1 Introduction

There is evidence that worldwide disasters such as the COVID-19 global pandemic pose a “severe threat to the continuity of an organisation’s operations” (Bhamra et al., 2011, 5375). Consequently, there is a focus on the resilience of organisations (Nikookar and Yanadori, 2021), specifically the ability of organisations to maintain their viability during such a crisis and to “emerge…..strengthened and more resourceful” (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007, 3418). Organisations primarily endeavour to respond to such adversity in a way which ensures their survival with Limnios et al. (2014) referring to organisational resilience as a positive state that organisations strive to achieve. However, while resilience encompasses coping with or ‘bouncing back from’ adversity (Gibson & Tarrant, 2010), many claim that resilience goes beyond this to involve organisations developing a better understanding of the uncertainty in their external environment and how to deal with it (Gibson & Tarrant, 2010, 6), thereby developing the capability to thrive during challenges and achieve advantage (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007).

Amidst increasing anecdotal evidence of the detrimental effect of the COVID-19 crisis on organisations and given the sparse systematic empirical research on organisational resilience and its explanatory factors (Beuren & dos Santos, 2019; Bhamra et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2019), this study aims to contribute to the recent organisational resilience literature examining the antecedents of organisational resilience (Cotta and Salvador, 2020; Nikookar and Yanadori, 2021; Polyviou et al., 2020). Specifically, the study provides an empirical examination of the role of sustainable leadership in influencing the level of organisational resilience during the COVID-19 crisis,Footnote 1 and the mediating role of management control systems (MCSs), specifically Simons’ (1995) levers of control (beliefs, boundary, interactive and diagnostic), on this association.

While previous studies have considered the influence of accounting (Barbera et al., 2020), innovation (Mafabi et al., 2012, 2015), organisational structures (Andersson et al., 2019) and organisational culture (Pal et al., 2014) on organisational resilience, this study aims to contribute to the organisational resilience literature through considering the role of leaders in influencing an organisation’s capacity for resilience (Ho et al., 2014; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). In particular, given claims that the focus of organisations on social and environmental practices contributes to organisational resilience (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Ortiz-De-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2019), the study aims to provide an empirical insight into the role of sustainable leadership, i.e. leadership which aims to “generate economic [financial] value by creating societal value” (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, 5), in influencing organisational resilience. Our focus on the influence of leadership is pertinent as leadership is crucial in assisting organisations in coping with crisis situations (Pal et al., 2014). Further, there is evidence of the important role of leadership in influencing innovation and creativity (Denti & Hemlin, 2012; Klein & Speckbacher, 2020; Vaccaro et al., 2012) and employees’ collective effort towards accomplishing organisational goals (Yukl, 2002). Our focus on the effect of sustainable leadership is both novel and interesting given its emphasis on long term outcomes and achieving all three triple bottom line (TBL) goals [social, ecological (environmental) and economic (financial) sustainability] (Gleißner et al., 2022) represents a major shift in the mindset of how businesses operate (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011). In particular, the sustainable leadership approach represents an alternative leadership approach to the traditional shareholder-first philosophy or strategyFootnote 2 commonly adopted by organisations, which primarily focuses on short term financial outcomes.

In addition, acknowledging the important role of the levers of control in managing the processes underpinning the achievement of organisational objectives (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013), we examine the mediating role of Simons’ (1995) levers of control in the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. While previous studies have focused on the role of MCSs in implementing sustainable strategies (Gomez-Conde, 2019; Hosoda, 2018; Lueg & Radlach, 2016; Narayanan & Boyce, 2019; Wijethilake et al., 2017) and driving socially responsible decisions (Norris and O’Dwyer, 2004), we provide a new perspective on this relationship by focusing on the association between the sustainable leadership approach and MCSs, i.e. the levers of control, and the subsequent influence of such controls on organisational resilience. Hence, while previous MCS studies have considered the role of Simons’ (1995) levers of control in managing CSR strategies (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013) and activities (Laguir et al., 2019), we provide an empirical insight into the role of the levers of control in facilitating the effectiveness of a sustainable leadership approach, with such effectiveness assessed in respect to organisational resilience.

Our focus on the mediating role of MCSs, specifically Simons’ (1995) levers of control is pertinent given these levers can manage an organisation’s core values, risks to be avoided, critical success factors and strategic uncertainties (Curtis & Sweeney, 2017). Further, many studies allude to the important link between the interpersonal characteristics of leaders and control choices (Abernethy et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2022; Waldman et al., 2001; Yukl, 2005). In particular, it is anticipated that the emphasis of an organisation’s leaders on sustainable leadership will influence the MCS within the organisation, specifically the emphasis placed on Simons’ (1995) four levers of control (belief systems, boundary controls, and the interactive and diagnostic use of controls), with such controls facilitating the development of resilience capabilities (Bracci & Tallaki, 2021) through driving organisational change (Nuhu et al., 2019) and/or reducing uncertainty by providing useful information (Bracci & Tallaki, 2021). Therefore, it is anticipated that the levers of control will in turn influence the ability of organisations to manage operations in response to the increased environmental complexity and challenges (Bisbe and Otley, 2004; Williams et al., 2017), thereby influencing organisational resilience. Accordingly, we examine the mediating role of the levers of control, hypothesising associations between sustainable leadership and the emphasis placed on the four levers of control, and between these levers with organisational resilience.

In summary, the objectives of the study are to:

  1. 1.

    examine the level of organisational resilience in organisations;

  2. 2.

    examine the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience;

  3. 3.

    examine the mediating role of Simons’ (1995) levers of control (beliefs, boundary, interactive and diagnostic) in the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience

The findings of the study contribute to the organisational resilience contingency literature which has tended to be descriptive and conceptual based (Su et al., 2022). Specifically, we find evidence of a direct and positive association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. This finding extends the literature examining the effects of Avery and Begsteiner’s (2011) sustainable leadership practices on organisational outcomes (Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022). In particular, it confirms the theoretical propositions in prior literature which suggest that the focus of organisations on a broader scope of objectives, including social and environmental objectives, can contribute to organisational resilience (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Ortiz-De-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2019). In addition, we found that three of Simons’ (1995) four levers of controls (beliefs, interactive use of controls, diagnostic use of controls) mediate the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. These findings highlight the importance of the MCS (i.e. these three levers of control) as a mechanism through which a sustainable leadership approach influences organisational resilience.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review including a discussion of the conceptualisation of sustainable leadership and organisational resilience and the development of the relevant hypotheses in respect to the associations between sustainable leadership, Simons’ (1995) levers of control, and organisational resilience. Section 3 then outlines the method used and describes the measurement of the constructs. Section 4 presents the results and Sect. 5 provides an overview of the findings and their implications and discusses the limitations and suggestions for future research.

2 Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Organisational resilience

The resilience concept originated in the psychology and ecology literature and has drawn increasing attention in the management literature as ‘organisational resilience’ (Kantur & Iseri-Say, 2012, 2015). Organisational resilience has been defined in various ways with Duchek (2020) classifying these definitions into three categories based on whether they describe organisational resilience as an outcome, a process or a capability. In respect to the outcome based definitions, Horne and Orr (1997) describe organisational resilience in terms of how well organisations perform during a crisis or bounce back from interruptions, while Gittel et al. (2006) define organisational resilience as an organisation’s ability to rebound from unexpected situations. These outcome based definitions have been criticised in the literature, with Somers (2009, 13) arguing that “resilience is more than mere survival; it involves identifying potential risks and taking proactive steps to ensure that an organisation thrives in the face of adversity”.

More recently, studies have conceptualised organisational resilience as a dynamic process focusing on the innovativeness, adaptiveness, transformability and proactiveness of organisations (Duchek, 2020; Hillmann & Guenther, 2021; Morales et al., 2019; Powley & Cameron, 2020). However, conceptualising resilience as a process is difficult as such processes are complex and not easily understood, while the measurement of such processes is problematic (Hillmann & Guenther, 2021).

The third category of definition refers to organisational resilience as an ability, capability or capacity (Hillmann & Guenther, 2021). For example, Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2009) define organisational resilience as the ability to recognise opportunities in the changing circumstances and develop new capabilities, while Salwan and Gada (2018, 450) refer to it as “the capability of a firm to alleviate the adverse effects of disruptions and bouncing back from a crisis situation as quickly as possible”. Kantur and Iseri-Say (2015) develop a three-dimensional construct of organisational resilience which focuses on an organisation’s capacity to cope with unexpected situations (i.e. robustness), ability to recognise and utilise opportunities and take the rapid actions required in an unstable environment (i.e. agility) and ability to ensure employees have cohesion in dealing with unexpected situations (i.e. integrity). This study adopts Kantur and Iseri-Say’s (2015) definition as it addresses Somers’ (2009) assertion that organisational resilience should consider how proactive organisations are in identifying risks and preparing for potential crisis, in addition to how well they respond following unforeseen events. Further, it is in line with Richtnér and Löfsten (2014) who maintain that organisational resilience should consider both ‘ability’ and ‘capacity’.

While there has been an increased focus on literature relating to organisational resilience there is sparse empirical research on the relationship between sustainable leadership and resilience (Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022). Accordingly, given the COVID-19 global pandemic provides a real ‘crisis’ environment which has highlighted the importance of organisational resilience, this study contributes to the literature by empirically examining the role of sustainable leadership in influencing organisational resilience and the mediating role of MCSs (levers of control) in this association.

2.2 Sustainable leadership

In line with the notion of financialisation, whereby organisations increasingly focus on financial institutions and markets (Epstein, 2005; Lapavitsas, 2011), it is generally expected that corporate decision-making is largely influenced by economic (financial) returns (Narayanan et al., 2021) and therefore, leaders will emphasise a shareholder-first philosophy and focus on achieving short term financial outcomes. This is supported by critical theorists who maintain that organisations place greater emphasis on short term economic (financial) returns as opposed to sustainability concerns (Narayanan et al., 2021; Spence, 2007). Hence, the shareholder first philosophy focuses on the short term with an emphasis on shareholders as opposed to other stakeholders and their importance for the overall success of an organisation.

However, there is a shift away from the traditional shareholder-first leadership philosophy to recognise that the organisation is an “interdependent part of a community that consists of multiple stakeholders whose interests are integral to business success” (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, 5). In particular, organisations are increasingly expected to respond to sustainability challenges (Narayanan et al., 2021) and behave in “ethical and environmentally and socially responsible ways” (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, 5). Accordingly, organisations are increasingly moving towards employing a ‘sustainable leadership’ philosophy which represents an overall management philosophy or strategy that aims to “keep people, profits, and the planet in balance over the life of the firm” (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, 6).

In referring to ‘sustainability’ Gunther et al. (2016) refer to the ‘time’ dimension, which focuses on the need to balance the needs of the present and future generations, and the scope dimension, which focuses on achieving triple bottom line outcomes (i.e. social, environmental, and economic (financial) objectives). Hence, in line with this, ‘sustainable leadership’ represents an alternative leadership approach which has a longer term focus and a broader set of objectives compared to the shareholder-first philosophy which focuses on short term financial outcomes.

Sustainable leadership encompasses the leadership style of the different level of managers (i.e., leaders) throughout the organisation. Hence, as discussed further in Sect. 3.1.1, sustainable leadership is operationalised in respect to the extent to which all of the leaders in the respondent’s organisations apply leadership practices characteristic of a sustainable leadership philosophy as opposed to a shareholder-first leadership philosophy. Avery and Bergsteiner (2011, p.11) advocate the importance of sustainability leadership stating that “sustainable practices are more likely to enhance business performance than the shareholder-first approach”. Similarly, Suriyankietkaew et al. (2022) emphasise the importance of sustainable leadership, while recent empirical studies highlight the positive impact of sustainable leadership on the long-term success of organisations and achieving sustainability performance (Iqbal et al., 2020; Suriyankietkaew, 2019, 2022) and financial performance outcomes (Suriyankietkaew, 2019; Suriyankietkaew & Avery, 2016; Wiengarten et al., 2017).

2.2.1 The association between sustainable leadership and resilience

As organisational resilience relates to the ability of organisations to respond to adversity it is inherently reliant on the ability of organisations to cope with and/or respond to the uncertainty and ambiguity in their operating environment (Kantur & Iseri-Say, 2012). Everly, Jr. (2011) here refers to the importance of leadership in facilitating organisational resilience. In particular, through focusing on environmental, social and community concerns, in addition to economic (financial) objectives, sustainable leadership facilitates organisational resilience through providing organisations with an improved understanding of and closer relationship with their stakeholders, thereby enabling them to better respond to crisis situations (Pal et al., 2014). Specifically, as sustainable leadership assists in establishing good relationships and interacting with both internal and external stakeholders (e.g. staff, customers, suppliers, locals, governments etc.) (Maak and Pless, 2006; Suriyankietkaew & Avery, 2016), it enables organisations to better recognise opportunities and threats and develop new capabilities as environmental circumstances change (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2009) i.e. be more resilient. Similarly, Avery and Bergsteiner (2011) claim that the focus of the sustainability leadership philosophy on stakeholders and their social, environmental and ethical concerns creates an interdependency which assists organisations in being more resilient. Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) also emphasise the importance of establishing good relationships with various stakeholders in order to “obtain a rich array of resources from inside and beyond the boundaries of the firm” (p.251), thereby assisting organisations in responding to environmental complexities and crisis situations. In addition, Williams et al. (2017) maintain that the relationship an organisation has with their stakeholders can influence organisational resilience through affecting how an organisation’s stakeholders themselves perceive a crisis, respond to the crisis and importantly, their willingness to assist the organisation in dealing with the crisis.

A sustainable leadership philosophy is inherently aligned with the deployment of sustainable business practices, i.e. the use of financial, social and environmental practices, with Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal (2016) suggesting that sustainable business practices improve organisational resilience through assisting organisations in embracing opportunities and responding to threats. They argue that such practices facilitate the identification of maladaptive tendencies and enable them to deal with extraordinary events to minimise their effect on performance, and to reduce performance volatility. Further, social and environmental practices can help organisations to better deal with disruptions and increase their chance of survival (Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016).

Therefore, we hypothesise that sustainable leadership will be positively associated with organisational resilience.

H1: Sustainable leadership will be positively associated with organisational resilience.

2.3 The mediating role of MCSs

In examining the influence of sustainable leadership on organisational resilience, we acknowledge the important role of controls, specifically the MCS within organisations. Specifically, the literature refers to the strong link between leadership styles and control choice decisions (Abernethy et al., 2010; Waldman et al., 2001; Yukl, 2005) with Abernethy et al., (2010, 3) stating that “the interpersonal characteristics of a leader form control choice decisions that a leader makes”. Similarly, other authors argue that leader personal characteristics influence the way in which controls are used (Su & Baird, 2017; Waldman et al., 2001; Yukl, 2005) with Su and Baird (2017) reporting that an initiating leadership style was associated with the interactive use of controls, while both the initiating and the consideration leadership styles were associated with the diagnostic use of controls. At the same time, the use of controls to manage human resources is expected to influence the ability of organisations to respond to crisis situations, i.e. organisational resilience, through influencing employees’ behaviour (Bracci & Tallaki, 2021). Accordingly, we argue that the relationship between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience will be mediated by the MCS, with sustainable leadership influencing the MCS, and the MCS in turn influencing organisational resilience.

In examining the MCS, we consider Simons’ (1995) four levers of control: belief systems, boundary controls, and the interactive and diagnostic use of controls. Belief systems relate to the communication of the values, purpose, and goals throughout the organisation. Boundary controls involve defining “the acceptable domain of strategic activity for organisational participants” (Simons, 1995, 39) and include codes of conduct and clearly informing respondents of the risks to be avoided and off-limit behaviour. The interactive and diagnostic use of controls are concerned with the manner in which controls are used. The interactive use of controls focuses on discussions with a view to enhancing organisational learning. Specifically, interactive controls facilitate face-to-face dialogue and creativity (Bisbe and Malagueño, 2015; Marginson et al., 2010), and “information sharing amongst top management and subordinates through maintaining regular communication” (Baird et al., 2018, 259). The diagnostic use of controls is more focused on monitoring and tracking performance (Simons, 2000). Specifically, controls are used to track progress, monitor and review performance, and take corrective actions to ensure operations align with strategic goals.

2.3.1 The association between sustainable leadership and Simons’ (1995) levers of control

Belief systems Sustainable leaders will advocate the joint pursuit of economic (financial), environmental and social performance, utilising belief systems to convey their organisation’s vision and purpose (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013) and in particular, their societal, environmental and ethical concerns. For example, Arjaliès and Mundy (2013) highlight the important role of belief systems in initiating, communicating and uniting employees to focus on CSR values within an organisation. Similarly, organisations undertaking sustainable leadership would need to communicate their environmental vision and goals and articulate plans for implementing environmental initiatives. Organisations would also need to stress the importance of ethical behaviour to employees, and place greater emphasis on communicating with and addressing the concerns of various stakeholders, including employees themselves who may be provided with additional training and/or mentoring. Consequently, it is expected that organisations engaging in sustainable leadership will use belief systems to a greater extent.

H2a: Sustainable leadership will be positively associated with the use of belief systems.

Boundary controls Similarly, as boundary controls are used to restrict and prevent undesirable employee behaviour and to minimise organisational risk, it is envisaged that such controls will be used to ensure that employees comply with their organisation’s sustainable leadership philosophy. For example, Laguir et al., (2019, 547) state that organisations “mobilize boundary systems to implement employee CSR activities through ethics guides, codes of conduct, guidelines on agreed upon social activities, and diversity guidelines”. Similarly, Bhuiyan et al. (2022, p.4) refer to the role of boundary controls in “establishing clear expectations regarding the specific CSR activities that employees need to engage with and the manner in which such activities are to be provided”. Accordingly, it is expected that sustainable leadership will lead to a higher extent of use of boundary controls, with such controls, including the use of prescribed codes, principles and procedures (Widener, 2007), used to set the sustainability guidelines and expectations for employees.

H2b: Sustainable leadership will be positively associated with the use of boundary controls.

Interactive use of controls In respect to the use of controls, the focus of sustainable leadership on a broader range of objectives, including social and environmental performance, and the concern of sustainable leaders with addressing the demands of various stakeholders, and not just shareholders, necessitates greater internal interactions and communication i.e. higher interactive use of controls. In particular, as the interactive use of controls facilitates communication in relation to the external environment (Bhuiyan et al., 2022), organisations are more likely to use controls in an interactive way in order to better understand stakeholder’s concerns and the pressure to behave in a sustainable manner. Furthermore, as the “interactive use of controls facilitate creative dialogues and information sharing” (Baird et al., 2018, 259), sustainable leaders are more likely to use controls in an interactive way in order to promulgate the merits of sustainability, discuss and resolve stakeholder’s concerns and develop and implement sustainability plans and actions. For example, there is evidence that the interactive use of controls enhances CSR innovation (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013; Laguir et al., 2019) and promotes CSR use (Hosoda, 2018) through encouraging communication between different levels of the organisation in regard to CSR practices (Bhuiyan, 2022). Further, the interactive use of controls is positively associated with organisational learning and hence, the discovery of unique approaches to address stakeholder needs (Bhuiyan et al., 2022; Simons, 2000). Therefore, we expect that there will be a positive association between sustainability leadership and the interactive use of controls.

H2c: Sustainable leadership will be positively associated with the interactive use of controls.

Diagnostic use of controls The diagnostic use of controls will enable organisations to monitor progress and performance in respect to the achievement of sustainability goals (Witcher & Chau, 2010). Such monitoring and the evaluation of performance is desirable in respect to providing clear performance expectations, facilitating the empowerment of and motivating employees (Baird et al., 2019) to achieve sustainability goals, and limiting individuals’ undesirable behaviour (Su & Baird, 2017). A sustainable leadership approach requires more extensive monitoring and evaluation of performance, as in addition to economic (financial) goals leaders pursue social and environmental goals and aim to satisfy the demands of various stakeholders. For example, Battaglia et al. (2016) refer to the requirements to produce a sustainability report and a sustainability annual plan to ensure that an organisation’s activities are in line with their overall sustainability strategy. Similarly, Bhuiyan et al. (2022) refer to the role of the diagnostic use of controls in implementing and monitoring the performance of CSR activities. Consequently, it is expected that a sustainable leadership approach will be positively associated with the extent to which the diagnostic approach to using controls is applied.

H2d: Sustainable leadership will be positively associated with the diagnostic use of controls.

2.3.2 The association between Simons’ (1995) levers of control and organisational resilience

Bracci and Tallaki (2021) provide evidence of the role of MCSs in developing resilience capacities stating that MCSs can enhance organisations’ resilience by directing employees’ behaviour towards organisational goals. Specifically, through influencing the culture, enhancing communication and facilitating improved decision making, MCSs can enhance organisational resilience (Bracci & Tallaki, 2021). Consequently, this study focuses on the influence of the MCS, specifically each of the four levers of control, on an organisation’s ability to survive, adapt and emerge (i.e. their organisational resilience) during the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Belief systems There is widespread evidence that through communicating core values, belief systems enable organisations to better understand customer needs (Shurafa & Mohamed, 2016) and can facilitate the innovativeness and creativity of employees (Simons, 2000). Seville et al. (2015) here refers to the importance of establishing a learning culture to facilitate organisational resilience with Koronis and Ponis (2018) referring to the role of beliefs in establishing such core values. Further, belief systems enhance an organisation’s understanding of and development of solutions to the opportunities and threats in their external environment (Baird et al., 2019; Mundy, 2010) and inter-functional coordination (Slater & Narver, 2000), thereby supporting an organisation’s ability to respond, adapt and benefit from crisis situations i.e. their organisational resilience. Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2019) here refer to the importance of open communication and collaboration while Pal et al. (2014) refer to the importance of conveying a clear vision and effective interactions to nurture resilience. Similarly, Parsons (2010) refers to the importance of shared beliefs in achieving resilience and Morais-Storz et al. (2018) refer to the importance of top management’s beliefs in supporting resilience. Accordingly, we expect that belief systems will facilitate organisational resilience and hypothesise a positive association between belief systems and organisational resilience.

H3a: The use of belief systems will be positively associated with organisational resilience.

Boundary controls Boundary controls are used to provide guidelines in respect to unacceptable behaviour (de Haan-Hoek et al., 2020). Such controls may constrain organisational resilience through limiting the ability of employees to search for and resolve problems and restricting their opportunity-seeking and learning behaviour (Mundy, 2010). Specifically, Widener (2007) maintains that boundary controls including codes of conduct, prescribed rules, and specified procedures, restrict employee behaviour, thereby limiting the ability of organisations to respond and adapt to external uncertainty. Further, as boundary controls limit organisation’s ability to engage in continuous improvement initiatives (Mundy, 2010) and limit their ability to respond to external threats and opportunities, such controls may have a negative effect on organisational resilience.

However, as boundary controls define strategic activities (Simons, 1995), this may assist organisations in coping with the crisis situations affecting their product markets. Specifically, boundary controls provide organisational participants with clear lines of responsibility (Bhuiyan et al., 2022), and a clear “structure by placing limits on inappropriate behaviours, setting clear targets and expectations, and monitoring feedback” (Speklé et al., 2017, 74). Hence, through providing clear guidelines in respect to the core competencies and off-limit behaviour, organisations may be in a better position to adapt to and respond to the circumstances affecting their defined product domain (i.e. organisational resilience). This is consistent with Annarelli and Nonino (2016, 3) who suggest that organisational resilience can be developed through “preparedness and preventive measures to minimize threats probability and to reduce any impact that may occur”.

Therefore, in line with these arguments we hypothesise that boundary controls will be positively associated with organisational resilience. Specifically, boundary controls, which define an organisation’s operating domain and set boundaries on inappropriate behaviour (Speklé et al., 2017), are expected to facilitate organisational resilience through providing clear guidelines in respect to the focus of organisations and acceptable processes and procedures.

H3b: The use of boundary controls will be positively associated with organisational resilience.

Interactive use of controls The interactive use of controls enhances organisational resilience through emphasising face-to-face communication, discussion and debate (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Su & Baird, 2017) in respect to the environment uncertainties influencing an organisation. Specifically, “interactive control systems enable top-level managers to focus on strategic uncertainties to learn about threats and opportunities as competitive conditions change and to respond proactively” (Simons, 1995, p.81). Accordingly, the interactive use of controls encourages organisational learning and innovation which can lead to enhanced organisational performance (Beuren & dos Santos, 2019; Henri, 2006; Su & Baird, 2017). Similarly, interactive control systems facilitate communication in relation to the external environment, thereby enabling a greater understanding of a firm’s threats and opportunities (Bhuiyan et al. (2022). Hence, organisations will be better informed to respond to competitors’ strategies and actions and consequently, be more resilient. Therefore, we expect that there will be a positive association between the interactive use of controls and organisational resilience.

H3c: The interactive use of controls will be positively associated with organisational resilience.

Diagnostic use of controls The diagnostic use of controls involves the use of controls to monitor and evaluate performance for the purpose of ensuring that operations align with the organisation’s strategic goals (Simons, 2000). Through focusing on the achievement of desired outcomes, irrespective of the means used to achieve such outcomes, the diagnostic use of controls empowers employees with a high level of autonomy in respect to decision-making rights, thereby enabling them to react immediately to unexpected events (Su et al., 2022). Similarly, top management do not waste time constantly monitoring employees’ behaviour, with the time saved able to be deployed addressing external threats and identifying opportunities (Su et al., 2017) i.e. enhancing organisational resilience.

In addition, the diagnostic use of controls is expected to enhance organisational resilience through identifying gaps in performance and facilitating innovation. First, the diagnostic use of controls enables the identification of gaps in performance through monitoring and comparing actual results with performance expectations, thereby promoting the initiation of corrective action (Sakka et al., 2013) to facilitate organisational resilience. Secondly, through maintaining control and stability in respect to performance, the diagnostic use of controls enables organisations to be more creative, i.e. to take advantage of opportunities through innovation, thereby enhancing their organisational resilience. For example, Widener (2007) reported a positive association between the diagnostic use of controls with an organisation’s orientation to learn, while Baird et al. (2019) found that the use of such controls was positively associated with management innovation.

Therefore, it is expected that there will be a positive association between the diagnostic use of controls and organisational resilience.

H3d: The diagnostic use of controls will be positively associated with organisational resilience.

2.3.3 The mediating role of Simons’ (1995) levers of control on the association between sustainability leadership and organisational resilience

In line with the previously formulated hypotheses which maintain the association between sustainable leadership and Simons’ (1995) levers of control, and the subsequent association between these levers of control and organisational resilience, it is expected that the levers of control will mediate the association between sustainability leadership and organisational resilience. Specifically, we maintain that a sustainable leadership approach warrants additional focus on the levers of control which in turn exhibit a positive influence on organisational resilience. Through examining this mediating role, we contribute to the sparse empirical research examining the interrelationship between leadership and MCSs (Su & Baird, 2017), through examining the unique association between sustainable leadership and the levers of control, and providing an initial empirical insight into the subsequent influence of these levers of control on organisational resilience. It is expected that the four levers will positively mediate the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience i.e. sustainable leadership will lead to a greater emphasis on each of the levers of control, which will in turn lead to enhanced organisational resilience.

H4: The four levers of control will positively mediate the association between sustainability leadership and organisational resilience.

The theoretical model is summarised below in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overall model. H4 states that “the four levers of control will positively mediate the association between sustainability leadership and organisational resilience”

Full size image

3 Method

Data was collected using a survey questionnaire distributed by Qualtrics, a renowned company involved in the administration of surveys. The questionnaire was distributed to Australian middle level managers (e.g. general managers, branch managers, and department managers)Footnote 3 who were chosen as it was determined that they would possess the knowledge of the information required (i.e. leadership, controls, organisational resilience) and be less likely to be biased in the assessment of such information than senior management. In addition, given that large organisations are more likely to have formal controls in place, only participants working in organisations with more than 100 employees were deemed eligible to participate in the survey. A total of 1295 questionnaires were distributed to potential respondents. Some of these respondents were ineligible to complete the questionnaire either due to the fact that they indicated that they were not a middle level manager or because their organisation had less than 100 employees. Hence, a total of 439 questionnaires were completed, giving a response rate of 33.8%. However, the responses of 29 respondents were removed from the data set following speeder and attention checks,Footnote 4 thereby leaving a final dataset of 410Footnote 5 complete questionnaires (31.7% response rate). Table 1 shows that just over half of these respondents were male (55.4%), the majority had an undergraduate or postgraduate university degree (72.9%), had over 6 years work experience in their organisation (58.8%) and came from a variety of industries, the most prevalent of which were ‘other business services’ (21.5%), ‘social services’ (20.2%), ‘distribution services’ (18.5%), ‘financial and insurance services’ (16.1%) and ‘manufacturing’ (11%).

Table 1 Profile of respondents
Full size table

Non-response bias was assessed by comparing the mean scores of each independent and dependent variable between early (i.e. first 205 responses received) and late respondents (i.e. the last 205 responses received). One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with the results revealing that there were no significant differences between the early and late respondents for any of these variables. Therefore, non-response bias was not considered to be an issue in the study (Anderson & Young, 1999).

We followed Jordan and Troth’s (2020) procedures to reduce the problem of common method bias. Specifically, an information coversheet was provided to respondents outlining the purpose of the study. Clear instructions were also provided in respect to each section of the questionnaire to ensure that respondents understood how to answer each question. In addition, the questions were presented in a random order so that respondents could not easily identify the independent and dependent variables of the study. Finally, in order to avoid common scale properties only two anchor labels were used on the 5-point scales.

The success of these strategies was supported by the results of two technical analysis. First, Harman’s (1967) test was conducted with the results showing that the highest total variance explained by a single factor was 18.23%. This was well below the 50% threshold, thereby suggesting that common method bias was not an issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, the Common Latent Factor (CLF) test indicated that the difference in the standardised weights between the model with the CLF and the model without the CLF was less than 0.20 across all of the measurement items of each variable (Eichhorn, 2014), thereby indicating that common method bias was unlikely to be a concern.

3.1 Measurement of variables

3.1.1 Sustainable leadership

As previously indicated, sustainable leadership refers to the focus of leaders on being part of the community and addressing societal and environmental values as opposed to solely focusing on economic (financial) returns and satisfying shareholders. Hence, sustainable leaders are more likely to be concerned with ethical behaviour and meeting environmental, social and community expectations. We developed a fourteen-item measure of sustainable leadership based on Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) foundation leadership practices (see Table 2). While Avery and Bergsteiner (2011) refer to nineteen leadership practices, including 5 additional higher-level practices, we focused on the foundation practices as they represent the basis for the emergence of the higher-level practices, while “performance is not likely to improve unless the foundations are in place” (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, 12). Each of the fourteen items assess key leadership aspects with the anchors for each measure depicting a shareholder-first philosophy, whereby the focus is on shareholders and financial returns, and the sustainable leadership approach, which is concerned with all stakeholder’s concerns, and social, environmental, and ethical concerns. Avery and Bergsteiner (2011, 1, 3) refer to the sustainable leadership approach here as pursuing “economic value by creating societal value” and the shareholder-first philosophy as being “tough, ruthless, asocial, profit at any cost” and.

Table 2 Measure of sustainable leadership (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011)
Full size table

Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which all of the leaders in their organisation focused on each practice (as listed in Table 2), using a series of 5-point Likert scales with the unique anchors (see Table 2) representing either a shareholder first philosophy or a sustainable leadership approach. For example, in respect to the first practice ‘developing people’, respondents were required to indicate the extent to which all of the leaders in their organisation focused on developing people selectively (i.e. representing a shareholder first philosophy) through to developing everyone continuously (i.e. representing a sustainable leadership approach).

Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the 14 items loaded onto one dimension with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (see Appendix) resulting in one of the fourteen items being removed (‘CEO and top team’). The CFA results show that the remaining 13 items all had loadings in excess of 0.6 and the measure exhibited a good model fit (CMIN/DF = 1.157; AGFI = 0.962; CFI = 0.997; GFI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.020). Accordingly, the level of sustainable leadership was measured as the average score of these thirteen items with higher (lower) scores indicating higher (lower) sustainable leadership.

3.1.2 Levers of control

Simons’ (1995) four levers of control were measured using established scales. Specifically, we used Widener’s (2007) four item measures of belief systems and boundary controls and Su et al.’s (2015) five (four) item measures of the interactive (diagnostic) use of controls (see Appendix). The measure of the interactive use of controls focuses on the communication and interaction between operational and senior level managers and hence, is representative of Henri’s (2006) attention-focusing dimension, while the four items used to measure the diagnostic use of controls focus on the premises used to capture diagnostic control in both Henri (2006) and Widener (2007). Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they agreed that each statement represented the practices within their organisation using a 5-point Likert scale with anchors of “1 Strongly disagree” to “5 Strongly agree”. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) resulted in all 17 items loading onto their respective dimension of control with the subsequent CFA results (see Appendix) indicating that the overall model exhibited a good fit (CMIN/DF = 2.554; AGFI = 0.894; CFI = 0.959; GFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.062). Accordingly, the four levers of control were measured as the average score of the items loading on each dimension with higher (lower) scores indicating a higher (lower) focus on each control.

3.1.3 Organisational resilience

Organisational resilience was measured using Kantur and Iseri-Say’s (2015) nine-item construct (see Appendix) with respondents required to indicate the extent to which they agreed that each statement described their organisation on a 5-point Likert scale with anchors of “1 Strongly disagree” to “5 Strongly agree”. All nine items loaded onto the one dimension with the CFA results indicating that the model exhibited a good fit (CMIN/DF = 1.824; AGFI = 0.957; CFI = 0.987; GFI = 0.974; RMSEA = 0.045). Accordingly, organisational resilience was measured as the average score of the nine items with higher (lower) scores indicating greater (less) resilience.

3.1.4 Control variables

The model considered the effect of two control variables, organisational size and environmental uncertainty, on the four levers of control, and organisational resilience. Organisational size was measured based on the number of employees and environmental uncertainty was measured using Su et al.’s (2015) three item construct (see Appendix) using anchors of “1 = not at all” and “5 = To a great extent”. The three items loaded onto one dimension and the factor loadings exceeded the cut-off point of 0.6. While the goodness of fit could not be determined as there were only three items, the Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and AVE scores (see Table 3) support the reliability of the construct and hence, environmental uncertainty was measured as the average score of the three items.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

4 Results

4.1 Measurement model

Table 3 shows that the Cronbach’s (1951) alpha scores, composite reliability and AVE scores all exceed the required thresholds (0.7, 0.7 and 0.5 respectively) (Chin, 1998; Nunnally, 1978; Werts et al., 1974), thereby supporting the reliability and convergent validity of the measures. Further, Table 4 shows that the square root of the AVE scores exceed the correlations with the other constructs and hence, discriminant validity is assured (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 4 Correlations between the hypothesised constructs
Full size table

The mean scores of the hypothesised constructs all lie between 3 and 4 (i.e. a moderate level). Specifically, the mean score for sustainable leadership (3.33) is close to the middle of the range, thereby indicating that on average respondents indicated that the leadership style of all of the leaders in their organisation was a blend of a sustainable leadership philosophy and a shareholder first philosophy. The application of the levers of control were closer to a high level (i.e. 4 on the range) with boundary controls applied to a greater extent (mean = 3.93) followed by beliefs (mean = 3.85), the diagnostic use of controls (mean = 3.81) and the interactive use of controls (mean = 3.78). On average, organisations indicated a relatively high level of organisational resilience (mean = 3.82).

4.2 Structural model

Covariance-based Structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) was used to examine the hypothesised associations between sustainable leadership, the levers of control, and organisational resilience. CB-SEM has several advantages over other techniques, including Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) and hierarchical regression (Cheung & Lau, 2008). First, it provides a better statistical tool to examine variables with multiple indicators. Second, when the relationships among variables are examined, measurement errors in the model can be controlled for, thereby providing unbiased estimates of mediation effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Finally, it depicts a clear model where all relevant paths can be included and examined, without omitting any variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

The initial model consisted of the hypothesised paths and the influence of the two control variables (organisational size and environmental uncertainty) on the controls and organisational resilience. We then employed Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) approach of removing the non-significant paths one at a time (least significant first) to arrive at the final model that is reported in Table 5 and shown in Fig. 2. Table 5 shows that this model exhibited a good fit (CMIN/DF = 0.610; AGFI = 0.987; CFI = 1.000; GFI = 0.998; RMSEA = 0.000).

Table 5 Results of the structural model
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Final structural model. NB ** significant at 1% level, *significant at 5% level

Full size image

Table 5 shows that while the control variable environmental uncertainty was positively significantly associated with all four levers of control [belief systems (β = 0.33; p = 0.00), boundary controls (β = 0.21; p = 0.00), the interactive use of controls (β = 0.28; p = 0.00), and the diagnostic use of control (β = 0.33; p = 0.00)] and organisational resilience (β = 0.08; p = 0.00), organisational size was not significantly associated with any of these variables.

Sustainable leadership was significantly positively associated with organisational resilience (β = 0.06; p = 0.04), thereby providing support for H1. Sustainable leadership was also found to be significantly positively associated with all four levers of control [belief systems (β = 0.34; p = 0.00), boundary controls (β = 0.30; p = 0.00), the interactive use of controls (β = 0.28; p = 0.00), and the diagnostic use of control (β = 0.28; p = 0.00)], thereby providing support for H2a-H2d. Three of these four controls (all except boundary controls) were subsequently found to exhibit a significant positive association with organisational resilience [belief systems (β = 0.24; p = 0.00), the interactive use of controls (β = 0.31; p = 0.00), and the diagnostic use of control (β = 0.14; p = 0.00)]. Hence, there is support for H3a, H3c and H3d while H3b (i.e. the influence of boundary controls on organisational resilience) is not supported.

In order to assess the mediating role of the levers of control on the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience (i.e. H4) we used the bootstrapping (5000 samples) with bias-corrected Confidence Intervals Method (MacKinnon et al., 2002) with the results shown in Table 6. Table 6 shows that the three levers significantly associated with organisational resilience were found to significantly mediate the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. Specifically, belief systems (p = 0.012), the interactive use of controls (p = 0.016) and the diagnostic use of controls (p = 0.012) all mediate the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. While boundary controls do not mediate this relationship, the findings provide strong support for H4.

Table 6 Bootstrapped regression analysis of the mediating role of the levers of control on the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience
Full size table

4.2.1 Robustness checks

Given sustainable leadership is operationalised as the leadership style of all of the organisation’s leaders and hence, represents an overall organisation leadership philosophy, it is possible that sustainable leadership moderates the effect of the use of various control mechanisms on organisational resilience. Accordingly, we examined alternative models which considered the potential of sustainable leadership to moderate the relationship between controls and organisational resilience. First, we conducted regression analysis to examine the effect of the interaction between sustainable leadership with each of the four levers of control on organisational resilience. Table 7 presents the results of this regression analysis with Model 1 showing that three of the four levers of control (all except boundary controls) were significantly associated with organisational resilience. These results are consistent with the SEM findings shown in Table 5.

Table 7 Regression analysis of the association between the levers of control and organisational resilience
Full size table

We then considered the effect of the interactions between sustainable leadership with the four levers of control, with Model 2 showing two significant findings, although sustainable leadership exhibited a negative moderating effect on the association between boundary controls and organisational resilience (β = − 0.79; p = 0.00) suggesting that leaders reinforcement of boundary controls has a detrimental effect on their effect on organisational resilience. Only one of the four interactions (beliefs) exhibited a significant positive effect on organisational resilience (β = 0.86; p = 0.00). This finding suggests that sustainable leadership strengthens the positive association between belief systems and organisational resilience through assisting in communicating the values, purpose and goals of an organisation to employees. In particular, sustainable leadership will support belief systems that convey the societal, environmental and ethical concerns of various stakeholders, thereby enhancing the ability of organisations to respond to the demands of such stakeholders, and hence, be resilient in the face of the increasing complexities and uncertainty in their external environment. However, given the increase in the explanatory power of model 2, compared to model 1, is small (0.55–0.57) the effect of this interaction is minimal.

Further analysis was also undertaken to include the interactions between sustainable leadership and the four levers of control as control variables (influencing organisational resilience) in an adjusted SEM. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 8 and reveal that only one of the four interactions (beliefs) exhibited a significant association with organisational resilience (β = 0.09; p = 0.00). Alarmingly, the model fit of this adjusted SEM model was extremely poor [CMIN/DF = 26.32; AGFI = 0.576; CFI = 0.924; GFI = 0.880; RMSEA = 0.249] and therefore, we maintain the initial model shown in Fig. 1 (with the results presented in Table 5 and Fig. 2), whereby the effect of sustainable leadership on organisational resilience transpires through the levers of control.

Table 8 Results of the adjusted structural model (including interaction between levers of control and sustainability)
Full size table

5 Discussion and conclusion

This study sought to provide an empirical insight into the organisational resilience of organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic, examining both the antecedent role of a sustainable leadership approach and the mediating role of Simons’ (1995) four levers of control (beliefs, boundary, interactive and diagnostic) in the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience.

The findings indicate that the responding organisations achieved a relatively strong level of organisational resilience (mean of 3.82) and we find evidence of a strong positive association between both the sustainable leadership approach and three of the four levers of control (beliefs, interactive and diagnostic) with organisational resilience. As such, our findings assist managers by highlighting the importance of employing a sustainable leadership style and incorporating beliefs, and the interactive and diagnostic use of controls to a greater extent.

In respect to the leadership style, our findings suggest that organisational resilience is facilitated by a sustainable leadership approach, with organisations exhibiting a stronger sustainable leadership philosophy achieving higher organisational resilience. Such findings highlight the importance for manager’s in moving away from the traditional ‘shareholder-first’ leadership approach towards a sustainable leadership approach which considers the needs of all stakeholders and social, environmental and community concerns. Accordingly, to enhance the level of organisational resilience organisations may endeavour to encourage the development of sustainable leadership, both through leadership training programs and/or the recruitment of appropriate ‘sustainable’ leaders. Organisations may also consider incorporating social and environmental objectives into their performance evaluation system to further support and develop sustainable leadership. This may involve identifying and rewarding managers who show greater concern for the welfare of their employees (e.g., employee development, retainment, and promotion), focus more (less) on long-term (short-term) outcomes, consider different stakeholder’s concerns, and ensure their organisation acts ethically and in a manner which protects the environment and is considerate of community values and concerns. Further, given organisational resilience is largely dependent on employees’ ability to recognise opportunities and threats and deal with unexpected situations (Kantur & Iseri-Say, 2015), organisations may commit to investing in the development of employees’ skills and their capabilities in responding to unexpected events and taking the rapid actions required. Organisations may also consider promoting teamwork and social interactions amongst employees so they can build a strong supportive and proactive culture which facilitates a collective response to external environmental uncertainty, thereby enhancing organisational resilience (Su et al., 2022).

In addition, the findings highlight the important role of MCSs, specifically three of Simons’ (1995) four levers of controls (beliefs, interactive use of controls, diagnostic use of controls) in mediating the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. These findings highlight the importance of the MCS (i.e. these three levers of control) as a mechanism through which a sustainable leadership approach transpires into organisational resilience. Consequently, these findings suggest that managers should place greater emphasis on Simons’ (1995) belief systems, and the interactive and diagnostic use of controls. In respect to belief systems, our findings support the literature which advocates the role of belief systems in conveying the organisation’s vision and purpose (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013). Specifically, our findings suggest that through placing greater emphasis on belief systems, an organisation is better able to communicate and integrate their sustainable leadership philosophy throughout the organisation, thereby resulting in higher organisational resilience. Similarly, the interactive use of controls enables organisations to facilitate greater discussion and debate concerning social, environmental and community concerns, thereby promulgating the principles of the sustainable leadership approach and leading to stronger organisational resilience. Finally, the diagnostic use of controls facilitates the monitoring and evaluation of the multiple stakeholder performance related goals, and hence, assists in evaluating the effectiveness of sustainable leadership and enhancing the level of organisational resilience.

Interestingly, while boundary controls were expected to exhibit a positive effect on organisational resilience such an effect was found to be insignificant. The findings could be attributable to the interplay between the positive and negative effect of boundary controls on organisational resilience which perhaps offset each other, leading to an insignificant result. Specifically, while boundary controls may help organisations to adapt and respond to unexpected circumstances, through providing clear guidelines in respect to the core competencies and off-limit behaviour, Simons (1995) refers to boundary controls as ‘a negative force’ that discourage opportunity-seeking behaviour, thereby limiting organisations’ ability to recognise opportunities and take the timely actions required to respond to their uncertain environment (i.e. organisational resilience). Further, McCoy and Elwood (2009) assert that there is psychological contract between employees and the organisation and when employees feel they are constrained to behave in certain ways they are less likely to perceive their organisation’s long-term interests as their own interests (Su et al., 2022).

While the study is subject to the usual limitations associated with the survey method including common method bias, as discussed, we employed Jordan and Troth’s (2020) approach to minimise these concerns. We also employed speeder and attention checks to remove the responses where the respondents paid inadequate attention to the questionnaire. In addition, a large data set (410 responses) was collected to enhance the reliability of our data analysis and to enhance the reliability of the measure for our new construct, sustainable leadership. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our measure of sustainable leadership is new and that the observed nature of some of the practices included in the measure may be similar for organisations adopting a shareholder-first and sustainable leadership philosophy. For instance, it is feasible that organisations employing a shareholder-first philosophy may also recognise the importance of employees. Hence, while our measure has enabled a preliminary insight into the benefits of a sustainable leadership approach future studies may seek to confirm the reliability of this measure and/or refine it to better reflect those values that are clearly distinguishable between the two leadership philosophies. Future studies may also look to expand the measure to consider Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) higher level leadership practices. Finally, future research may endeavour to consider the effect of a sustainable leadership style on alternative organisational outcomes, and evaluate the mediating role of alternative process mechanisms, including employee behavioural mechanisms, on the association between a sustainable leadership approach and organisational resilience.

6 Appendix

Construct and items

Factor Loading

t-value

SE

Cronbach’s alpha

Sustainable leadership*

   

0.93

Vision’s role in the business

0.750*

NA

NA

 

Stakeholders

0.725*

15.031

0.065

 

Social responsibility (CSR)

0.820*

17.036

0.067

 

Responsibility for environment

0.653*

13.410

0.062

 

Financial markets orientation

0.688*

14.212

0.062

 

Organisational change

0.688*

14.136

0.067

 

Long or short term perspective

0.637*

12.882

0.068

 

Ethical behaviour

0.756*

15.692

0.070

 

Valuing staff

0.796*

16.491

0.069

 

Succession planning

0.707*

14.496

0.068

 

Retaining staff

0.683*

13.883

0.071

 

Labour relations

0.740*

15.328

0.065

 

Developing people

0.654*

12.454

0.078

 

* One item “CEO and top team” was removed due to a low loading (< 0.6)

Goodness of fit: CMIN/DF = 1.157; AGFI = 0.962; CFI = 0.997; GFI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.020

Levers of Control

Belief systems

   

0.86

Our mission statement clearly communicates the organisation’s core values to our workforce

0.752*

NA

NA

 

Our company’s top level managers communicate core values to our workforce

0.811*

16.403

0.068

 

Our employees are well aware of the organisation’s core values

0.814*

16.481

0.064

 

Our mission statement inspires our workforce

0.746*

14.991

0.074

 

Construct and items

Factor Loading

t-value

SE

Cronbach’s alpha

Levers of controls

Boundary controls

   

0.86

Our company relies on a code of business conduct to define appropriate behaviour for our workforce

0.759*

NA

NA

 

Our company has a system that communicates to our workforce about the risks that should be avoided

0.781*

15.406

0.073

 

Our workforce is aware of the company’s code of business conduct

0.804*

15.846

0.070

 

Our code of business conduct informs our workforce about off-limit behaviours

0.728*

13.657

0.073

 

Interactive use of controls

There is an ongoing interaction between operational management and senior managers

0.689*

NA

NA

0.88

Controls are used regularly in scheduled face-to-face meetings between operational and senior managers

0.763*

14.058

0.082

 

Controls are used to discuss changes that are occurring within the business unit

0.775*

14.264

0.074

 

Controls generate information that forms an important and recurring agenda in discussions between operational and senior managers

0.805*

14.760

0.077

 

Controls are used as a means of developing ongoing action plans

0.804*

14.733

0.077

 

Diagnostic use of controls

Our organisation uses controls to:

   

0.86

Track progress towards goals and monitor results

0.757*

NA

NA

 

Plan how operations are to be conducted in accordance with the strategic plan

0.732*

16.108

0.060

 

Review performance

0.804*

16.047

0.065

 

Identify exceptions from expectations and take appropriate actions. 0.801* 15.979 0.066.

Goodness of fit: CMIN/DF = 2.554; AGFI = 0.894; CFI = 0.959; GFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.062

Construct and items

Factor Loading

t-value

SE

Cronbach’s alpha

Organisational resilience

My organisation:

 

0.91

Stands straight and is strong enough to preserve its position

0.657*

NA

NA

 

Is successful in generating diverse solutions

0.729*

12.883

0.092

 

Rapidly takes action

0.774*

13.530

0.098

 

Develops alternatives in order to benefit from negative circumstances

0.766*

13.420

0.087

 

Is agile in taking required action when needed

0.746*

13.128

0.095

 

Is a place where all the employees are engaged to do what is required of them

0.736*

12.987

0.092

 

Is successful in acting in a unified manner with all of its employees

0.710*

12.596

0.098

 

Shows resistance to the end in order not to lose

0.716*

12.684

0.088

 

Does not give up and continues its path

0.668*

11.963

0.076

 

Goodness of fit: CMIN/DF = 1.824; AGFI = 0.957; CFI = 0.987; GFI = 0.974; RMSEA = 0.045

 

Construct and items

Factor Loading

t-value

SE

Cronbach’s alpha

Environmental uncertainty

   

0.81

Heterogeneity (evidenced by the differences in competitive tactics, customer tastes, product lines, channels of distribution)

0.783*

NA

NA

 

Hostility (evidenced by the intensity of competition and other external influences)

0.751*

12.899

0.076

 

Dynamism (evidenced by the unpredictability of changes in customer tastes, production technologies)

0.756*

12.921

0.076

 

Goodness of fit scores not available due to too few items.

*Significant at 5% significance level.