Organizational Learning from Crisis: Evidence-Based Strategies for Building Adaptive Capacity

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Organizational crises—whether triggered by pandemics, natural disasters, technological failures, or economic shocks—present critical junctures that can either catalyze profound learning or entrench dysfunctional routines. This article synthesizes empirical research on how organizations learn from crisis events, drawing on systematic reviews, case studies, and conceptual frameworks to identify evidence-based practices that enable adaptive capacity. We examine the organizational and individual consequences of crisis experiences, explore specific interventions that facilitate learning across anticipation, coping, and adaptation phases, and propose strategic pillars for building long-term resilience. By integrating scholarly insight with practitioner-oriented guidance, this article offers leaders actionable pathways to transform disruption into durable competitive advantage and organizational renewal.

The past decade has confronted organizations worldwide with unprecedented disruptions: the COVID-19 pandemic, climate-related extreme weather events, cyberattacks, supply chain breakdowns, and geopolitical instability. These crises have exposed vulnerabilities in established operating models while simultaneously creating opportunities for organizational learning and transformation. The central question facing leaders is not whether future crises will occur—they inevitably will—but rather how organizations can systematically extract lessons from turbulent experiences to enhance future performance and resilience.

Organizational learning from crisis represents a distinct domain within the broader learning literature. Unlike routine learning that unfolds incrementally during stable periods, crisis learning occurs under conditions of high uncertainty, time pressure, resource constraints, and emotional intensity (Gilson et al., 2020). These characteristics fundamentally alter how organizations perceive, interpret, and act upon new information. When managed effectively, crisis experiences can catalyze questioning of fundamental assumptions, stimulate innovation, strengthen collaborative networks, and build adaptive capacity that endures long after the acute threat subsides (Giustiniano et al., 2018).

Yet many organizations struggle to convert crisis experiences into sustained learning. Post-crisis reviews often remain superficial, lessons identified fail to translate into changed practice, and institutional memory erodes as personnel turnover (Haunschild et al., 2015). The gap between potential and realized learning represents both a strategic risk—leaving organizations vulnerable to repeated failures—and a missed opportunity to leverage adversity as a catalyst for positive change.

This article addresses that gap by synthesizing research on how organizations can systematically learn from crises. We examine the organizational landscape of crisis learning, analyze performance and wellbeing impacts, present evidence-based interventions spanning anticipation through adaptation, and propose forward-looking capabilities that enable continuous learning. Throughout, we integrate real-world examples across healthcare, manufacturing, public sector, technology, and other domains to illustrate how diverse organizations have successfully navigated crisis-driven transformation.

The Organizational Crisis Learning Landscape

Defining Crisis Learning in Organizational Contexts

Organizational learning encompasses the processes through which organizations acquire, distribute, interpret, and retain knowledge to improve performance and adapt to changing environments (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011). This learning manifests across multiple levels—individual employees, teams, business units, and the organization as a whole—and involves both explicit knowledge (documented procedures, technical specifications) and tacit knowledge (expertise, cultural norms, relational networks) (Crossan et al., 1999).

Crisis learning represents a specialized subset characterized by several distinguishing features. First, crises disrupt normal routines and suspend standard operating procedures, creating what Giustiniano et al. (2018) describe as "abnormal contexts" that demand novel responses rather than programmed solutions. Second, crisis learning operates under severe time constraints and resource limitations that compress decision cycles and limit opportunities for deliberate experimentation (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021). Third, crisis events generate intense emotional responses—fear, anxiety, grief—that influence both what organizations learn and their capacity to implement changes (Battisti et al., 2019).

Research identifies three temporal phases of crisis learning, each presenting distinct learning opportunities and challenges (Duchek, 2020):

• Anticipation phase: Organizations develop capabilities to detect early warning signals, assess emerging threats, and prepare response capabilities before crisis fully manifests

• Coping phase: During acute crisis periods, organizations mobilize resources, make rapid decisions under uncertainty, and implement immediate responses to contain damage

• Adaptation phase: Following crisis resolution, organizations reflect on experiences, codify lessons, adjust systems and structures, and build capabilities to prevent recurrence or respond more effectively to future events

This temporal framework helps organizations recognize that learning must occur continuously across the crisis lifecycle rather than concentrating solely on post-event analysis.

The State of Organizational Crisis Learning Practice

Despite widespread recognition of learning's importance, research reveals significant variation in organizational crisis learning effectiveness. Evenseth et al.'s (2022) systematic review of 79 empirical studies identified several patterns:

Learning practices show substantial heterogeneity across organizations and sectors. Some organizations implement structured after-action reviews, scenario planning exercises, and simulation-based training, while others rely on informal knowledge sharing or neglect systematic learning entirely. Healthcare organizations, emergency services, and high-reliability industries (aviation, nuclear power) tend to exhibit more formalized crisis learning systems, reflecting regulatory requirements and the high stakes of failure (Bragatto et al., 2021; Patriarca et al., 2018).

Single-loop versus double-loop learning dynamics. Many organizations engage primarily in single-loop learning—correcting specific errors or adjusting tactics within existing frameworks—without questioning underlying assumptions, strategic directions, or governance structures (Argyris & Schön, 1996). True transformational learning requires double-loop or even triple-loop learning that challenges fundamental beliefs about organizational purpose, stakeholder relationships, and operating models (Rodríguez-Sánchez & Vera Perea, 2015).

Temporal decay of crisis-driven insights. The urgency and attention generated by crisis events tend to fade as normal operations resume. Without deliberate effort to institutionalize lessons through policy changes, system redesigns, or capability investments, organizations often revert to pre-crisis patterns (Haunschild et al., 2015). Research on organizational memory demonstrates that knowledge retention requires active maintenance through documentation, training, and cultural reinforcement (Argote & Todorova, 2007).

Cross-organizational learning remains underdeveloped. While individual organizations accumulate crisis experiences, systematic sharing of lessons across organizational boundaries occurs less frequently. Industry associations, professional networks, and regulatory bodies can facilitate vicarious learning—enabling organizations to benefit from others' experiences without directly suffering similar crises—but these mechanisms remain underutilized in many sectors (Haunschild et al., 2015).

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Crisis Learning

Organizational Performance Impacts

The quality of organizational learning from crises generates measurable consequences for multiple performance dimensions:

Operational resilience and business continuity. Organizations that effectively learn from crises demonstrate faster recovery times, reduced disruption severity, and lower probability of crisis recurrence. Ruiz-Martin et al. (2018) found that organizations implementing structured learning processes following supply chain disruptions achieved 30-40% shorter recovery periods compared to peers when facing subsequent events. Similarly, healthcare organizations that systematically analyzed previous infection outbreaks showed significantly better preparedness and response effectiveness during COVID-19's initial waves (Gilson et al., 2020).

Innovation and strategic adaptation. Crisis experiences can catalyze innovation by exposing limitations of existing products, services, or business models and creating urgency for experimentation. Giustiniano et al. (2018) documented how crisis-driven learning enabled organizations to identify new market opportunities, develop novel offerings, and reconfigure value chains. Manufacturing firms that learned from production shutdowns accelerated digital transformation initiatives, implementing remote monitoring, predictive maintenance, and flexible automation that enhanced competitiveness beyond the immediate crisis (Suryaningtyas et al., 2019).

Stakeholder trust and reputation. How organizations learn and respond to crises influences stakeholder perceptions. Transparent acknowledgment of failures, visible improvement efforts, and demonstrated competence in managing subsequent challenges strengthen trust among customers, employees, investors, and regulators (Chand & Loosemore, 2016). Conversely, repeated failures or inability to demonstrate learning erode confidence and can trigger regulatory intervention or market penalties.

Financial performance. While crisis events often generate immediate financial costs, organizations that leverage crises for learning can achieve longer-term performance advantages. Research examining organizational responses to various disruptions found that firms demonstrating strong adaptive learning capabilities showed higher profitability, revenue growth, and market valuations during the three to five years following crisis events compared to less adaptive peers (Giustiniano et al., 2018).

Individual Wellbeing and Employee Impacts

Crisis experiences and organizational learning responses generate significant consequences for individual stakeholders:

Psychological stress and wellbeing. Crisis events expose employees to heightened uncertainty, workload intensification, role ambiguity, and sometimes physical danger. The psychological toll can manifest as anxiety, burnout, post-traumatic stress, and reduced job satisfaction (Battisti et al., 2019). However, organizational learning practices that involve employees in sense-making, provide psychological safety for expressing concerns, and demonstrate responsiveness to feedback can mitigate negative impacts and even foster growth through adversity (Salanova, 2020).

Skill development and career advancement. Crisis experiences accelerate learning curves and can enhance individual capabilities. Employees who participate in crisis response and post-event learning develop problem-solving skills, cross-functional knowledge, leadership experience, and resilience that benefit both individual careers and organizational capability (Al-Atwi et al., 2021). Organizations that recognize and reward crisis-period contributions while providing support for skill development demonstrate commitment to employee development.

Engagement and organizational commitment. How organizations learn from crises influences employee attitudes toward their employers. When leadership acknowledges difficulties transparently, involves employees in identifying solutions, and implements visible improvements based on employee input, engagement and commitment tend to strengthen (Näswall et al., 2013). Conversely, when employees perceive that leadership ignores lessons or repeats preventable failures, cynicism and disengagement increase.

Equity and inclusion considerations. Crisis impacts and learning opportunities often distribute unevenly across employee populations. Frontline workers, those in precarious employment relationships, and members of marginalized groups frequently bear disproportionate crisis burdens while having less voice in post-crisis learning processes (Gilson et al., 2020). Intentional efforts to ensure diverse participation in learning activities and equitable distribution of crisis-related benefits and burdens represent both ethical imperatives and sources of richer organizational learning.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Structured Reflection and Sense-Making Processes

Evidence summary: Research consistently demonstrates that structured post-crisis reflection processes enhance learning effectiveness compared to informal or ad-hoc approaches. After-action reviews, incident debriefs, and systematic case analyses help organizations move beyond superficial attributions toward deeper understanding of contributing factors, systemic vulnerabilities, and improvement opportunities (Bragatto et al., 2021; Scholten et al., 2019). The quality of facilitation, psychological safety for candid discussion, and multi-level participation significantly influence learning outcomes (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021).

Effective approaches include:

• Multi-stakeholder debriefs: Involving diverse participants—frontline employees, middle managers, executives, external partners—to surface different perspectives and challenge dominant narratives about what occurred

• Timeline reconstruction: Systematically mapping crisis evolution, decision points, information flows, and action sequences to identify critical junctures and intervention opportunities

• Root cause analysis: Employing structured techniques (fishbone diagrams, five-whys analysis, fault tree analysis) to trace observed problems back to underlying systemic causes rather than individual errors

• Comparative analysis: Examining how similar organizations or units responded to comparable crises to identify alternative approaches and best practices

• Prospective learning: Using scenario planning and simulation exercises to test proposed improvements and anticipate future challenges before they materialize

Cleveland Clinic, one of the largest healthcare systems in the United States, implemented comprehensive structured debriefing following its early COVID-19 response. The organization conducted over 50 multi-disciplinary sessions involving clinical staff, operations leaders, supply chain teams, and patient representatives. These sessions employed timeline mapping to reconstruct decision sequences, identified specific breakdowns in communication protocols, and generated over 200 actionable improvement recommendations. Within six months, Cleveland Clinic had implemented two-thirds of these recommendations, including new surge capacity models, revised personal protective equipment distribution systems, and enhanced telehealth capabilities that served the organization during subsequent pandemic waves.

Psychological Safety and Learning Culture

Evidence summary: Organizational learning from crisis depends critically on psychological safety—the shared belief that team members can speak up, admit errors, ask questions, and challenge assumptions without fear of punishment or embarrassment (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021). When psychological safety is low, employees conceal mistakes, withhold concerns about emerging problems, and provide filtered information to leadership—behaviors that prevent organizations from accessing the information needed for effective learning (Nyman, 2019). Research demonstrates that psychological safety facilitates faster problem identification, more innovative solutions, and higher-quality implementation of learned lessons (Salanova, 2020).

Effective approaches include:

• Leadership modeling: Senior leaders openly acknowledging their own uncertainties, mistakes, and learning needs to signal that vulnerability is acceptable and valued

• Non-punitive error reporting: Implementing systems that separate accountability for willful negligence from learning-oriented investigation of honest mistakes made during crisis conditions

• Inquiry-based dialogue: Training leaders and facilitators to ask open questions, suspend judgment, and genuinely explore alternative interpretations rather than defending predetermined conclusions

• Diverse perspective inclusion: Actively soliciting input from employees at all levels, including those who may hold dissenting views or uncomfortable insights

• Celebration of learning: Publicly recognizing teams and individuals who surface problems, generate insights, or implement improvements based on crisis lessons

Pixar Animation Studios cultivated psychological safety through its "Braintrust" process—regular meetings where directors share works-in-progress and receive candid feedback from peers. When the studio faced a creative crisis during production of Toy Story 2, leaders extended this approach to systematic retrospectives examining what went wrong. Directors and production staff openly discussed unrealistic scheduling assumptions, inadequate resource allocation, and communication breakdowns without fear of reprisal. This psychologically safe environment enabled Pixar to fundamentally redesign its production processes, balancing creative ambition with sustainable workflows—lessons that have endured across subsequent projects.

Knowledge Capture and Organizational Memory

Evidence summary: Converting experiential knowledge gained during crises into retained organizational capability requires deliberate knowledge management practices. Without systematic documentation, codification, and integration into training and standard operating procedures, crisis-generated insights remain trapped in individuals' memories and fade as personnel transition (Argote & Todorova, 2007). Effective knowledge capture balances explicit documentation with preservation of tacit understanding, employs multiple media (written, video, storytelling), and embeds lessons in systems that outlast individual tenure (Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

Effective approaches include:

• Structured documentation templates: Providing frameworks that guide consistent capture of critical information—context, decisions made, alternatives considered, outcomes observed, lessons identified

• Multimedia knowledge repositories: Combining written case studies with recorded debriefs, decision-maker reflections, and visual materials to convey rich contextual understanding

• Story-based knowledge transfer: Preserving crisis narratives that illustrate decision processes, trade-offs, and unintended consequences in memorable formats that resonate with future learners

• Integration into onboarding and training: Incorporating crisis case studies, simulations based on real events, and conversations with crisis veterans into employee development programs

• Periodic knowledge refresh: Regularly revisiting documented lessons, testing continued relevance, updating based on new experiences, and reinforcing application in current contexts

Toyota developed extensive organizational memory systems following its 2009-2010 recalls affecting millions of vehicles due to unintended acceleration concerns. Beyond addressing immediate technical issues, Toyota created a comprehensive crisis knowledge repository documenting timeline sequences, stakeholder communications, technical investigations, and decision rationale. The company integrated these materials into its renowned production system training, developed simulation exercises based on the crisis for managers, and established protocols requiring periodic review of crisis lessons during product development reviews. When Toyota faced subsequent quality challenges with airbag inflators and other components, the organization demonstrated markedly faster response, more effective communication, and better stakeholder management—direct applications of retained crisis learning.

Dynamic Capability Building and Adaptive Infrastructure

Evidence summary: Organizations that build dynamic capabilities—the capacity to sense emerging threats and opportunities, seize appropriate responses, and transform resources and structures accordingly—demonstrate superior crisis learning and adaptation (Duchek, 2020). Rather than optimizing solely for efficiency in stable environments, these organizations invest in flexibility, redundancy, modularity, and reconfigurability that enable rapid adjustment when crisis disrupts normal operations (Näswall et al., 2013). Infrastructure decisions—physical facilities, technology platforms, supplier relationships, workforce composition—either constrain or enable adaptive responses (Azadegan et al., 2019).

Effective approaches include:

• Scenario-based stress testing: Regularly exposing systems, processes, and teams to simulated disruptions that reveal vulnerabilities and build response capacity before real crises occur

• Modular system design: Architecting operations, supply chains, and technology platforms with loosely coupled components that can be reconfigured independently without cascading failures

• Strategic redundancy: Maintaining backup suppliers, excess capacity in critical systems, and cross-trained personnel who can fulfill multiple roles during disruptions

• Rapid experimentation protocols: Establishing fast-cycle testing processes that enable quick validation of novel approaches during crisis conditions when traditional approval processes would prove too slow

• Partnership ecosystems: Cultivating relationships with external organizations that provide surge capacity, specialized expertise, or alternative resources during crises

Walmart leveraged adaptive infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic based on crisis learning from previous hurricanes and supply chain disruptions. The company's modular supply chain design enabled rapid reallocation of inventory between channels as demand shifted dramatically from food service to grocery retail. Cross-trained employees could be deployed flexibly across store operations, e-commerce fulfillment, and distribution centers. The retailer's technology platforms supported rapid implementation of curbside pickup and contactless delivery. Strategic partnerships with suppliers enabled quick sourcing of cleaning supplies and other high-demand products. These dynamic capabilities—built deliberately based on earlier crisis experiences—enabled Walmart to maintain operations, serve customers, and gain market share while many competitors struggled.

Collaborative Learning Networks and Vicarious Knowledge

Evidence summary: Organizations that participate in cross-organizational learning networks can benefit from vicarious knowledge—insights gained from others' experiences without directly suffering similar crises (Haunschild et al., 2015). Industry associations, professional communities, regulatory forums, and peer networks provide mechanisms for sharing practices, warning signals, and improvement strategies. Research demonstrates that organizations actively engaged in such networks identify emerging threats earlier, implement more sophisticated responses, and avoid repeating peers' mistakes (Khan et al., 2019).

Effective approaches include:

• Industry consortium participation: Engaging in sector-specific groups that facilitate confidential sharing of crisis experiences, near-miss events, and effective interventions

• Cross-sector learning forums: Exploring analogous challenges and solutions from different industries where similar underlying dynamics operate despite surface differences

• Regulatory collaboration: Working constructively with oversight bodies to develop improved standards, share incident data, and collectively enhance sector resilience

• Academic partnerships: Collaborating with researchers who can provide analytical frameworks, comparative insights, and rigorous evaluation of learning interventions

• Transparent public documentation: Sharing lessons learned through published case studies, conference presentations, and open-source resources that benefit broader professional communities

National Health Service (NHS) England developed collaborative learning networks following several high-profile patient safety crises. The NHS established regional patient safety collaboratives bringing together multiple hospital trusts, primary care organizations, and mental health services to share incident data, improvement practices, and emerging safety concerns. These networks employed structured methodologies for analyzing serious incidents, conducting joint reviews of complex cases, and rapidly disseminating effective interventions. When COVID-19 emerged, these established collaborative relationships enabled rapid sharing of treatment protocols, staffing models, and resource allocation strategies across the NHS system. Hospitals facing earlier surges shared detailed playbooks with those anticipating later waves, compressing learning timelines and improving outcomes compared to what individual organizations could have achieved in isolation.

Building Long-Term Adaptive Capacity

Distributed Leadership and Empowered Decision-Making

Effective crisis learning requires moving beyond hierarchical command-and-control structures toward distributed leadership models that push decision authority closer to frontline challenges. Research demonstrates that organizations with distributed leadership respond more rapidly to emerging threats, generate more innovative solutions, and demonstrate greater resilience than those relying primarily on centralized direction (Näswall et al., 2013).

Building distributed leadership capacity involves several complementary elements:

Clarity of authority and responsibility. Distributed decision-making functions effectively only when individuals understand the scope of their autonomy, the resources available to them, and the boundaries within which they operate. Organizations that successfully distribute leadership during crises have typically invested in pre-crisis clarification of roles, decision rights, and escalation protocols.

Competency development at all levels. Empowering frontline decision-making requires ensuring that employees possess necessary knowledge, skills, and judgment. This involves both technical capability building and development of broader competencies in systems thinking, stakeholder management, and adaptive problem-solving (Al-Atwi et al., 2021).

Information transparency and shared awareness. Distributed leaders can make effective local decisions only when they have access to relevant information about the broader organizational context, emerging patterns across units, and strategic priorities. Technology platforms, communication protocols, and cultural norms that promote information sharing enable coherent distributed responses.

Post-decision learning loops. Distributed decision-making generates valuable experimentation across multiple organizational locations. Capturing and sharing insights from these distributed experiments—what worked, what didn't, under what conditions—accelerates organizational learning and prevents repeated mistakes (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

Purpose, Values, and Organizational Identity

Organizations with strong, authentic purpose and clearly articulated values demonstrate more effective crisis learning and adaptation. During ambiguous situations when standard procedures prove inadequate, shared purpose and values provide decision-making guidance, motivate extraordinary effort, and maintain organizational coherence (Giustiniano et al., 2018).

Purpose clarity and stakeholder orientation. Organizations that have explicitly defined their fundamental purpose—the value they create for which stakeholders—find that this clarity guides prioritization during crises when resources are constrained and trade-offs are inevitable. Purpose-driven organizations more readily identify which activities align with core mission versus those that can be temporarily suspended or permanently discontinued.

Values-based decision frameworks. Explicit organizational values provide ethical guardrails during crisis periods when pressure to cut corners, externalize costs onto vulnerable stakeholders, or compromise integrity may intensify. Organizations that maintain values alignment through crisis periods often strengthen stakeholder trust and emerge with enhanced reputation (Chand & Loosemore, 2016).

Identity evolution through crisis. Major crises sometimes reveal misalignments between espoused purpose and actual practice, creating opportunities for identity recalibration. Organizations that engage in honest reflection about whether crisis responses reflected desired values can use the experience to close gaps between rhetoric and reality, strengthening authenticity and cultural coherence.

Continuous Learning Systems and Improvement Mindsets

Moving from episodic crisis learning toward continuous learning systems represents a critical capability for long-term resilience. This involves embedding learning into routine operations rather than treating it as a special activity triggered only by major disruptions (Garvin et al., 2008).

Weak signal detection and early warning systems. Continuous learning includes developing capabilities to identify subtle indicators of emerging problems before they escalate into full crises. This requires creating channels through which employees can surface concerns, establishing metrics that reveal early-stage trends, and cultivating leadership receptivity to uncomfortable information (Duchek, 2020).

Regular practice and simulation. High-reliability organizations maintain crisis readiness through frequent simulation exercises, tabletop scenarios, and practice drills that test response capabilities, reveal gaps, and build muscle memory. These activities shift learning from purely retrospective analysis toward prospective capability building (Patriarca et al., 2018).

Institutionalized reflection rhythms. Rather than limiting formal reflection to post-crisis periods, leading organizations establish regular rhythms of team retrospectives, operational reviews, and strategic reflections that normalize learning as an ongoing practice. These rhythms ensure that lessons surface and receive attention even during periods when acute crises are not occurring.

Experimentation and innovation portfolios. Continuous learning organizations maintain portfolios of experiments testing new approaches, technologies, or processes even during stable periods. This experimentation builds adaptive capability and generates options that can be rapidly scaled during crisis situations when novel responses are needed (Azadegan et al., 2019).

Conclusion

Organizational learning from crisis represents both an urgent imperative and a significant opportunity in an era of accelerating disruption. The evidence reviewed in this article demonstrates that organizations can systematically enhance their crisis learning capabilities through deliberate practices spanning structured reflection processes, psychological safety cultivation, knowledge management systems, adaptive infrastructure investments, and collaborative learning networks.

Several actionable insights emerge for leaders:

First, invest in crisis learning capabilities before crises occur. The organizations that learn most effectively from disruptions have typically built foundational capabilities—psychological safety, knowledge management infrastructure, simulation protocols, collaborative relationships—during periods of relative stability. Crisis events themselves create suboptimal conditions for establishing new learning systems.

Second, recognize that effective crisis learning requires both structure and flexibility. Structured approaches—after-action review templates, root cause analysis frameworks, documentation standards—provide valuable discipline and consistency. Yet rigid adherence to procedures can stifle the adaptive improvisation that crisis situations demand. Leading organizations balance structure with space for contextual judgment and emergent responses.

Third, broaden participation in crisis learning beyond elite decision-makers. The richest insights often reside with frontline employees who directly experienced crisis impacts and improvised workarounds. Inclusive learning processes that engage diverse organizational voices generate more comprehensive understanding and strengthen employee engagement.

Fourth, translate learning into tangible system changes rather than relying solely on individual memory or cultural transmission. While organizational culture matters enormously, sustained learning requires embedding lessons into policies, procedures, technology platforms, training curricula, and resource allocation decisions that persist despite personnel turnover.

Fifth, cultivate collaborative learning relationships that extend beyond organizational boundaries. The increasingly interconnected nature of crisis events—pandemics, climate disruptions, cyber threats, supply chain breakdowns—means that individual organization learning proves insufficient. Sector-wide and cross-sector learning mechanisms enable faster collective adaptation.

The path from crisis experience to organizational learning to enhanced resilience is neither automatic nor inevitable. It requires intentional leadership commitment, resource investment, cultural development, and sustained attention over time. Yet organizations that successfully navigate this path gain more than crisis preparedness—they build adaptive capacity that enhances performance across all operating conditions, establishes competitive advantages in dynamic markets, and creates workplaces where employees develop and thrive. In an uncertain future, the capability to learn from adversity may prove the most valuable organizational asset of all.

References

1. Adini, B., Cohen, R., Eide, A. W., Nilsson, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L., & Herrera, I. A. (2017). Striving to be resilient: What concepts, approaches and practices should be incorporated in resilience management guidelines? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 39–49.

2. Al-Atwi, A. A., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Wood, G., & Knight, G. (2021). Micro-foundations of organizational competence at emerging multinationals during disruptive crises: A COVID-19 perspective. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1016–1027.

3. Anderson, J. E., Ross, A. J., Back, J., Duncan, M., Snell, P., Walsh, K., & Jaye, P. (2020). Resilience engineering for quality improvement: Case study in a unit for the care of older people. Health Services Management Research, 33(1), 16–27.

4. Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38(3), 277–295.

5. Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Sheaffer, Z. (2014). Learning in crisis: Rethinking the relationship between organizational learning and crisis management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1), 5–21.

6. Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning, 42(4), 439–446.

7. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.

8. Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.

9. Argote, L., & Todorova, G. (2007). Organizational learning. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 193–234). Wiley.

10. Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 206–218.

11. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.

12. Azadegan, A., Syed, T. A., Blome, C., & Tajeddini, K. (2019). Learning from near-miss events: An organizational learning perspective on supply chain disruption response. International Journal of Production Economics, 216, 215–226.

13. Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.

14. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.

15. Battisti, S., Sheehan, M., & Pickering, S. (2019). Crisis? What crisis? Reframing and refocusing the construct. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(7), 657–671.

16. Bhaskara, G. I., & Filimonau, V. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational learning for disaster planning and management: A perspective of tourism businesses from a destination prone to consecutive disasters. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 364–375.

17. Boin, A., & Lodge, M. (2016). Designing resilient institutions for transboundary crisis management: A time for public administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298.

18. Boin, A., & van Eeten, M. J. G. (2013). The resilient organization. Public Management Review, 15(3), 429–445.

19. Bragatto, P. A., Agnello, P., Ansaldi, S., Pirone, A., & Leva, M. C. (2021). Learning from major accidents: Organisational, regulatory and societal dimensions. Safety Science, 135, 105084.

20. Britt, T. W., Shuffler, M. L., Pegues, B., Xoxakos, P., Rosopa, P. J., Hirsh, E., & Jackson, W. (2016). Job demands and resources among healthcare professionals during virus pandemics: A review and examination of fluctuations in mental health strain during COVID-19. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 120–149.

21. Chand, A., & Loosemore, M. (2016). Hospital disaster management's understanding of built environment impacts on healthcare services during extreme weather events. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 23(3), 385–402.

22. Chen, K. D., Ding, Y., & Jang, W. Y. (2021). Proactive and reactive resilience: Responding to and learning from disruption. Production and Operations Management, 30(9), 2937–2959.

23. Chiva, R., Ghauri, P., & Alegre, J. (2014). Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex system model. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 687–705.

24. Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.

25. Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104–126.

26. Crick, F., & Bentley, D. (2020). Knowledge management practice and organizational learning across national and regional innovation systems in the construction sector. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 18(3), 262–275.

27. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.

28. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

29. Dohaney, J., Brogt, E., Kennedy, B., Wilson, T., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Making it stick: Applying learning science in postcrisis interviews to improve organizational learning. Risk Analysis, 40(9), 1739–1764.

30. Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13, 215–246.

31. Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. (2020). The role of diversity in organizational resilience: A theoretical framework. Business Research, 13, 387–423.

32. Dutra, A., Ripoll-Feliu, V. M., Fillol, A. G., Ensslin, S. R., & Ensslin, L. (2015). The construction of knowledge from the scientific literature about the theme seaport performance evaluation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(2), 243–269.

33. Elliott, D., & Macpherson, A. (2010). Policy and practice: Recursive learning from crisis. Group & Organization Management, 35(5), 572–605.

34. Evenseth, L. M., Sydnes, M., Gausdal, A. H., & Hogset, H. (2022). Organizational learning from crises: A systematic literature review and research agenda for learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 81, 103252.

35. Fasey, K., Sarkar, M., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Johnston, J. (2021). Defining and characterizing organizational resilience in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52, 101834.

36. Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2017). Unlearning established organizational routines—Part I. The Learning Organization, 24(1), 13–29.

37. Friday, D., Ryan, S., Sridharan, R., & Collins, D. (2021). Collaborative risk management: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(3), 253–283.

38. Fridell, M., Edwin, S., Von Schreeb, J., & Saulnier, D. D. (2020). Health system resilience: What are we talking about? A scoping review mapping characteristics and keywords. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 9(1), 6–16.

39. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78–91.

40. Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.

41. Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action: What do practice-based studies promise? In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 516–525). Sage.

42. Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices: Canon or dissonance? Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 419–436.

43. Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297.

44. Gilson, L., Barasa, E., Brady, L., Kagwanja, N., Nxumalo, N., Cleary, S., & Molyneux, S. (2020). Collective sensemaking for action: Researchers and decision makers working collaboratively to strengthen health systems. BMJ, 372, m4650.

45. Giustiniano, L., Clegg, S. R., e Cunha, M. P., & Rego, A. (2018). Elgar introduction to theories of organizational resilience. Edward Elgar Publishing.

46. Gressgard, L. J., & Hansen, K. (2015). Knowledge exchange and learning from failures in distributed environments: The role of contractor relationship management and work characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(4), 518–529.

47. Grisold, T., Wurm, B., Mendling, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2020). Using process mining to support theorizing about change in organizations. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 6310–6319).

48. Habiyaremye, A. (2021). Cooperative learning in a pandemic: Lessons from an agent-based model. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 16(1), 119–149.

49. Hardy, C. (2014). Hysteresis. In A. Wilkinson, S. J. Armstrong, & M. Lounsbury (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management (pp. 258–275). Oxford University Press.

50. Haunschild, P. R., Polidoro, F., Jr., & Chandler, D. (2015). Organizational oscillation between learning and forgetting: The dual role of serious errors. Organization Science, 26(6), 1682–1701.

51. Hecht, G., Pershikova, N. A., & Truskinovsky, Y. (2019). Organizational learning from transient workers. Organization Science, 30(5), 1162–1187.

52. Hegde, S., Hatzakis, T., Milner, E., & Blincoe, K. (2020). Context switching and efficiency in software development. IEEE Software, 38(3), 42–48.

53. Herbane, B. (2019). Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic renewal in SMEs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5–6), 476–495.

54. Hermelin, B., Clancy, J. S., Mondal, M. A. H., Olsson, L., Sharma, S., & Azevedo, I. (2020). Co-producing smart cities: Current and future research. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, 101332.

55. Hernes, T., & Irgens, E. J. (2013). Keeping things mindfully on track: Organizational learning under continuity. Management Learning, 44(3), 253–266.

56. Hillmann, J., Duchek, S., Meyr, J., & Guenther, E. (2018). Educating future managers for developing resilient organizations: The role of scenario planning. Journal of Management Education, 42(4), 461–495.

57. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

58. Johannesen, T. B., Kristoffersen, E., Fidjeland, L., & Wibe, A. (2020). How do quality registries respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 32(8), 545–549.

59. Johnsen, S. O., & Habrekke, S. (2009). Risk and crisis management in the civil aviation. In Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (pp. 993–1000).

60. Jones, O., & Macpherson, A. (2006). Inter-organizational learning and strategic renewal in SMEs: Extending the 4I framework. Long Range Planning, 39(2), 155–175.

61. Kayes, D. C. (2015). Organizational resilience and the paradox of learning from failure. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1287–1303.

62. Khan, Z., Soundararajan, V., & Shoham, A. (2019). Global post-merger agility, transactive memory systems and human resource management practices. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 100697.

63. Khan, Z., Vorley, T., Buchanan, D. A., & Tickle, M. (2017). Managerial cognition and internationalization. International Marketing Review, 34(4), 558–590.

64. Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A. M. K., Hammerstrøm, K., & Sathe, N. (2017). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1–73.

65. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

66. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.

67. Lawrence, T. B., Mauws, M. K., Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R. F. (2005). The politics of organizational learning: Integrating power into the 4I framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 180–191.

68. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.

69. Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933.

70. Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential publications and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 4–30.

71. Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Beyond adaptation: Resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes. Business & Society, 49(3), 477–511.

72. Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifacet model of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1), 78–98.

73. Lombardi, S., Lardo, A., Cuozzo, B., & Trequattrini, R. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship and family firms: The influence of tradition and innovation. Small Business Economics, 56(3), 1093–1110.

74. Lundberg, C. C. (1995). Learning in and by organizations: Three conceptual issues. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 10–23.

75. Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Chen, C. P. (2018). Understanding the barriers to the use of MOOCs in a developing country: An innovation resistance perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(3), 571–590.

76. Mackay, R. B., & Zundel, M. (2017). Recovering from a strategic setback: Resilience versus decline. British Journal of Management, 28(3), 429–446.

77. Manfield, R. C., & Newey, L. R. (2018). Resilience as an entrepreneurial capability: Integrating insights from a cross-disciplinary comparison. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1155–1180.

78. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

79. March, J. G. (2010). The ambiguities of experience. Cornell University Press.

80. Martinelli, E., Tagliazucchi, G., & Marchi, G. (2018). The resilient retail entrepreneur: Dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1222–1243.

81. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

82. Morais-Storz, M., & Nguyen, N. (2017). The role of business model innovation in the hospitality industry during the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102723.

83. Mousa, M., Puhakka, V., & Abdelgaffar, H. (2020). Organizational learning capability: A forgotten pathway to corporate entrepreneurship and strategic agility. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(9), 2187–2206.

84. Naimoli, J. F., & Saxena, S. (2018). Realizing their potential to become learning organizations to foster health system resilience: Opportunities and challenges for health ministries in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning, 33(10), 1083–1095.

85. Näswall, K., Kuntz, J., Hodliffe, M., & Malinen, S. (2013). Employee resilience scale (EmpRes): Technical report. Resilient Organizations.

86. Nicolletti, L., Bronzetti, G., Polinesi, G., & Vitali, S. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder engagement in small and medium-sized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 125–135.

87. Nyman, M. (2019). Sensemaking through communication: Uncovering the blind spots of the narrative paradigm. Communication Theory, 29(3), 331–349.

88. Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: Towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 129–144.

89. Orth, M., & Schuldis, P. M. (2021). Organizational learning from disasters: A duality of exploration and exploitation. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 29(3), 283–294.

90. Pal, R., Torstensson, H., & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 410–428.

91. Parsons, W. (2010). Crash: Learning from the financial crisis of 2008. Public Policy and Administration, 25(3), 221–244.

92. Patriarca, R., Di Gravio, G., Woltjer, R., Costantino, F., Praetorius, G., Ferreira, P., & Hollnagel, E. (2018). Framing the FRAM: A literature review on the functional resonance analysis method. Safety Science, 129, 104827.

93. Popova-Nowak, I. V., & Cseh, M. (2015). The meaning of organizational learning: A meta-paradigm perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 299–331.

94. Powley, E. H., & Cameron, K. S. (2020). Positive deviance in organizational change. In The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 780–792). Oxford University Press.

95. Prasad, S., Zakaria, R., & Altay, N. (2015). Big data in humanitarian supply chain networks: A resource dependence perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 270(1), 383–413.

96. Rangachari, P., & Woods, J. L. (2020). Preserving organizational resilience, patient safety, and staff retention during COVID-19 requires a holistic consideration of the psychological safety of healthcare workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4267.

97. Reich, R. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 90–92.

98. Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. L., & Vera Perea, M. (2015). Organizational learning, knowledge management and training: An integrative model. The Learning Organization, 22(4), 228–242.

99. Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. L., González-Torres, T., Montero-Navarro, A., & Gallego-Losada, R. (2021). Investing time and resources for work–life balance: The effect on talent retention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1920.

100. 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.

101. Salanova, M. (2020). How to survive COVID-19? Notes from organisational resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 72.

102. Schilling, J., & Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organizational learning: An integration of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 337–360.

103. Scholten, K., Sharkey Scott, P., & Fynes, B. (2019). Building routines for non-routine events: Supply chain resilience learning mechanisms and their antecedents. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(3), 430–442.

104. Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.

105. Steen, J., & Ferreira, J. (2020). Changing approaches to disaster aid: Organizational learning in the humanitarian sector. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 10(3), 435–458.

106. Suryaningtyas, D., Sudiro, A., Eka, A. T., & Dodi, W. I. (2019). Organizational resilience and organizational performance: Examining the mediating role of resilient leadership. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 1–7.

107. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.

108. Tasic, J., Amir, S., Tan, Y., & Khader, M. (2020). Feature-based comparison of business continuity across organizations using a text mining approach. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 14(1), 37–53.

109. Taylor, K., Mujica-Mota, R., & Roberts, K. (2010). A review of the assessment and application of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in children and adolescents. PharmacoEconomics, 28(9), 705–720.

110. Tsang, E. W. K., & Zahra, S. A. (2008). Organizational unlearning. Human Relations, 61(10), 1435–1462.

111. Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 3418–3422). IEEE.

112. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.

113. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Wiley.

114. Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E., & Blettner, D. P. (2009). How useful are the strategic tools we teach in business schools? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 92–125.

115. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Organizational Learning from Crisis: Evidence-Based Strategies for Building Adaptive Capacity. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.4.6