not usually applied according to their initial design. Previous research has documented the situatedness of resilience. The process of shaping resilience capabilities fuels both action and structure through social arrangements. However, knowledge remains scarce regarding how these elements relate to each other. This chapter addresses this gap, drawing on Schatzki’s work and approaching resilience as practice. It examines the four components of the structure of resilience practice and investigates their interplay with action. It relies on a qualitative design, focused on two French organizations that designed radically different resilience frameworks. The findings of this chapter outline how both the organizations deviated from their resilience vision and frameworks, no matter the nature of the framework. Despite some synergistic ties between resilience structure and action, contradictions and inconsistencies within the structure emerged, which fostered deviation. Finally, the chapter discusses two other important points inherent to its findings: First, the evolutionary dimension of resilience as practice. Second, the influence of resilience proponents—who proactively promote resilience as a practice—on the interplay between its components.