Here, we propose that employee resilience, a suite of adaptive, learning, and networking behaviors (Kuntz

et al., 2016), captures the adaptive capabilities that contribute too organizational resilience. Support-
seeking, collaboration, crisis management, and continual performance improvement exemplify resilient
behaviors

The second tenet holds that employees are able to develop and display adaptive capabilities if they are
provided with appropriate organizational resources (e.g. Bardoel et al., 2014; Pipe et al., 2012). However, a
considerable body of evidence indicates that whether and how individuals capitalise on workplace
resources is contingent on individual views of resource availability and appeal (e.g. Wallace et al., 2016;
Zhou et al., 2017), suggesting that the provision of resources alone may be insufficient to stimulate resilient
behaviours, and that perspectives on resources and their utilisation are influenced by psychological
processes (van der Vegt et al. , 2015). This has prompted calls for the investigation of the intrapersonal
factors underpinning resource utilisation in organizational settings, including regulatory processes, and the
interaction of individual-level variables and contextual characteristics that account for resilience (Bardoel
et al., 2014; Linnenluecke, 2015; Southwick et al., 2014; van der Vegt et al. , 2015; Yost, 2016). Hence, the
present study investigates whether and how psychological processes that shape perspectives on resources,
namely regulatory focus, influence the relationship between workplace resources and resilient behaviours.

In this era of globalization and digitization, the service sectors have evolved a lot in providing the state-of-
the-art services to the customers and going beyond the expectations of the people using the services.
Because of customer’s high expectations, the service employees are supposed to maintain very high class of
services being offered at all the time (Gupta, 2017).
Employee efficiency is the key to organization success (Van Vuuren and Elving, 2008). In the service sector,
customer satisfaction is always the top priority of the management. Therefore, these two factors, employee
efficiency and customer satisfaction, should be aligned for the organizational effectiveness (Sharma and Dhar,
2015; Teeratansirikool et al., 2013). Researchers have evidenced that employees performing extra-role are more
prone to achieve customer satisfaction (Powell, 2011). ERP is the behavior of an employee that is at par of the
normal job functions and responsibilities (Organ, 1997; Powell, 2011). Employee’s ERP enhances organizational
efficiency and employee’s innovation and creativity. Burney et al. (2009) evidenced that engaged employee’s
exhibit ERP and are more positive towards organization policies and practice

Resilient employees not only sustain through challenges, they also exhibit confidence in their abilities which ultimately lead to enhanced levels of
work engagement (Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang, & Mei, 2016; Hodliffe, 2014). Therefore, employee resilience could be seen as an imperative
strategic resource for organizations in fostering work engagement.
However, despite the burgeoning literature reflecting its positive outcomes, HRM practitioners still lacked to view resilience as an ability that can
be developed proactively among employees (Robertson, Cooper, Sarkar, & Curran, 2015; Wang, Cooke, & Huang, 2014). Therefore, it is
important to understand the mechanism of how learning organization fuel employee resilience and work engagement.
A learning organization is ‘a place where employees excel at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge’ (Garvin, Edmondson, &
Gino,2008). Watkins and Marsick (1993) further expanded this definition and stated that ‘learning organization is one that learns continuously and
transforms itself’.

Over the past decade, work engagement has prompted substantial interest among both scholars and practitioners (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-
Vergel, 2014; Ghadi, Fernando, & Caputi, 2013; Quinones et al., 2013). Researchers have reported significant implications of work engagement
on employees’ attitude and discretionary workplace behaviors, employees’ performance and commitment (Kimberley,
Bakker, Demerouti, & Heuvel, 2015; Quinones et al., 2013; Yalabik, Rossenberg, Kinnie, & Swart, 2015). The construct of work engagement was
initially theorized by Kahn (1990) and further operationalized by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1997). The present paper is guided by Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzalez-roma,and Bakker (2002) conceptualization of work engagement who defined it as ‘a
positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind’.
Gap:

 Finally, not only do individuals utilize resources differently, based on resource availability and individual
differences, but they also value resources differently. A resource (personal, social, physical) is only
considered as such to the extent that individuals value it, and view it as enabling goal attainment
(Halbesleben et al. , 2014). Future studies could consider the valence individuals ascribe to the resources
available, and examine how regulatory profiles influence the relationship between resource valence and
workplace outcomes (Joana Kuntz, Philippa Connell, Katharina Näswall, (2017) "Workplace resources and
employee resilience: the role of regulatory profiles", Career Development International, Vol. 22 Issue: 4,
pp.419-435,)
 Finally, the future research should be conducted in diverse geographic considering factors included in the
present study. In this study, ERP is measured as outcome through EE. However, several other factors such
as commitment, satisfaction, perceived organization support and psychological contract can be explored
as mediating variable in future research. (Neha Gupta, Vandna Sharma, (2018) "Relationship between
leader member exchange (LMX), high-involvement HRP and employee resilience on extra-role
performance: Mediating role of employee engagement", Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 10 Issue:
2, pp.126-150, https:// doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-09-2017-0147)
 Given the exploratory nature of this study, further research on this topic is warranted. First, we studied the
impact of HRPs on employee resilience in a single company by utilizing a qualitative research design. Future
studies could build on this research and conduct both a qualitative and large scale survey research of
managers and employees in order to have a comprehensive view of the role played by HRPs on
employee resilience. (Khan, Z., Rao-Nicholson, R., Akhtar, P., Tarba, S. Y., Ahammad, M. F., & Vorley, T. (2017). The role of HR
practices in developing employee resilience: a case study from the Pakistani telecommunications sector. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 1–28. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1316759
  Given this precept, the present study investigates the role of learning organization in fostering employee
resilience. Although there is a scarce research on any direct links, earlier research provides evidence for
supporting this assertion (Cooke et al., 2016; Cooper, Liu, & Tarba, 2014; Hodliffe, 2014; Tian et al., 2015).
For e.g. Hodliffe (2014) reported the role of learning culture, empowering leadership, employee
participation and corporate communication in fostering employee resilience

 Cooke et al. (2016) highlighted the role of employee resilience in fostering work engagement in banking
industry in China. Therefore, grounding on the previous research and the preceding theories, we propose
that employee resilience contribute to work engagement, leading to the following hypothesis:

Contribution/significance:
This study will have important implications for research on positive psychology, positive organisational
behaviours and HRM (e.g. Avey et al., 2009; Luthans, 2002a; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Xing & Liu, 2015, 2016;
Xing et al., 2016; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Previous studies investigating individual resilience in the context of
organisational psychology noted that psychological capital plays an important role in reducing stress and burnout
(Avey et al., 2009; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Luthans et al., 2007). Studies indicated the need to investigate other
organisational enablers, such as HRPs, that support employee resilience (e.g. Bardoel et al., 2014; Cooper et al.,
2014; Lengnick Hallet al., 2011; Xing & Liu, 2016).
In this paper, we add to the extant positive psychology and HR literature in three important ways: First, we
demonstrate the utility of HR functions in contributing towards the development of employee resilience.
Specifically, this study highlights how the implementation of bundles of consistent and mutually reinforcing HR
practices promotes the development of employee resilience
Chapter # 03
Theoretical framework

IV Mediating V. Moderating V. DV

Regulatory Focus
 Promotion
Learning focus
Organization  Prevention
Focus

Extra Role
Employee Performance
High Involvement
Human Resource Resilience
Practices (HI HRP)
Work
Engagement

Perceived
Organizational
Support
Research Questions:

1. How does Learning Organization (LO) affect Employee Resilience (ER)?

2. How does Hi HRP affect Employee Resilience (ER)?
3. How does Perceived Organizational Support (POS) affect Employee Resilience (ER)?
4. Does Employee Resilience (ER) mediate the relationship between Learning Organization & Extra Role
Performance (ERP)?
5. Does Employee Resilience (ER) mediate the relationship between Work Engagement (WE)?
6. Does Employee Resilience (ER) mediate the relationship between HI HRP & Extra Role Performance
(ERP)?
7. Does Employee Resilience (ER) mediate the relationship between HI HRP & between Work Engagement
(WE)?
8. Does Employee Resilience (ER) mediate the relationship between Perceived Organizational Support
(POS) & Extra Role Performance (ERP)?
9. Does Employee Resilience (ER) mediate the relationship between Perceived Organizational Support
(POS) & Work Engagement (WE)?
10.Does Regulatory Focus moderate the relationship between Employee Resilience and Extra-Role
Performance (ERP)?
11.Does Regulatory Focus moderate the relationship between Employee Resilience and Work Engagement
(WE)
Hypotheses:

H1: There is a relationship between Learning Organization (LO) and Employee Resilience (ER).
H2: There is a relationship between HI HRP and Employee Resilience (ER).
H3: There is a relationship between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Employee Resilience (ER).

H4a: Employee Resilience (ER) mediates the relationship between Learning Organization (LO) & Extra Role
Performance (ERP).
H4b: Employee Resilience (ER) mediates the relationship between Learning Organization (LO) & Work
Engagement (WE).

H5a: Employee Resilience (ER) mediates the relationship between HI HRP & Extra Role Performance (ERP).
H5b: Employee Resilience (ER) mediates the relationship between HI HRP & Work Engagement (WE).

H6a: Employee Resilience (ER) mediates the relationship between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) &
Extra Role Performance (ERP).
H6b: Employee Resilience (ER) mediates the relationship between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) &
Work Engagement (WE)?
H7: Regulatory Focus moderates the relationship between Employee Resilience (ER) & Extra Role Performance
(ERP).
H8: Regulatory Focus moderates the relationship between Employee Resilience (ER) &Work Engagement.
 Organizational
Cronyism

Regulatory Focus
Perceived
Organizational
Politics
Workplace Outcomes
High Involvement Job Performance
Employee Resilience
Human Resource
 Good Resilience Organizational
Practices (HI HRP)
 Bad Resilience Commitment

Emp. Engagement
Psychological
Capital Job Satisfaction

Supportive Culture
Perceived
Organizational
Support
 Egoistic Climate

Employee Learning Supportive Culture

Orientation

Regulatory Focus
Perceived
Organizational
Politics
Workplace Outcomes
High Involvement Job Performance
Human Resource Employee Resilience
Organizational
Practices (HI HRP)  Good Resilience
Commitment
 Bad Resilience
Emp. Engagement
Psychological
Capital Job Satisfaction

Environmental
Perceived Uncertainty
Organizational
Support

Organizational
Cronyism