Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Eastern Journal of European Studies
31
DOI: 10.47743/ejes-2023-0102
| June 2023 | VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's
public sector
Mindaugas Butkusa, Ona Grazina Rakauskienea,
Lina Volodzkienea, Andrius Stasiukynasa,
Ilona Bartusevicienea*, Laura Dargenyte-Kacilevicienea
aMykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania
Introduction
The last few years have been particularly challenging for public sector organizations
(PSOs) as they were expected to effectively tackle various challenges, such as
ensuring public health and security and minimizing economic impacts and
instability. Nevertheless, there has been criticism of the public sector's ability to
operate in uncertain environments, as many conventional practices, norms, and
knowledge have become outdated when dealing with crises. Moreover, PSOs face
many constraints that differ from those in the private sector. These constraints
*Corresponding author: Ilona Bartuseviciene, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Public
Governance and Business, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania; e-mail:
ilona.bartuseviciene@mruni.eu.
Abstract
This study aims to examine the perspective of public sector resilience development, which
is explored as a three-stage construct: Planning, Adaptation, and Enhanced Learning.
We analyzed whether these three stages are equally important in developing
organizational resilience in the public sector. To assess the developmental importance
of the three stages of organizational resilience, this study adopted a quantitative
methodology. First, expert research was conducted to analyze whether all three stages
were equally important in developing organizational resilience. Second, the level of
resilience of public sector organizations in Lithuania was assessed by analyzing the
survey results of 401 organizations. The results revealed that according to experts, the
Adaptation stage is the most important in developing resilience, while Enhanced
Learning is the least important. Meanwhile, resilience assessment in the Lithuanian
public sector showed that Planning and Adaptation were equally developed, while
Enhanced Learning demonstrated a significantly higher score.
Keywords: public sector resilience, public sector resilience assessment, organizational
resilience, planning, adaptation, enhanced learning
32 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
include a complex hierarchical structure, limited political autonomy, lack of skills,
and budgetary constraints. However, it is essential to acknowledge that certain PSOs
demonstrate proactive behaviour in effectively preparing for and adapting to rapidly
evolving circumstances. This observation naturally leads to the question of why the
performance of some PSOs deteriorates during times of adversity while others thrive.
In this respect, the role of the organizational resilience (OR) phenomenon has been
brought to light by various scholars as it delves into an organizational ability to
prepare for uncertainty and cope with crises promptly. Thus, it is imperative to study
the conditions, factors, and behaviours that contribute to developing resilience in the
public sector (PS).
The fundamental principle of PSO resilience is the ability to prepare for
disruptive events (Mazzucato & Kattel, 2020), adapt to changed circumstances
(Bright, 2021; Elston & Bel, 2022; Plimmer et al., 2022), return to a new stable
situation (Orth & Schuldis, 2021), and use acquired experience and knowledge as a
driving force to ensure successful service continuity (Hartley, 2018; Herrero &
Kraemer, 2022; Hoegl & Hartmann, 2021; Kirsop-Taylor, 2022; Leite &
Hodgkinson, 2021; Wójcik-Mazur et al., 2022). Moreover, resilience comes into
force when organizations can no longer perform within the limits of existing rules,
regulations, and knowledge (Rajala & Jalonen, 2022; Termeer & van den Brink,
2013). Realizing that a crisis is inevitable enables organizations to focus not on how
to avoid it, but on overcoming it and even taking advantage of it by enhancing
foresight, as disruptive events are considered a significant trigger for resilience
development (Mithani et al., 2021). Organizations that have experienced significant
threats are more likely to evolve and become stronger in the long run than those that
have managed to avoid shocks. These statements lead to the assumption that
adversities and failures are a part of life. If there is no failure, there is no learning; if
there is no learning, there is no change.
Although the scientific literature highlights the importance of planning,
adaptation, and learning, knowledge about the extent of development at each stage
still needs to be improved. Little is still known about whether, by paying more
attention to planning, PSOs become more resilient and can afford to pay less
attention to the adaptation and learning stages. In contrast, more attention should be
paid to managing crises once they occur. Can organizations that already have formal
learning mechanisms in place take a breather and focus on other priorities? These
questions are partially analysed in Darkow's (2019) study, where a capability-based
approach acknowledges resilience as the organizational ability to prepare and
respond to threats and a shift between practices. The author argues that prioritizing
one over the others disregards the interconnections between the stages and the
capabilities necessary to manage them. Thus, planning and recovery should be
treated as two distinct stages that require precise preparation; however, they should
be considered equally important in developing OR.
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 33
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Moreover, Darkow (2019) argues that although these two approaches are
distinct, they must be explored jointly to explain why some PSOs operate thrivingly
in an environment of shocks while others struggle. Although Darkow's (2019) study
has contributed significantly to the theory of resilience development in PS, we also
identified the shortcomings addressed in this study. First, we examine OR as
planning and adaptation and highlight the importance of enhanced learning.
Extensive literature shows (Herrero & Kraemer, 2022; Kirsop-Taylor, 2022; Loon,
2016; Lynn et al., 2021; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2022) that learning is perceived as a
root activity that enables organizations to restructure themselves when faced with
diversity and acquire new knowledge, which becomes essential in recognizing
potential adversities. Second, we explored the importance of developing the three
stages that foster OR. Considering these drawbacks, this study aimed to investigate
whether the stages of OR (i.e., planning, adaptation, and learning) are equally
important in developing OR. We conducted a quantitative assessment of experts and
assessed the resilience level in Lithuania's PSOs.
The paper is structured as follows: first, we present the analysis of scientific
literature and the hypotheses formed based on it; second, we present the
methodology; third section provides and discusses the results of the empirical study;
and fourth concludes the paper.
1. Literature review
The resilience phenomenon of PS is becoming a highly relevant subject of scientific
debate owing to increased uncertainty and recurring crises (Manea, 2022). This trend
became particularly evident after the Covid-19 crisis when representatives of the
scientific community and PS managers realized that organizations must respond to
the altered environment and adapt their activities to meet the changed realities.
Aragao and Fontana (2022) revealed that developing OR in PS is challenging
for most managers. 88.24 percent argued that resilience in the PS is almost
impossible due to:
difficulty in planning; lack of agility in the execution of services; excessive
bureaucracy in day-to-day activities; constant internal changes in personnel;
lack of communication and sense of team; lack of training for civil servants;
resistance to change; lack of incentive for civil servants; lack of clarity of
objectives; lack of operations control; excessive empiricism in decision-
making; and dependence on other institutional spheres (p. 72).
Only 11.76 percent agreed that resilience development in the PS is an easy
task, as the PS constantly operates in turbulent conditions. Lack of predictability
measures, transparency, and poor communication are also negative factors impeding
resilience (Phillips et al., 2021; Ticlau et al., 2021). Challenges are also caused by
34 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
the need for more theoretical and empirical knowledge regarding the development
of resilience and the possibility of assessing it over time in PSO.
Different scientific sources have explored resilience in different ways. One
approach states that OR can be explored as organizational capability 'to bend out of
shape during a shock and return to a new stable situation by acting as an adaptive
system, enriching its internal complexity to deal with the growing complexity of the
environment (Rochet et al., 2008, p. 66). Another approach is to examine the
phenomenon through different states, such as defensive and adaptive (offensive)
resilience (Rajala & Jalonen, 2022). Defensive resilience is ensured by the
robustness and stability that preserve normalcy during adversity, as it relies on
activities supported by existing knowledge. By contrast, offensive resilience is
achieved by delivering new behaviours that arise from new knowledge generated
during adversity. Ishak and William's (2018) dual-spectrum model examined
resilience from a similar perspective. The authors explored resilience by amount,
that is, less resilient, more resilient, and by type, that is, anchored resilience (fixed
mindset) and adaptive resilience (growth mindset). Both types of resilience are
meaningful, regardless of whether organizations maintain a fixed or growth-mindset
approach. The main difference is that adaptive resilience can absorb and take
advantage of changes and become the basis for bouncing forward momentum
(Reichenbach et al., 2021). Moreover, adaptive resilience treats shocks as normality
because that is their as ration, that is, a constant search for how to adapt. Thus, there
is no break in the alcy. Adaptive resilience is usually practiced in Highly Resilient
Organizations (HROs) that recognize adversity as an inherent part of their operations
(Darkow, 2019). In contrast, the ultimate effort for anchored resilience is to return
to normal. When faced with adversity, anchored-resilient organizations are not yet
prepared to meet the challenge (Ishak & Williams, 2018). In both cases, learning is
the basis for developing OR, and it depends only on the organizations themselves
how and they perceive the resilience phenomenon (Hillmann & Guenther, 2021).
The higher the level of resilience, the more resources will be consumed (Brykman
& King, 2021). This is essential because financial constraints are identified as one
of the most significant obstacles to achieving resilience in PSOs (Barbera et al.,
2017; Kirsop-Taylor, 2022). However, another view is that not only is the amount of
resources essential, but also the ability to use them properly, that is, redistributing
them efficiently and promptly during adversity (Mazzucato & Kattel, 2020; Shaw,
2012). These insights lead to the assumption that the development of resilience
manifests itself as strategic momentum, accompanied by paradox momentum.
According to Rajala and Jalonen (2022), resilience occurs when strategic planning
is complete. This argument is based on the assumption that resilience comes to force
when organizations can no longer perform within the limits of existing rules,
regulations, and knowledge, that is when decisions that go beyond strategic planning
are required. However, it is essential to note that the ability to shift from strategies
and make timely decisions based on current state conditions requires specific
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 35
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
abilities and preparedness (Fehrer & Bove, 2022). Proper planning and preparation
for crises enable organizations to be ready to meet and deal with them. Regardless
of how we plan, unforeseen crises are unlikely to be avoided. However, it is crucial
to remember that more resilient PSOs can reduce their impact and recover faster and
more efficiently than less resilient ones can. Successful planning helps not avoid
setbacks but to learn how to cope with them and appreciate them as a natural
evolutionary process of organizational development (Androniceanu et al., 2022;
Pashapour et al., 2019). Furthermore, one of the essential characteristics of OR is its
ability to identify new opportunities that would not have been possible to recognize
at regular times (Chen, 2022; Pettersen & Schulman, 2019; Ruiz-Martin et al., 2018).
Thus, PSOs are encouraged to prepare for the unknown and act without a plan
(Termeer & van den Brink, 2013). Boin and van Eeten (2013) are convinced that the
ability to act outside of strategic planning depends on organizational sense-making,
which has been acknowledged as a root activity for OR development as it provides
the knowledge and capability to navigate uncertainty when existing routines and
knowledge are insufficient to cope with setbacks. More is discovered about
sensemaking in Termeer and van den Brink's (2013) study, as they examine the
conditions that evolve sensemaking, such as appreciation of past experiences,
staying in motion, improvisation, encouragement and bricolage, looking closely and
often updating, and developing an attitude of wisdom. Most people, particularly
those with engineering backgrounds, believe that uncertainty can be explained by
inventing better models. However, the more we learn about a particular domain, the
greater the number of uncertainties, doubts, questions, and complexities occur'
(Weick, 2001 as cited in Termeer & van den Brink, 2013). Thus, organizations must
learn to navigate between extreme confidence and caution.
Moreover, it is worth analysing Duit's (2016) six-step resilience ladder, where
the lowest step represents the most basic interpretation of OR, that is, the
organizational ability to maintain its core functions during the setback. The second
step directs the organization's ability to maintain structure and integrity during the
setback, followed by the third step, which reflects the ability to maintain structure
and integrity during adversity and ensure a successful recovery to return to normalcy.
The fourth step calls for successful crisis management and recovery, followed by the
fifth step, which assumes that the most thorough conceptual approach towards OR
directs purposeful learning. The sixth promotes lesson drawing and institutional and
organizational reforms. This is indicated as the uppermost state of resilience and
takes the top spot on the resilience ladder. However, in Franken et al. (2021)
argument, resilience development in the PS faces challenges associated with the
sustainable support system for successful knowledge transfer among the pairs. To
solve these issues, Franken et al. (2021) proposed five areas that promote goal-
oriented behaviours: the ability to manage the whole team, enable self-management,
recognize individual needs and contributions, support both career and personal
growth, and manage safe failures. Moreover, each behaviour identifies processes,
36 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
techniques, and guidelines for managers at various levels on how to become effective
change agents and enhance their subordinates’ abilities. This moment is vital, as
extensive literature shows that most resilient leadership studies explore the
behaviour of senior managers and executives (Angelis & Polychronidou, 2022;
Brykman & King, 2021; Lund & Andersen, 2023) and exclude middle managers
directly responsible for successful service delivery and knowledge transfer to their
subordinates. This is worrying because managers are more responsible for solving
crises than their subordinates (Näswall et al., 2019). In the face of setbacks, frontline
managers expect to deactivate organizational know-how that does not fit the shifted
parameters and is no longer sufficient for use due to changed conditions. Frontline
managers are challenged to quickly develop new knowledge that arises from
adversity and to ground it into new norms according to situational conditions. In this
respect, resilience is closely tied to robustness and protects organizations from
bouncing back with their usual organizational behaviours (Lund & Andersen, 2023).
To conclude, OR is an organization's ability to prepare for crises and plan how
to cope with them in the face of adversity. Second, it explores the organizational
ability to adapt to stabilize and return to normal activities aftershocks. Third, using
the moments of the organization's ability to learn, use the acquired experience, and
take advantage of the new knowledge to ensure successful operations continuity.
Two important points can be observed from various scientific sources. First, it
emphasizes thorough preparation of the organization for unforeseen changes, threats,
and shocks. Second, experience gained during shocks is seen as an advantage that
leads to effective and high-quality continuity of public service provision. Hence, we
concluded that the resilience of PS consists of three stages: Planning, Adaptation,
and Enhanced learning. However, we still need to understand the importance of each
developmental stage. Therefore, we aimed to address this knowledge gap by
investigating whether each stage is equally important in the development of OR. To
address this challenge, we propose two hypotheses:
H1. Based on the expert assessment of the stages of OR, Planning, Adaptation,
and Enhanced Learning are equally important in developing OR.
H2. Based on the assessment of PS resilience, the stages of OR (i.e., Planning,
Adaptation, and Enhanced Learning) were developed equally.
2. Methodology
To explore the resilience of PSO, we adopted a quantitative methodology that
has been widely used in various studies (Brown et al., 2017; Gonçalves et al., 2019;
Lee et al., 2013; McManus et al., 2007; Sobaih et al., 2021; Whitman et al., 2013).
The measurement instrument presented in Table 1 refers to two validated
questionnaires: a short version of the Resilience Benchmark Tool (RBT-13)
developed by Whitman et al. (2013) and later validated by Gonçalves et al. (2019),
and an adapted questionnaire by Mardaras et al. (2021).
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 37
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
2.1. Questionnaire
In contrast, Gonçalves et al. (2019) used an 8-point Likert scale and Whitman et al.
(2013) used a 4-point Likert scale, which we considered a 7-point Likert scale, with
7 representing strong agreement and 1 presenting strong disagreement.
Table 1. The structure of the organizational resilience measurement instrument
Stages
Item
Authors
Statement
Abbrev.
Planning
Our management thinks and acts strategically to ensure we
are always ahead of the curve.
P_1_SA
Whitman et al.
(2013)
Gonçalves et
al. (2019)
There would be good leadership within our organization if a
crisis struck us.
P_2_GL
Our priorities for recovery would provide direction for staff
in a crisis
P_3_PR
Our organization practices and tests emergency plans
regularly
P_4_EP
We build relationships with other organizations we might
have to work with during a crisis.
P_5_BR
We proactively monitor our environment to have an early
warning of emerging issues.
P_6_PM
Adaptation
Our organization can shift rapidly from business-as-usual to
responding to crises.
A_1_RS
In a crisis, we seek opportunities for our organization
A_2_SO
People in our organization "own" a problem until it is
resolved
A_3_OP
Our organization's culture is to be very supportive of staff
A_4_SC
Our organization can make tough decisions quickly
A_5_QD
Staff is rewarded for "thinking outside the box."
A_6_OB
The staff has the information and knowledge they need to
respond to unexpected problems.
A_7_IK
There is a sense of teamwork and camaraderie in our
organization
A_8_TW
Our organization maintains sufficient resources to absorb
some unexpected changes.
A_9_SR
Enhanced learning
We learn lessons from the past and ensure those lessons are
carried through to the future.
EL_1_LL
Mardaras et al.
(2021)
Talent is empowered and managed.
EL_2_TE
There are formal organizational knowledge management
tools supported by senior management.
EL_3_KM
Our teams freely make their short-term plans
EL_4_FP
Our teams learn from their mistakes and are not penalized
for them
EL_5_LM
Team members must be able to adapt capabilities to the
environment's needs
EL_6_AC
38 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Our organization allows the team to react quickly and freely
to opportunities.
EL_7_RQ
We believe that the best results in innovation come from
intuition and team improvisation.
EL_8_II
Gender equality is important in our organization.
EL_9_GE
We use crises as an opportunity to enhance an organization's
activity
EL_10_EA
Source: Authors’ representation
The questionnaire was translated into Lithuanian by a professional translator.
Furthermore, the translated version was validated during the pilot study to confirm
that it was understandable and user-friendly.
2.2. Sampling
The survey for collecting the data necessary to evaluate OR in Lithuania's PS was
conducted by interviewing organizations that provide public services (March-April
2022). Since there is no register of public service organizations in Lithuania, and
thus, the population size is unknown, we calculated the sample size assuming that
the population size is infinite. With a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error
of 5%, the minimum required sample size (SS) was 385. The unknown size and
characteristics of the population prompted us to ensure a representative sample. We
assumed that the spatial (regional) distribution of PSO in Lithuania should follow
the spatial (regional) distribution of the population, with a slight bias towards the
capital region Vilnius and the second largest region, Kaunas, due to the higher
concentration of healthcare, higher education, and other public service organizations.
Quotas of public service organizations that provide services were assigned in each
NUTS 3-level region according to Lithuania's regional population distribution (data
for 2021) plus 10% and 5% for the capital and Kaunas regions, respectively (see
Table 2). Thus, the overall number of organizations for which the data were collected
was 401. In the second step, to represent various public service organizations
according to the type of services provided and their size, we purposefully tried to
reach organizations with a different number of employees that would represent all
service categories based on "The methodology for estimating the Public Services
User Satisfaction Index" prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic
of Lithuania (see Table 2). An electronic survey was sent to the organization
managers, followed by a phone call to ensure a better response rate.
At the same time, we carried out expert research to (i) estimate the importance
(weight) of each criterion in developing the resilience of PSO and (ii) collect experts'
insights and opinions based on their leadership experience in the PS. The expert
research was conducted using survey interviews with experts according to the
prepared questionnaire (a modified version of the questionnaire we used to survey
public service organizations).
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 39
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Table 2. Sample of the research
Number of
organizations
Number of
organizations
Total
401
By counties
By the type of provided services
Telsiai
18
Employment
24
Panevezys
30
Law enforcement
7
Siauliai
37
Real estate management
12
Taurage
13
Public transport and
communication
26
Vilnius
120
Tourism
33
Utena
18
Legal
5
Klaipėda
46
Other
14
Alytus
19
Culture and sports
45
Kaunas
81
Business
27
Marijampole
19
Health care
31
By the size of the
organization (number
of employees)
Utilities and
environmental
management
33
Micro (less than 10)
61
Education
55
Small (10 - 49)
124
Social
39
Medium (50 - 250)
168
Fire protection and rescue
29
Large (more than 250)
48
Taxes administration
21
By the gender of the organization's
head manager
The head manager's management
experience in the organization
Male
208
Up to 1 year
21
Female
193
1-2
41
By the age of the organization's head
manager
3-5
73
Bachelor
(undergraduate)
78
6-10
68
Master (postgraduate)
294
11-20
125
Doctoral
25
More than 21 year
73
By the age of the organization's head
manager
Below 39
44
40-49
118
50-59
137
60 and above
102
Source: Authors’ representation
Experts were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale, the importance of
each criterion in developing resilience in PSOs. Because the number of criteria in
40 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
each stage (Planning, Adaptation, and Enhanced Learning) differed, the weight of
each element was adjusted according to the relative importance of a stage based on
the expert interview. In addition, a study of experts' opinions, comments, and
suggestions was conducted using content analysis based on the statistical and
qualitative evaluation of the insights of various experts. We aimed to isolate specific
experts' statements and study multiple opinions about the criteria and stages of OR
and their relationships with each other.
Criteria for selection of experts
First, the experts had to represent various areas of PS, such as: PS administration;
education and science; health protection; social security and work; economy; culture;
utilities. Second, the experts had to represent all regions in Lithuania. Third, the main
criteria for experts were work experience, competence, professional knowledge of
PS, and positions held in public service organizations. Fourth, experts were
distinguished by their professional activities in different fields.
For example, a PS manager is engaged in scientific research activities, often
with a scientific degree, or researchers who come to administrative work in the PS.
Based on these criteria, 30 experts were selected and interviewed.
- 26.7 percent- eight representatives of municipalities, including one director of
the Association of Municipalities of the Republic of Lithuania, a former Minister
of Education, and five heads of municipal administration (administrative
directors and deputies, deputy mayors, mayors’ advisors, heads of municipal
departments related to public service provision and quality assurance).
- 26.7 percent- eight managers and specialists of public service organizations in
the fields of health protection, culture, and utilities;
- 20.0 percent- six members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, including
two former ministers and two former municipal council members;
- 13.3 percent- four representatives of the field of education and science
(university professors, heads of faculties, scientific research laboratories).
- 10.0 percent- heads of departments of three ministries of the Republic of
Lithuania (Ministry of Economics and Innovation, Ministry of Social Security
and Labor, and Ministry of Agriculture);
- 3.3 percent- 1 Director of the Documents Department of the Chancellery of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 41
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
2.3. Data analysis methods
Following the studies by Whitman et al. (2013) and Gonçalves et al. (2019), the
reliability of the collected data was tested using Cronbach's alpha. To identify the
current status of OR in public service organizations and their differences in the
sample that might be driven by the organization's location, type of services provided,
or organization's head manager's characteristics, following Sengul et al. (2018)
descriptive statistics, and ANOVA were used. For ANOVA, F or Welch, together
with Brown-Forsythe tests, depending on the results of Levene's test of variance
homogeneity, were applied.
3. Results and discussion
After collecting the data, we tested the internal consistency of the criteria on a scale
(see Table 3).
Table 3. Cronbach's alpha
Group of criteria,
i.e. stages
Number of
criteria
Cronbach's alpha
Organizations'
questionnaire
Experts'
questionnaire
Planning
6
0.853
0.852
Adaptation
9
0.854
0.811
Enhanced Learning
10
0.884
0.851
All
25
0.940
0.927
Source: Authors’ representation
The calculated Cronbach's alphas (>0.7) show the internal consistency
between the criteria on a scale in all stages of OR, considering organizations' surveys
and expert interviews.
3.1. Expert assessment
Interviews with experts revealed that none of the three stages of OR had the same
importance in developing the overall resilience level. The t-test showed that experts
indicated adaptation to be significantly more important than Enhanced Learning. The
95% C.I. of planning and adaptation averages overlap. The same was true for
Planning and Enhanced Learning. However, the 95% C.I. of adaptation and
enhanced learning averages did not overlap (see Figure 1).
Moreover, the assigned weights to OR stages range from 31.4% to 34.8% (see
Table 4), and specific nuances can be noted. According to experts, when faced with
adversity, adaptation to new conditions has the greatest importance (weight 34.79
percent), preparation for such unexpected situations accounts for 33.83 percent, and
42 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
5.11
5.69
5.48
5.74
6.17
6.23
learning from crises experiences 31.37 percent in developing OR. Based on these
findings, we partially reject H1, which states that based on expert assessment of the
stages of OR, that is, Planning, Adaptation, and Enhanced Learning, are equally
important in developing OR.
Figure 1. The development level of OR stages according to experts
Source: Authors’ representation
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of experts' interviews and organizations' survey
OR structure
Estimated
criterion's weight
according to experts
Descriptive statistics of public service
organizations survey
Average
95% C.I.
Std. dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
Stage and its
weight
according to
experts
Criterion's
abbreviation
Planning
(33.83%)
P_1_SA
5.74%
6.02
(5.92; 6.12)
1.03
-1.46
3.39
P_2_GL
6.26%
6.20
(6.12; 6.28)
0.77
-0.95
1.79
P_3_PR
5.46%
5.91
(5.81; 6.01)
1.04
-1.19
2.00
P_4_EP
5.36%
5.16
(5.00; 5.31)
1.59
-0.82
-0.02
P_5_BR
5.39%
5.66
(5.54; 5.77)
1.21
-1.30
2.25
P_6_PM
5.63%
5.96
(5.86; 6.06)
0.99
-1.18
1.81
Adaptation
(34.79%)
A_1_RS
3.87%
6.05
(5.96; 6.14)
0.92
-1.21
2.26
A_2_SO
4.01%
6.20
(6.11; 6.29)
0.89
-1.73
5.15
A_3_OP
4.08%
6.23
(6.15; 6.30)
0.80
-1.08
2.16
A_4_SC
3.87%
6.22
(6.14; 6.31)
0.87
-1.57
4.54
A_5_QD
3.94%
6.02
(5.93; 6.11)
0.88
-1.00
2.38
A_6_OB
3.82%
5.90
(5.81; 5.99)
0.92
-0.96
1.36
A_7_IK
3.78%
5.76
(5.67; 5.85)
0.90
-0.72
1.65
A_8_TW
3.64%
6.04
(5.96; 6.13)
0.85
-0.58
-0.08
A_9_SR
3.78%
4.76
(4.63; 4.90)
1.40
-0.48
-0.34
Enhanced
Learning
(31.37%)
EL_1_LL
3.30%
6.14
(6.06; 6.23)
0.83
-0.82
0.46
EL_2_TE
3.34%
6.16
(6.07; 6.25)
0.90
-1.33
2.81
EL_3_KM
2.82%
5.36
(5.22; 5.50)
1.44
-0.99
0.61
EL_4_FP
3.03%
5.96
(5.85; 6.06)
1.04
-1.30
2.04
EL_5_LM
3.05%
5.98
(5.88; 6.08)
1.01
-1.37
2.98
Enhanced Learning 5.40
Planning 5.83
Adaptation 5.99
95% C.I.
Mean
Development level of OR stages according to experts
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 43
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
EL_6_AC
3.19%
6.24
(6.17; 6.32)
0.73
-0.69
0.06
EL_7_RQ
3.40%
6.10
(6.02; 6.18)
0.82
-0.90
0.98
EL_8_II
3.21%
6.20
(6.11; 6.28)
0.87
-1.02
0.71
EL_9_GE
2.72%
6.42
(6.33; 6.51)
0.91
-1.93
4.51
EL_10_EA
3.32%
6.21
(6.12; 6.29)
0.85
-1.12
1.39
Source: Authors’ representation
The obtained results contradict existing knowledge, emphasizing the necessity
of evenly developing all three stages and the danger of prioritizing one over the other
(Darkow, 2019). Darkow (2019) highlighted the urgency of exploring all stages in
conjunction when assessing PSO resilience. The results also revealed that experts
highlighted the need for preparedness for adversity based on their practical
experience. If all efforts to cope with the setback are made just when a crisis occurs,
it reduces the possibility of successfully overcoming the crisis. Thus, specific
abilities should be developed at this stage and crisis management plans should be
prepared and practiced (Aragao & Fontana, 2022).
Although with a slight deviation, the experts rated the enhanced learning stage
as the least important (31.37%). This result is alarming, as learning is perceived as a
root activity that enables organizations to restructure themselves when faced with
diversity and acquire new knowledge to recognize potential adversities. Orth and
Schuldis (2021) highlighted the positive effect of organizational learning capability
on OR. The results reveal that learning enhances the organizational ability to prepare
and is strongly related to the organizational ability to adapt during and after a
disruptive event. Thus, even though the first hypothesis is partialy rejected, the
experts' long-term experience in the PS could have influenced the course of the
results, which the experts relied upon in assessing not what is essential in resilience
development but how it is.
In addition, more significant gaps were observed when examining the
distribution of different criteria in each stage. At the preparation for change stage,
the largest weight and thus importance was attributed to the role of the leader (6.26
percent) and management behaviours according to the available pre-prepared
strategy to manage crises (5.74%). The results support Fischer et al. (2022) study, in
which the role of leadership in developing OR is identified as a predecessor in
developing employee resilience. Moreover, Plimmer et al. (2022) provided
evidence-based findings stating that employee resilience develops naturally with
supportive leadership, contributing to the organization's overall resilience.
The results revealed that the criterion that the organization constantly tests for
emergency management plans is the least important (5.36%). This is also
concerning, as creating plans without active practice will not deliver any benefit
(Aragao & Fontana, 2022). When faced with a crisis, organizations will not have the
necessary knowledge and practice to apply them and therefore face difficulties.
44 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Nevertheless, deviations from other criteria vary relatively slightly, and all other
criteria' roles are roughly evenly distributed.
When evaluating the criteria for adapting to turbulent events, the
responsibility of the organization's employees for the work performed comes first -
4.08%, and the search for new opportunities to continue the organization's activities
in a difficult situation is also essential; 4.01 percent is also interesting that the last
place in the experts' evaluations is the sense of teamwork (3.64%), reflecting a more
individualistic approach. However, Brykman and King (2021) and Vigoda-Gadot et
al. (2022) argue that team resilience capacity is positively related to team learning,
which in turn creates conditions for the knowledge spillover effect.
The analysis of expert evaluations of the criterion of the Enhanced Learning
stage revealed that the most significant importance is given to the organization's
ability to quickly react to opportunities that arise during adversity (3.40 percent); use
crises as an opportunity to improve its operations (3.32 percent); organizational
ability to empower talented employees (3.34 percent). In the context of uncertainty,
the role of talent, non-standard thinking, and original thinking are particularly
important because such employees can foresight opportunities that arise in times of
crisis and suggest innovative solutions to cope with the setback. The latter is closely
related to the importance of sensemaking, which was highlighted by Termeer and
van den Brink (2013) and Boin and van Eeten (2013). Sensemaking can be cultivated
by learning from experience (Mithani et al., 2021), and learning from change and
mistakes (Bartuseviciene et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022). Possessing proper
organizational knowledge management systems and maintaining gender equality is
the least important criterion, respectively - 2.82 and 2.75%, respectively. However,
Orth and Schuldis (2021) and Arsawan et al. (2022) stressed the importance of
formal learning, as informal learning does not capture tacit knowledge. As for gender
equality, the experts are fully justified in giving their opinion that the essential matter
is professionalism and the competence of the employee, and not gender.
In addition, an open question was included to examine the opinions of experts
on the suitability of the statements to explore OR in the PS. After thorough content
analysis, three directions of expert opinions were identified. The first group, 33.3
percent of experts, stated that the statements allowed comprehensive reflection of
groups of resilience stages. The second group, 53.0 percent, argued that the
statements were suitable; however, they could be supplemented with some aspects
that do not change the essence but expand it. Importance is given to the organization's
strategy for uncertain situations, the creation and mobilization of reserves, and the
extra financial resources necessary for implementing that strategy. In the third group,
13.3 percent of experts argued that statements are acceptable but need to sufficiently
reflect the country's actual situation and fully correspond to ways of strengthening
the resilience typical of Lithuanian PSOs. Experts in this group argue that the
importance of some criteria is questionable, and challenges of great importance to
Lithuania are not highlighted. In their opinion, resilience development struggles
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 45
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
5.75
5.91
5.85
5.98
6.02
6.15
because of strict regulatory rules, lack of original and innovative solutions, limited
financial resources, professionalism, heavy workloads, and poor preparation for
unforeseen situations and crises. However, these statements are not typical of
Lithuanian PSO. Lack of political autonomy and hierarchical constraints (Kirsop-
Taylor, 2022; Profiroiu & Nastacă, 2021), measurable benefits, effective transfer
(Franken et al., 2021), and motivation and restrictions of fiscal responsibility
(Aragao & Fontana, 2022) have also been identified as the main constraints in
developing resilience in PSO in various regions of the world.
3.2 Estimation of OR in PSOs
We estimated resilience in the PS using a weighting system (Table 4) and data
collected from 401 PSOs in Lithuania. Keeping in mind that the theoretical minimum
is 1 and the maximum is 7, the estimated average score of 5.94 revealed a relatively
high overall level of OR (see Table 5Table 5). The results revealed that enhanced
learning has the highest overall score, which significantly differs from the other two
stages of OR - Planning, and Adaptation, that is, the confidence intervals do not
overlap (see Figure 1).
Figure 2. The development level of OR stages in organizations
Source: o
Source: Authors’ representation
Hence, we partially reject H2, which states that, based on the assessment of
OR by organizations' managers, the stages of OR, that is, Planning, Adaptation, and
Enhanced Learning, are developed equally. A significantly higher score for
Enhanced Learning could be explained by the fact that PSO employees are involved
in various competency-enhancing initiatives through various projects; thus, new
knowledge is incorporated into their daily routines.
Table 5. Estimates of resilience level in Lithuanian PSO
Average
95% C.I.
Std. dev.
N
Overall level
5.94
(5.88; 6.00)
0.65
401
Planning
5.83
(5.75; 5.91)
0.85
401
Adaptation
5.92
(5.85; 5.98)
0.64
401
Enhanced Learning
6.08
(6.02; 6.15)
0.67
401
Overall OR level by counties
Telsiai
5.27
(4.99; 5.56)
0.62
18
Planning 5.83
Adaptation 5.92
Enhanced Learning 6.08
95% C.I.
Mean
Development level of OR stages in organizations
46 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Panevezys
5.69
(5.43; 5.96)
0.74
30
Siauliai
5.79
(5.61; 5.96)
0.54
37
Taurage
5.83
(5.42; 6.24)
0.75
13
Vilnius
5.88
(5.76; 6.00)
0.66
120
Utena
6.00
(5.68; 6.32)
0.69
18
Klaipėda
6.07
(5.91; 6.22)
0.54
46
Alytus
6.12
(5.84; 6.41)
0.64
19
Kaunas
6.12
(5.99; 6.26)
0.63
81
Marijampole
6.39
(6.30; 6.47)
0.19
19
Overall OR level by the size of the organization (number of employees)
Micro (less than 10)
5.76
(5.57; 5.96)
0.76
61
Small (10-49)
5.85
(5.74; 5.97)
0.66
124
Medium (50-250)
6.06
(5.96; 6.15)
0.61
168
Large (more than 250)
5.98
(5.82; 6.15)
0.58
48
Overall OR level by the gender of the organization's head manager
Male
5.93
(5.84; 6.03)
0.69
208
Female
5.94
(5.86; 6.03)
0.62
193
Overall OR level by the age of the organization's head manager
Below 39
5.85
(5.66; 6.04)
0.64
44
40-49
5.84
(5.74; 5.94)
0.57
118
50-59
6.01
(5.90; 6.12)
0.64
137
60 and above
5.99
(5.85; 6.14)
0.76
102
Overall OR level by the educational degree of the organization's head manager
Bachelor (undergraduate)
5.82
(5.67; 5.96)
0.66
78
Master (postgraduate)
5.95
(5.87; 6.02)
0.66
294
Doctoral
6.17
(5.96; 6.38)
0.53
25
Overall OR level by the head manager's management experience in the
organization
Up to 1 year
5.97
(5.75; 6.18)
0.50
21
1-2
5.73
(5.52; 5.94)
0.68
41
3-5
5.91
(5.76; 6.05)
0.64
73
6-10
5.87
(5.73; 6.02)
0.61
68
11-20
6.03
(5.91; 6.15)
0.68
125
More than 21 years
5.99
(5.84; 6.15)
0.67
73
Overall OR level by the type of provided services
Employment
5.58
(5.22; 5.93)
0.88
24
Law enforcement
5.69
(5.39; 5.98)
0.40
7
Real estate management
5.70
(5.35; 6.05)
0.62
12
Public transport and communication
5.73
(5.48; 5.98)
0.66
26
Tourism
5.79
(5.58; 6.00)
0.62
33
Legal
5.79
(5.17; 6.41)
0.70
5
Other
5.81
(5.42; 6.21)
0.75
14
Culture and sports
5.82
(5.62; 6.02)
0.67
45
Business
5.86
(5.63; 6.09)
0.61
27
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 47
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Health care
5.88
(5.62; 6.13)
0.71
31
Utilities and environmental management
5.97
(5.74; 6.20)
0.68
33
Education
6.14
(6.01; 6.28)
0.51
55
Social
6.18
(6.02; 6.35)
0.52
39
Fire protection and rescue
6.21
(6.00; 6.41)
0.57
29
Taxes administration
6.24
(5.99; 6.48)
0.57
21
Source: Authors’ representation
The findings also highlighted significant spatial differences in the OR. In three
out of ten counties, the average resilience score was significantly lower than the
country average, and two performed substantially better. These differences cannot be
attributed to regional economic factors. The lowest resilience scores were in counties
with an average per capita GDP, and the highest scores were in one of the most
developed (Kaunas) and lagging (Marijampole) counties. Similarly, we found
significant regional differences considering the stages of OR (see ANOVA).
The results also revealed that the level of resilience was higher in large PSOs.
Even though small organizations can adapt quickly to changes, they cannot dedicate
enough resources to OR development. This conclusion summarizes Brykman and
King's (2021) study, which argues that organizations with more resources are less
vulnerable to resource loss during adversity. Thus, large organizations are in a better
situation to gain the resources they need in a time of adversity because of opportunities
to redistribute. Nevertheless, despite limited resources, PSOs must seek ways to ensure
the availability of reserve resources in times of adversity. It is worth noting that,
although the results show that even the development of the overall planning stage
significantly differs by the size of the organization, discrepancies in Adaptation and
Enhanced Learning are not very different (see ANOVA).
The results of the study showed that gender, age, or management experience
of the head manager are not significantly related to the development of OR level or
its stages; however, the level of education is. OR is significantly lower when head
managers hold undergraduate diplomas and significantly higher when head
managers have doctoral degrees compared to the country average. ANOVA shows
that head managers’ education is significantly related to the stage of Enhanced
Learning, while the stages of planning and adaptation are not.
In addition, we estimated the average score of the OR grouping organizations
according to the types of services they provided. We found that four groups out of
15 demonstrated significantly better resilience levels, and one was significantly
lower than the country average. We found strong evidence that all stages of
developing resilience significantly differ in organizations according to the type of
service provided. Still, we do not see any patterns in which the type of services
provided would systematically lead to a higher or lower resilience level. Thus, we
acknowledge that some organizations (by the type of services provided) have
significantly higher or lower OR levels.
48 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
3.3. OR development: expert vs organization managers
Figure 3 reports the grouping of the OR criteria in four sections. Section I presents
criteria developed by organizations more than it should be according to the
importance of these criteria by experts. The results highlight that Enhanced Learning
criteria dominate in this section. Section III includes criteria developed by
organizations less than they should be according to the importance of these criteria
by experts. Hence, the results reveal this section's domination of the Adaptation
criteria.
Figure 3. The development level of resilience: managers vs. experts
Source: Authors’ representation
To conclude, it is necessary to note that during the survey, the experts were
asked to indicate the importance of the criterion for the development of OR;
however, organizations (i.e., their head managers) estimated their current OR level.
This result highlights the divergence and indicates that we still need to further the
knowledge about OR development in PSOs.
P_1_SA P_2_GL
P_3_PR
P_4_EP
P_5_BR
P_6_PM
A_1_RS
A_2_SO
A_3_OP
A_4_SC
A_5_QD
A_6_OB
A_7_IK
A_8_TW
A_9_SR
EL_1_LL
EL_2_TE
EL_3_KM
EL_4_FP
EL_5_LM
EL_6_AC
EL_7_RQ
EL_8_II
EL_9_GE EL_10_EA
4,5
5
5,5
6
6,5
4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5
The estimated average of the criterion in the sample of
organizations
Importance of the criterion (average points given) according to the experts
I
II
III
IV
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 49
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Figure 4. Relationship between refusal rate and OR level
Source: Authors’ representation
Telsiai
Panevezys
Siauliai
Taurage Vilnius
Utena Klaipėda
Alytus
Kaunas
Marijampole
5
5,2
5,4
5,6
5,8
6
6,2
6,4
6,6
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
OR level
Refusal rate, %
Employment
Law enforcement
Real estate management
Public transport and
communication
Tourism Legal
Other
Culture and sports
Business Health care
Utilities and environmental
management
Education
Social
Fire protection and
rescue Taxes administration
5
5,2
5,4
5,6
5,8
6
6,2
6,4
020 40 60 80 100
OR level
Refusal rate, %
50 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
3.4. Limitations
Because organizations could voluntarily accept or refuse an invitation to participate
in the survey, there is a chance that those who agreed had a relatively higher
resilience level than those who refused. We checked this by comparing the
percentage of organizations (by type of provided services and by region) that refused
to participate after the research team contacted them with the estimated level of
resilience (see Figure 4). Thus, a higher level of resilience can be expected in groups
of organizations where the rate of refusal is higher.
The cross-regional correlation between refusal rate and resilience level is 0.13
(p=0.720). According to the type of service provided, this correlation is negative
(-0.49), but still insignificant at the 5 percent level (p=0.065). Another limitation is the
expert assessment. The assumption that their long-term experience working in the
Lithuanian PS might have caused subjectivity cannot be ruled out. Instead of assessing
the importance of every stage in the development of OR, it cannot be ruled out that
they focused on the actual assessment of OR. Such a viewpoint would assess the
development of resilience retrospectively, which was not the purpose of this study.
Conclusions
This study derives several critical points. First, scientific literature studies revealed
that PSO's resilience could be explored as the organization's ability to cope with and
adapt to emerging challenges and to use the acquired experience to strengthen the
organization. Moreover, we suggest exploring the resilience of PSOs in three stages:
i.e. Planning, Adaptation, and Enhanced Learning. Second, we explored the
developmental importance of the three stages. To achieve this goal, we adopted
expert research, where we asked experts to provide their opinions about the
importance of developing each OR stage. Second, we assessed the actual resilience
of PSOs in Lithuania by surveying 401 PSOs.
Expert research has revealed that all three stages of OR have different
importance in developing the overall OR in PSOs. Experts have indicated that the
adaptation stage is significantly more critical in developing OR than Enhanced
Learning; meanwhile, planning becomes equally essential in developing OR as both
Enhanced Learning and Adaptation.
The survey results showing the level of resilience in Lithuanian PS revealed
different trends. PS managers' evaluations of the level of resilience in PSOs.
Enhanced Learning had the highest overall score, which significantly differed from
the other two stages of OR, that is, Planning and Adaptation. Hence, based on the
results, organizations develop this stage more than the other two stages. In addition,
the results show that, although adaptation has a slightly higher score than planning,
the development of these two stages is given equal attention in PSO. The fact that
the experts' view of how to develop the resilience of organizations in the PS differs
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 51
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
from the organization's survey results reveals how much knowledge on developing
resilience in the PS needs to be studied further. Experts argue that the primary focus
should be on adaptation, while managers have assessed that the Enhanced Learning
stage is the most developed in Lithuanian PS. Moreover, both shreds of evidence
slightly differ from Darkow's (2019) theoretical provisions, which state that the
stages of resilience in PSOs must be developed equally without creating conditions
for prioritizing one over the other. These findings imply that the OR phenomenon is
still emerging, as empirical evidence does not fully support theoretical provisions.
Furthermore, these findings serve as empirical evidence for public sector
managers that, contrary to theoretical expectations, organizations tend to prioritize
specific stages based on their strategies. Prioritizing planning and adaptation enables
organizations to recover more swiftly with fewer resources, but it does not
necessarily enhance their ability to learn from adversity. Conversely, if organizations
solely focus on learning from crises without adequate preparation and adaptation
strategies, they expose themselves to chaotic and reactive learning risks. Hence, this
study emphasizes the significance of public sector organizations in developing all
three stages of OR in a balanced manner to harness the advantages of maintaining
resilience in times of uncertainty.
Acknowledgments: This research has received funding from European Social Fund
project 13.1.1-LMT-K-718-05-0032 under a grant agreement with the Research
Council of Lithuania (LMTLT). The paper was presented at the International
Conference Economies of the Balkan and Eastern European Countries ΕΒΕΕC 2023
in May 12-14, 2023, in Chios, Greece.
References
Androniceanu, A., Georgescu, I., & Sabie, O. M. (2022). Comparative research on
government effectiveness and political stability in Europe. Administratie si
management public, 1(39), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2022.39-04
Angelis, S., & Polychronidou, P. (2022). Leadership and motivation in the greek
pharmaceutical industry. Intellectual Economics, 1(16), 81-101.
https://ojs.mruni.eu/ojs/intellectual-economics/article/view/7146
Aragao, J. P. S., & Fontana, M. E. (2022). Outsourcing Strategies in Public Services under
Budgetary Constraints: Analysing Perceptions of Public Managers, Public
organization review, 22(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00517-5
Arsawan, I., Koval, V., Suhartanto, D., Harbar, Z., & Maslennikov, Y. (2022). Employee-
driven innovation capability: the role of knowledge, creativity, and time sufficiency.
Intellectual Economics, 16(2), 138-165. https://doi.org/10.13165/IE-22-16-2-08
Barbera, C., Jones, M., Korac, S., Saliterer, I., & Steccolini, I. (2017). Governmental
financial resilience under austerity in Austria, England and Italy: how do local
52 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
governments cope with financial shocks? Public Administration, 95(3), 670-697.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12350
Bartuseviciene, I., Butkus, M., & Schiuma, G. (2022). Modelling Organizational Resilience
Structure: Insights to Assess Resilience Integrating Bounce-Back and Bounce-
Forward. European Journal of Innovation Management, (ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2022-0180
Boin, A., & Van Eeten, M. J. (2013). The Resilient Organization. Public Management
Review, 15(3), 429-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.769856
Bright, L. (2021). Does Person Organization Fit and Person-Job Fit Mediate the
Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Work Stress among U.S.
Federal Employees? Administrative sciences, 11(2), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020037
Brown, C., Seville, E., & Vargo, J. (2017). Measuring the Organizational Resilience of
Critical Infrastructure Providers: A New Zealand Case Study. International Journal
of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 18(C), 37-49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2017.05.002
Brykman, K. M., & King, D. D. (2021). A Resource Model of Team Resilience Capacity
and Learning. Group & Organization Management, 46(4), 737-772.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211018008
Chen, X. (2022). Nonprofit Resilience in a Natural Disaster Context: An Exploratory
Qualitative Case Study Based on Hurricane Florence. Human service organizations:
Management, Leadership & Governance, 46(2), 145-161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2021.1946455
Darkow, P. M. (2019). Beyond ‘Bouncing Back’: Towards an Integral, Capability-Based
Understanding of Organizational Resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 27(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12246
Duit, A. (2016). Resilience Thinking: Lessons for Public Administration. Public
Administration, 94(2), 364-380. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12182
Elston, T., & Bel, G. (2022). Does Inter-Municipal Collaboration Improve Public Service
Resilience? Evidence from Local Authorities in England. Public management
review, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2012377
Fehrer, J. A., & Bove, L. L. (2022). Viewpoint: Shaping Resilient Service Ecosystems in
Times of Crises - a Trans-Tasman Perspective. Journal of Services Marketing,
36(4), 489-498. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2021-0216
Fischer, C., Siegel, J., Proeller, I., & Drathschmidt, N. (2022). Resilience through
Digitalisation: How Individual and Organisational Resources Affect Public
Employees Working from Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Public
management review, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2037014
Franken, E., Plimmer, G., Malinen, S. K., Bryson, J., & Berman, E. M. (2021). Building
People up: Growth-Oriented Leadership in the Public Sector. Australian journal of
public administration, 80(4), 661-689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12520
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 53
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Gonçalves, L., Navarro, J. B., & Sala, R. (2019). Spanish Validation of the Benchmark
Resilience Tool (Short-Form Version) to Evaluate Organisational Resilience. Safety
Science, 111(January), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.09.015
Hartley, J. (2018). Ten Propositions about Public Leadership. International journal of
public leadership, 14(4), 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-09-2018-0048
Herrero, M., & Kraemer, S. (2022). Beyond Survival Mode: Organizational Resilience
Capabilities in Nonprofit Arts and Culture Fundraising during the Covid-19
Pandemic. Nonprofit management & leadership, 33(2), 279-295.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21524
Hillmann, J., & Guenther, E. (2021). Organizational Resilience: A Valuable Construct for
Management Research? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(1), 7-44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239
Hoegl, M., & Hartmann, S. (2021). Bouncing Back, If Not beyond: Challenges for
Research on Resilience. Asian Business & Management, 20(4), 456-464.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-020-00133-z
Ishak, A. W., & Williams, E. A. (2018). A Dynamic Model of Organizational Resilience:
Adaptive and Anchored Approaches. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 23(2), 180-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2017-0037
Kim, P., Cho, W., & Yang, I. (2022). Workplace Disruption in the Public Sector and HRM
Practices to Enhance Employee Resilience. Review of Public Personnel
Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221095399
Kirsop-Taylor, N. (2022). Leaping Forwards, Bouncing Forwards, or Just Bouncing Back:
Resilience in Environmental Public Agencies Through after the Austerity
Decade. Environmental Management, 70(5), 697-709.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01701-z
Lee, A. V., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare
Organizations’ Resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 14(1), 29-41.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000075
Leite, H., & Hodgkinson, I. R. (2021). Examining Resilience Across a Service Ecosystem
under Crisis. Public Management Review, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2012375
Van Loon, N. M. (2016). Is Public Service Motivation Related to Overall and Dimensional
Work-Unit Performance as Indicated by Supervisors? International Public
Management Journal, 19(1), 78-110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1064839
Lund, C. S., & Andersen, L. B. (2023). Professional development leadership in turbulent
times. PublicAdministration, 101(1), 124-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12854
Lynn, J., Nolan, C., & Waring, P. (2021). Strategy Resilience: Getting Wise About
Philanthropic Strategy in a Post-Pandemic World. The Foundation Review, 13(2), 8.
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1564
54 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Manea, G. -M. (2022). The EU as a norm-maker in resilience and aid delivery: From aid
effectiveness to effective cooperation for sustainable development. Eastern Journal
of European Studies, 13(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2022-0209
Mardaras, E., Artola, G., Duarte, S., & Otegi-Olaso, J. R. (2021). Antifragile Philosophy in
R&D Projects: Applying Q Methodology and the Possibility of Open Innovation.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4), 209.
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040209
Mazzucato, M, & Kattel, R. (2020). COVID-19 and Public-Sector Capacity. Oxford Review
of Economic Policy, 36(S1), S256-S269. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa031
McManus, S., Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., & Vargo, J. (2007). Resilience Management: A
Framework for Assessing and Improving the Resilience of Organisations. University
of Canterbury. https://resorgs.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/resilience-
management-research-report-resorgs-07-01.pdf
Mithani, M. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2021). Does Exposure to a
Traumatic Event Make Organizations Resilient? Long Range Planning, 54(3),
102031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102031
Näswall, K., Malinen, S., Kuntz, J., & Hodliffe, M. (2019). Employee Resilience:
Development and Validation of a Measure. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
34(5), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2018-0102
Orth, D., & Schuldis, P. M. (2021). Organizational Learning and Unlearning Capabilities
for Resilience during COVID-19. The Learning Organization, 28(6), 509-522.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-07-2020-0130
Pashapour, S., Bozorgi-Amiri, A., Azadeh, A., Ghaderi, S. F., & Keramati, A. (2019).
Performance Optimization of Organizations Considering Economic Resilience
Factors under Uncertainty: A Case Study of a Petrochemical Plant. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 231, 1526-1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.171
Pettersen, K. A., & Schulman, P. R. (2019). Drift, Adaptation, Resilience and Reliability:
Toward an Empirical Clarification. Safety Science, 117, 460-468.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.004
Phillips, W., Roehrich, J. K., & Kapletia, D. (2021). Responding to Information
Asymmetry in Crisis Situations: Innovation in the Time of the COVID-19
Pandemic. Public Management Review, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1960737
Plimmer, G., Berman, E. M., Malinen, S., Franken, E., Naswall, K., Kuntz, J., & Löfgren,
K. (2022). Resilience in public sector managers. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 42(2), 338-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20985105
Profiroiu, A. G., & Nastacă, C.-C. (2021). What strengthens resilience in public
administration institutions? Eastern Journal of European Studies, 12, 100-125.
https://doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2021-SI05
Rajala, T., & Jalonen, H. (2022). Stress tests for public service resilience: introducing the
possible-worlds thinking. Public Management Review, 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2048686
Organizational resilience assessment in Lithuania's public sector | 55
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Reichenbach, R., Lynn, J., & Heeg, J. (2021). Learning Amid Disruption: Bouncing
Forward Into a Changed World. The Foundation Review, 13(3), 7.
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1577
Rochet, C., Keramidas, O., & Bout, L. (2008). Crisis as Change Strategy in Public
Organizations. International review of administrative sciences, 74(1), 65-77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307085734
Ruiz-Martin, C., López-Paredes, A., & Wainer, G. (2018). What we know and do not know
about organizational resilience. International Journal of Production Management
and Engineering, 6(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2018.7898
Sengul, H., Marşan, D., & Gün, T. (2018). Survey assessment of organizational resiliency
potential of a group of Seveso organizations in Turkey. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability, 233(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X18802655
Shaw, K. (2012). The Rise of the Resilient Local Authority? Local government studies
38(3), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2011.642869
Sobaih, A. E. E., Elshaer, I., Hasanein, A. M., & Abdelaziz, A. S. (2021). Responses to
COVID-19: The Role of Performance in the Relationship between Small Hospitality
Enterprises’ Resilience and Sustainable Tourism Development. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102824.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102824
Termeer, C. J., & van den Brink, M. A. (2013). Organizational conditions for dealing with
the unknown unknown: Illustrated by how a Dutch water management authority is
preparing for climate change. Public Management Review, 15(1), 43-62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.664014
Ticlau, Hintea, C., & Trofin, C. (2021). Resilient leadership. Qualitative study on factors
influencing organizational resilience and adaptive response to adversity.
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 17, 127-43.
https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.SI2021.7
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Cohen, N., & Mizrahi, S. (2022). Battling COVID-19: Public Personnel
Management, Trust, and Social Resilience During a Global Crisis. Review of Public
Personnel Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221111479
Whitman, R., Kachali, Z., Roger, H., Vargo, D., & Seville, E. (2013). Short-form version of
the Benchmark Resilience Tool (BRT-53). Measuring Business Excellence, 17(3), 3-
14. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2012-0030
Wójcik-Mazur, A., Łukomska-Szarek, J., Martynko, A., & Piontek, K. (2022). Impact of
the covid-19 pandemic on the quality of customer service in the local government
units. Administratie si management public. 1(39), 133-153.
https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2022.39-08
56 | Mindaugas Butkus et al.
Eastern Journal of European Studies | 14(1) 2023 | 2068-651X (print) | 2068-6633 (on-line) | CC BY | ejes.uaic.ro
Appendix 1. ANOVA
Factor
Levene's test of
homogeneity of
variances
F-test of equality
of means
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Welch
Brown-Forsythe
Test
statistics
P-
value
Test
statistics
P-value
Test
statistics
P-value
Test
statistics
P-value
County
Overall
2.052
0.033
5.579
<0.001
12.092
<0.001
5.682
<0.001
Planning
1.884
0.053
4.726
<0.001
6.446
<0.001
4.542
<0.001
Adaptation
1.501
0.145
4.635
<0.001
7.242
<0.001
4.766
<0.001
Enhanced
Learning
2.094
0.029
4.933
<0.001
9.091
<0.001
5.169
<0.001
Size of the
organization
Overall
1.661
0.175
4.179
0.006
3.870
0.011
4.009
0.008
Planning
3.412
0.018
6.546
<0.001
5.890
0.001
6.246
<0.001
Adaptation
0.821
0.483
2.128
0.096
2.191
0.092
1.996
0.115
Enhanced
Learning
0.969
0.407
2.660
0.048
2.446
0.066
2.575
0.054
Gender of the
organization'
s head
manager
Overall
1.271
0.260
0.023
0.880
0.023
0.879
0.023
0.879
Planning
1.902
0.169
0.593
0.442
0.598
0.440
0.598
0.440
Adaptation
1.169
0.280
0.013
0.909
0.013
0.909
0.013
0.909
Enhanced
Learning
1.259
0.262
2.000
0.158
2.015
0.157
2.015
0.157
Age of the
organization'
s head
manager
Overall
3.149
0.025
1.928
0.124
2.123
0.099
1.906
0.129
Planning
3.211
0.023
3.120
0.026
3.472
0.018
2.952
0.033
Adaptation
2.380
0.069
1.702
0.166
1.808
0.148
1.756
0.156
Enhanced
Learning
0.757
0.519
0.555
0.645
0.563
0.640
0.551
0.648
Educational
degree of the
organization'
s head
manager
Overall
0.740
0.478
3.050
0.048
3.778
0.028
3.563
0.032
Planning
1.199
0.302
2.666
0.071
4.228
0.019
3.485
0.034
Adaptation
0.269
0.765
2.337
0.098
2.147
0.126
2.345
0.101
Enhanced
Learning
0.815
0.443
3.058
0.048
4.250
0.019
3.726
0.027
Head
manager's
management
experience in
the
organization
Overall
0.529
0.755
1.587
0.163
1.464
0.206
1.702
0.134
Planning
0.775
0.568
1.163
0.327
1.382
0.236
1.321
0.255
Adaptation
0.254
0.938
1.308
0.260
1.199
0.314
1.309
0.261
Enhanced
Learning
0.420
0.835
2.225
0.051
2.006
0.083
2.249
0.050
Type of
provided
services
Overall
1.397
0.151
2.852
<0.001
2.840
0.002
2.780
0.001
Planning
1.817
0.034
2.604
0.001
2.500
0.005
2.739
0.001
Adaptation
0.802
0.667
2.204
0.007
2.095
0.020
2.137
0.011
Enhanced
Learning
2.273
0.005
3.528
<0.001
3.836
<0.001
3.184
<0.001