Hardship is unavoidable in people’s lives and professions, so resilience, or the continuing pursuit of goals in the face of adversity, is an essential problem for companies. Concerning the ability of resilience of each person, in the article “What Leaders Get Wrong About Resilience” (Danielle D. King & Megan R. McSpedon, 2022), the authors discussed how organizations might foster a culture of shared responsibility for resilience.

First, leaders must understand whether their thinking falls into two traps: maintaining that resilience is a personality trait some workers have and others do not; and stigmatizing the real emotions employees have when they face challenges. * Organizations think of resilience as a personality trait: Individuals are either resilient or not. Instead of a characteristic, consider resilience to be a condition that every employee may achieve. This necessitates creating conditions that actively encourage and support resilience. * Organizations stigmatize employees when they experience adversity: Negative emotions, unless pathologically severe or chronic, do not prevent people from becoming resilient. People are sometimes stigmatized when they experience or exhibit dissatisfaction, worry, or overload at work. As a result, employees may avoid seeking help because they are afraid of being criticized.

After identifying each trap, leaders can start to rethink their approach to assisting people in demonstrating resilience. In light of the organization’s specific history and needs, they must ask and answer three questions:

* “Can the adversity be reduced or removed?”: to determine whether the organization can address the adversity itself.

* “Are all employees experiencing this adversity in the same manner?”: to consider whether the adversity varies based on employee identity, level, or tenure.

* “What role can I play in supporting employee resilience?”

Resilience is essential in the workplace. Organizations should continue to develop employee resilience. The psychological and professional advantages of resilience make initiatives to improve resilience more rewarding than forsaking resilience completely. Furthermore, reducing resilience activities may leave persons facing hardship with limited tools and assistance to deal with current and future issues.