Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T01:29:32.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

1 + 1 = 3: How Practitioners Can Synergize Resilience Across Health and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2025

Novil Wijesekara Open the ORCID record for Novil Wijesekara [Opens in a new window]
Novil Wijesekara*
Affiliation:
Department of Global Health, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA Disaster Preparedness and Response Division, Ministry of Health, Colombo, Sri Lanka Post Graduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
*
Corresponding author: Novil Wijesekara; Email: novil.wijesekara@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite growing recognition of the interdependencies of resilience across systems, sectors, and levels (SSLs), translating this understanding into coordinated action remains a challenge. This study identifies seven systemic gaps that reinforce a persistent know–do gap, creating an unhealthy milieu intérieur that reinforces fragmentation across SSLs. In response, seven prerequisites for synergizing resilience are proposed, along with a working definition of Synergistic Resilience.

To operationalize this concept, the Synergistic Resilience Compass (SRC) is introduced—a structured, adaptable, and practitioner-focused framework. A Seven-Step Rollout is proposed to guide implementation across diverse contexts, while illustrating SRC’s utility through case vignettes.

Benefits, along with practice and research implications of SRC, are discussed through potential use case examples, balancing constructivism and pragmatism. Limitations and future directions, including iterative refinement, toolkit development, and creating a community of practice, are highlighted. The SRC provides a framework for synergizing resilience across SSLs where 1+1 becomes 3.

Keywords

resiliencesynergysynergistic resiliencesynergistic resilience compassleadership

Information

Type
Concepts in Disaster Medicine
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 19 , 2025 , e260
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc

Introduction

From the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles to the Mpox outbreak in Kivu, the conflict in Gaza, and dengue surges in Colombo, one word resonates across headlines, research articles, and policy discussions: resilience—a concept deemed critical to addressing the complex challenges faced by humanity. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) defines resilience as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management.” 1

Despite its prominence in both research and practice, resilience is not free from criticism. It has been described as an “umbrella concept,” lacking a universally agreed-upon definition, complicating its practical application.Reference Hillmann 2 Critics also highlight its dominance by positivist and systems-thinking approaches, often neglecting historical injustices and socio-political complexities.Reference Løvschal 3 , Reference de Guevara B, Budny and Kostić 4 Yet, resilience has demonstrated its own resilience in the wake of such criticisms, remaining a versatile and enduring concept in addressing complex challenges such as disasters, pandemics, climate change, and crises.

Some frameworks apply resilience, largely focusing on a specific sector or system, such as health, or a particular level, such as the community. For example, many frameworks and tools have been developed to promote resilience of health systems, as well as for promoting climate resilient and zero-carbon health systems. 5 – 9 Similarly, when it comes to community resilience, at least 56 frameworks and assessments have been researched.Reference Walpole, Loerzel and Dillard 10 Nevertheless, the interconnectedness of resilience across more than one system, sector, or level has been clearly highlighted. For example, the Social Ecological Resilience and SETS resilience support a detailed understanding of cross-border interactions of resilience, highlighting not only the synergies but also the trade-offs.Reference Li, Dong and Liu 11 –Reference Sharifi 13 From a crisis management point of view, versatile tools have been developed to assess the readiness of an organization or a sector for transboundary crisis management.Reference Boin, t Hart, Stern and Sundelius 14 , Reference Boin, Cadar and Weller 15 Approaches such as One Health and Planetary Health, calling for cross-sector, cross-system collaboration, also use resilience as a powerful lens to achieve their goals.Reference Pinet 16 –Reference Costa, Boost, Ziglio, Filho, Vidal and Dinis 18

Despite these advances in understanding resilience interdependencies, resilience-building efforts in practice remain fragmented, often leading to duplication, omissions, and wasted resources. 19 – 23 Based on experience contributing to resilience-building efforts in Sri Lanka across health systems, communities, and responses to disasters, pandemics, climate change, and conflict—as well as engagement with global discourse—the author affirms the value of synergistic approaches. However, even committed actors face significant challenges in translating theory into practice, revealing a persistent know–do gap (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The seven gaps of the know-do gap and the seven prerequisites. This figure illustrates seven interconnected gaps that make up the know-do gap that hinders collaborative resilience across systems, sectors, and levels. Each gap is visualized as a break in the stream of collective action, bridged by a corresponding prerequisite: shared challenges, shared elemental resilience energies, shared synergistic resilience opportunities, shared partner identification, shared directions, shared values, and shared leadership.

Figure 1 presents seven recurring, interconnected gaps, metaphorically shown as fractures in a stream, that hinder integrated resilience efforts. These emerged from a reflective synthesis of literature and the author’s lived experience in disaster and systems response.

Ownership of challenges is often dispersed, leading to fragmented responsibilities. Resilience remains poorly operationalized—either oversimplified or overly complex—making implementation difficult. Opportunities for synergy are often missed due to limited clarity and coordination. Key actors are not consistently engaged, resulting in compartmentalized efforts. Misaligned strategies hinder integrated planning and resource sharing. Without shared values, trust erodes and inequities persist. Lastly, weak leadership undermines collective action and adaptability.

Together, these gaps create a fragmented milieu intérieur, reinforcing disconnections and structural barriers across SSLs. Grounded in evidence and lived experience, this study proposes seven prerequisites—illustrated as bridge arches—each addressing one of these gaps. The next sections define Synergistic Resilience, introduce the Synergistic Resilience Compass (SRC) as a structured, adaptable, practitioner-oriented framework, and outline a Seven-Step Rollout for its application across diverse settings.

Discussion

Seven Prerequisites for Synergizing Resilience Across the Borders of SSLs

Prerequisite 1: Shared Challenges

The UNDRR has identified 302 hazards, categorized into eight groups: meteorological and hydrological, extraterrestrial, geohazards, environmental, chemical, biological, technological, and societal. 24 The all-hazard approach advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that, regardless of their origin—whether natural, technological, or societal—hazards often challenge health systems in similar ways, necessitating a multisectoral response. 25

While the traditional hazard-based approach provides a structured classification of risks, it often emphasizes the source of disruption rather than the broader systemic challenges that arise from it. Hazards, whether natural, technological, or societal, may manifest differently across contexts, but their cascading impacts frequently converge, affecting multiple systems and requiring coordinated responses.Reference Schweizer 26 A more integrative and cross-sectoral dialogue, ensuring that resilience efforts address not only the immediate threats but also their underlying drivers, systemic consequences, and actionable solutions, is pivotal.

This study highlights the big-picture view of systemic risks, proposing shared challenges as the first prerequisite for synergizing resilience across SSLs. Identifying shared challenges fosters cross-border discussions, helping partners pinpoint mutual concerns—ranging from broad issues like climate change impacts to specific risks like urban flooding. This forms a foundation for context assessment, key driver analysis, and actionable solutions.

Each partner typically perceives challenges through the lens of their own priorities. However, it is equally important that they understand how others view the same challenges to explore potential synergies. Thus, identifying shared challenges is crucial for promoting synergies across SSLs through shared ownership.

Prerequisite 2: Shared Elemental Resilience Energies

One of the critiques of resilience is that it serves as an umbrella term without an agreed-upon and actionable definition.Reference Hillmann 2 Since the aim is to engage practitioners who are often more focused on implementation than on theoretical discourse, it is considered crucial that a practical and inclusive approach be adopted. Irrespective of the level of theoretical understanding of resilience, it is affirmed that the practical wisdom of all diverse partners is essential for efforts to synergize resilience to be realized. Hence, shared meaning of resilience between the partners is the second Prerequisite for synergizing resilience across SSLs.

Inspired by the elemental energies, the concept of Elemental Resilience Energies is introduced in an effort to liberate resilience from abstract theories, allowing it to be transformed into something tangible, intuitive, memorable, and deeply connected to everyday experiences, readily translatable across cultures and levels of education: earth, water, fire, and air.Reference Khan, Ozkan, Deligonul and Cavusgil 27 , Reference Combs 28

  • • Earth represents stability, enabling systems to sustain their structure and function despite external challenges. However, excessive rigidity can lead to a breakdown of the system.

  • • Water symbolizes fluidity, allowing systems to adapt and create new forms and functions in response to challenges. Yet, too much fluidity may result in the loss of original structure and function, compromising the system’s integrity.

  • • Fire represents transformability, aiding systems in recovery and enabling them to return to their pre-challenge status after adversity. However, mismatches between pre- and post-challenge status may create conflicts.

  • • Air signifies mobility, helping systems achieve unprecedented positive outcomes and advance to new levels. However, unchecked mobility may lead to a loss of purpose, focus, and direction, leaving the system scattered and disorganized.

This pragmatic and metaphorical interpretation of resilience is presented as the second prerequisite for enabling efforts to be synergized across borders. This interpretation is designed to be easily understood and operationalized by diverse partners, while remaining responsive to the core principles of resilience as a dynamic and contextual construct.

Prerequisite 3: Shared Synergistic Resilience Opportunities (SROs)

Prerequisite 3 addresses the question of “when,” in relation to synergizing resilience. Over time, resilience has become an omnipresent concept, spanning all stages of disaster, crisis, or challenge management cycles. For instance, the UNDRR definition of resilience encompasses actions spanning across the disaster management cycle such as “resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform, and recover.” 1

To operationalize this, eight windows of opportunity, referred to as SROs, are highlighted. They are anticipation, mitigation, preparation, testing, withstanding, coping, restoration, and thriving. These SROs are inherently tied to the timing of the challenge cycle and are intended to be leveraged to enable the synergizing of resilience.Reference Khan, Ozkan, Deligonul and Cavusgil 27 , Reference Gunderson and Holling 29 – 33

Pre-Challenge SROs: Anticipation, mitigation, preparation, and testing, representing proactive risk reduction efforts.

Post-Challenge SROs: Withstanding, coping, restoration, and thriving, representing reactive and risk management efforts.

Viewing resilience through the lens of opportunities emphasizes its time-sensitive nature: seizing these opportunities collectively reduces the impact of subsequent stages of the challenge. Conversely, failing to act on these opportunities increases residual risk, compounding vulnerabilities over time.

Prerequisite 4: Shared Partner Identification

A detailed understanding of partners involved is crucial for synergizing resilience across SSLs. Prerequisite 4 highlights the need for acknowledging and naming the partners across the borders, leading to meaningful engagement under three levels.Reference Bronfenbrenner 34

  • • Reference Level: Represents “our” system, sector, or level, serving as the framework through which the lead partner drives Synergistic Resilience efforts.

  • • Proximal Level: Consists of immediate systems and relationships, such as families, communities, and local organizations, that are directly influenced by the reference level.

  • • Distal Level: Encompasses those actors who influence the broader societal, environmental, and policy contexts, including national regulations, cultural norms, and global factors, that influence the reference level.

A similar three-pronged approach is used in SETS resilience to explain the interconnectedness of social, ecological, and technological systems in urban settings.Reference McPhearson, Cook and Berbés-Blázquez 12 While relationships can be far more complex, versatile tools such as systems maps, relationship maps, and causal loop diagrams are encouraged based on practitioners’ needs.Reference Barbrook-Johnson and Penn 35 Restricting synergy levels to three provides a practical approach, especially for busy practitioners. Depending on context, levels may range from smaller entities like individuals or families to broader ones such as countries or regions, as well as systems (e.g., ecological or health) or sectors like animal or human health.

Prerequisite 5: Shared Directions

Under the next prerequisite of shared direction, it is proposed that synergies be aligned across four Synergistic Resilience Directions (SRDs): purpose, information, resources, and action.Reference Fuller and Applewhite 36 , Reference Pérez-Wilson, Marcos-Marcos, Morgan, Eriksson, Lindström and Álvarez-Dardet 37 Misalignment across these directions makes it unlikely for synergies to manifest effectively, if at all. This calls for sharing purpose, information, resources, and action across SSLs to synergize cross-border resilience.

Inspired by the Transboundary Crisis Management Capital discourse, each SRD is further subdivided into two Synergistic Resilience Sub-Directions (SRSDs).Reference Boin, t Hart, Stern and Sundelius 14 , Reference Boin, Cadar and Weller 15

  • • Shared Purpose: Reflective learning (drawing lessons from the past) and visioning (aspiring for a resilient future).

  • • Shared Information: Sense-making (interpreting information) and meaning-making (contextualizing information for action).

  • • Shared Resources: Resource regeneration (creating new resources) and redistribution (reallocating existing resources).

  • • Shared Action: Decision-making (strategic alignment) and implementation (executing coordinated plans).

A perfectly aligned, utopian approach is not advocated, as it is recognized as unrealistic. Instead, the focus is on achieving partial alignment in one or more SRDs to improve outcomes over siloed efforts, with room for ongoing refinement. The directions remain flexible, allowing practitioners to engage with four SRDs or eight SRSDs based on their needs.

Prerequisite 6: Shared Values

As mentioned earlier, one of the core critiques of resilience is its tendency to overlook historical injustices and socio-political complexities.Reference Løvschal 3 , Reference de Guevara B, Budny and Kostić 4 To address this, shared values are proposed as a prerequisite for synergizing resilience across SSLs. Clarifying and aligning the priority values of each SSL is essential for synergies to emerge. Misaligned values often hinder synergy, leading to reluctance in sharing purpose, information, resources, or action. Without value alignment, synergizing resilience remains a challenge.

Based on contemporary discourse on values, eight core values are proposed as essential elements to be acknowledged for synergizing resilience efforts across borders.Reference Brodzik, Darren and Nodi 38 – 40 These include:

  • • Trust

  • • Diversity

  • • Equity

  • • Inclusivity

  • • Innovation

  • • Accountability

  • • Productivity

  • • Sustainability

However, this is not an exhaustive list, and practitioners may identify their own set of core values for a specific synergizing exercise. What is non-negotiable, however, is the deliberate integration of values into the process as a foundational element.

Prerequisite 7: Shared Leadership

Leadership is a critical leverage point for synergizing resilience across SSLs. It should be both situational and transboundary, while rooted in the core values outlined in Prerequisite 6. Under Shared Leadership, no single approach is prescribed; instead, practitioners are encouraged to draw on the diverse leadership styles already available to them.

Many leadership theories, styles, and approaches support leadership across boundaries, some of which include:

Another key aspect of shared leadership is being sensitive to the Elemental Resilience Energies, discussed in Prerequisite 2, that are prevailing in each situation and contextualizing leadership approach accordingly. For example:

  • • Stability (Earth): Directive leadership that ensures decisiveness in crises and the ability to withstand challenges.Reference House 45

  • • Fluidity (Water): Adaptive leadership that enables flexibility and learning in response to uncertainty.Reference Heifetz, Marty and Alexander 46

  • • Transformability (Fire): Transformational leadership that drives long-term recovery, innovation, and systemic change.Reference Niphadkar 47

  • • Mobility (Air): Visionary leadership that fosters foresight, anticipation, and strategic resilience-building.Reference Yousef Farhan 48

Under the seventh prerequisite, shared leadership is presented as a curated buffet—offering a diverse range of leadership approaches that transcend SSL boundaries while adapting to prevailing Elemental Resilience Energies. Practitioners are encouraged to select the approach best suited to their context, enabling a tailored and effective pathway to synergizing resilience across boundaries.

Enshrining the seven prerequisites outlined above, a working definition is proposed for the term Synergistic Resilience.

Working Definition of Synergistic Resilience

Synergistic Resilience is the dynamic, interconnected, and value-based collaborative approach that integrates leadership across multiple systems, sectors, and levels—including individuals, communities, and both human and natural systems—to promote resilience by effectively and efficiently reducing the risk of challenges and managing them when they occur, achieving more collectively than individual systems functioning alone.

The term and working definition of Synergistic Resilience, used throughout this study, along with the SRC proposed next, are aligned with the seven previously discussed prerequisites. Like mockingbirds that collect fragments of melodies from diverse sources to create new and unexpected harmonies, inspiration was gratefully drawn from theories and frameworks that resonated most strongly (Table 1), with an effort made to weave them into a fresh and cohesive conceptualization of synergistic resilience.Reference Collins 49 , Reference Robbins 50

Table 1.

Theoretical foundations of the synergistic resilience

SRC

The SRC is a practitioner-focused, structured, adaptable, and actionable framework for the promotion of Synergistic Resilience (Figure 2). Table 2 provides a detailed interpretation of the terms used in the SRC.

Figure 2.

The synergistic resilience compass.

Challenge at 12 o’clock—Represents the starting point (Prerequisite 1: Shared Challenges) 1

Four outer quadrants—Arranged clockwise, stability of earth, fluidity of water, transformability of fire, mobility of air (Prerequisite 2: Shared Elemental Resilience Energies)Reference Hillmann 2 –5

Two swirls of the spiral—Pre-challenge (anticipation, mitigation, preparation, testing) and post-challenge (withstanding, coping, restoration, thriving) (Prerequisite 3: Synergistic Resilience Opportunities)Reference Sulistiadi, Wasir, Thalib, Ayuningtyas, Bawazier and Buskens 6 –Reference Sharifi13

Three concentric layers—Representing distal, reference, and proximal levels (Prerequisite 4: Shared Partner Identification)Reference Boin, t Hart, Stern and Sundelius 14 –Reference Pinet16

Four main directions with sub-directions—Shared purpose (reflective learning and visioning), shared information (sense-making and meaning-making), shared resources (regeneration and redistribution), shared action (decision-making and implementation) (Prerequisite 5: Shared Directions)Reference Mumford, Martinez and Tyance-Hassell 17 –25

Eight sectors—Represent the eight core values (trust, diversity, equity, inclusivity, innovation, accountability, productivity, sustainability) (Prerequisite 6: Shared Values)Reference Gunderson and Holling 29 –Reference Fuller and Applewhite36

Central fulcrum—Leadership serves as the guiding, adaptive force that enables balance and coordination across all elements (Prerequisite 7: Shared Leadership)Reference Pérez-Wilson, Marcos-Marcos, Morgan, Eriksson, Lindström and Álvarez-Dardet 37

Table 2.

Prerequisites, terms, interpretations in relation to SRC and reference

Seven-Step Rollout of the SRC

Table 3 outlines the proposed Seven-Step Rollout of the SRC.

Table 3.

Seven steps in the rollout of the SRC

The Seven-Step Rollout of the SRC provides an iterative guide for operationalizing Synergistic Resilience. It begins by identifying the challenge, ensuring a clear focus on resilience needs. An Elemental Resilience Energy Scan assesses existing resilience dynamics, guiding the selection of relevant SROs. The next steps define use-case levels, engage key partners, and plan synergistic efforts. The final steps integrate core values and adopt an appropriate leadership approach.

This rollout is not a rigid sequence but a flexible outline that aligns with existing project management tools, such as the Theory of Change, Results Framework, and Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks, ensuring resilience efforts are effectively embedded into routine implementation and assessment. 58

Illustrative Case Vignettes

To illustrate the utility of the SRC, four case vignettes from Sri Lanka were purposefully selected from published good practices that, in the author’s view, exemplify the power of Synergistic Resilience 59 –Reference Tissera, Samaraweera and Jayamanne 65. Each practice, addressing diverse challenges, was analyzed using the SRC with health as the reference level, employing SRC terminology to demonstrate its applicability and usefulness (Table 4).

Table 4.

Application of the synergistic resilience compass across the four Case Vignettes

Benefits of Synergistic Resilience

Synergistic Resilience provides several benefits when diverse actors collaborate meaningfully to address complex challenges resulting in 1+1 equals 3 outcomes.

Firstly, the SRC’s adaptability allows it to be applied across diverse challenges, from disasters, pandemics, climate change to crises, as well as across SSLs.

Under each of the above, SRC can be applied at scales ranging from individual villages or hospitals to entire health systems or regions.

Secondly, the SRC requires minimal inputs yet enables efficient use of available resources, making it especially valuable in resource-constrained settings such as pandemics, disasters, or austerity periods by optimizing financial, human, and material resources.

Thirdly, rather than being another abstract framework that remains unused in academic literature, the SRC is paired with a Seven-Step Rollout process, making it a practical, ready-to-use tool for practitioners. This addresses a common critique of resilience as an “umbrella concept” lacking clear definitions and complicating implementation.Reference Hillmann 2

Fourthly, the SRC explicitly centers values within Synergistic Resilience efforts. This helps counter criticisms of resilience approaches that overlook historical injustices and socio-political complexity.Reference Løvschal 3 , Reference de Guevara B, Budny and Kostić 4 Its multi-level engagement also enhances the ability to reach and serve vulnerable groups.

Practice and Research Implications

Though SRC is a primarily practitioner-focused tool, it has both practice and research implications (Table 5).

Table 5.

Research and practice implication of the synergistic resilience compass

Above implications need to be grounded in a blended constructivist–pragmatist epistemology, supporting both rigorous inquiry and practical utility by respecting subjective, contextual perspectives while promoting structured, actionable insights.

Limitations

As with any framework or approach, SRC is not without limitations. Firstly, SRC is still a framework on paper. The theoretical and experience-based, though ambitious, claim that the SRC could serve as a useful framework still needs to be tested in real-life settings. To assess its usefulness and acceptability, the SRC is proposed for application in diverse project and program settings, with both its benefits and limitations to be documented. An iterative process could be used to improve the SRC framework based on such feedback.

Secondly, it is assumed that the partners possess sufficient levels of readiness to change. However, if this assumption is incorrect, certain settings may face challenges in achieving the anticipated impacts due to a lack of change commitment or change efficacy, demanding preparatory work prior to the implementation of Synergistic Resilience efforts.Reference Weiner 70

Thirdly, there is a risk that practitioners still find comprehension of SRC to be too complex, though attempts have been taken to summarize and simplify multiple concepts within it.

Conclusion

The interdependencies of resilience across systems are well recognized, yet a significant know–do gap remains in translating this understanding into coordinated, cross-boundary action. This study identifies seven systemic gaps that hinder Synergistic Resilience across SSLs, outlines seven corresponding prerequisites, proposes a working definition of Synergistic Resilience, and introduces the SRC as a practitioner-focused, structured, adaptable, and actionable framework with a Seven-Step Rollout process.

Looking ahead, converting the SRC into a practical toolkit is proposed—comprising knowledge products such as a policy brief, advocacy package, and training module. This toolkit could support cross-border advocacy and capacity building to foster Synergistic Resilience. Establishing a community of practice among SRC users is also proposed to cultivate a supportive network of practitioners across sectors.

The SRC serves as a practical, adaptable tool to advocate for, plan, and manage resilience initiatives across sectors and system levels. It supports 360-degree stakeholder engagement and guides all stages of program implementation. The SRC provides a structured yet flexible framework for analyzing system-level interactions, developing assessment tools, and applying its 44 constituents as a coding scheme in qualitative research. Grounded in a blended constructivist–pragmatist epistemology, it enables both context-sensitive inquiry and real-world application. These applications of SRC are expected to synergize resilience in response to today’s demanding challenges in a 1+1=3 way.

“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.”—Hellen KellerReference Lash 71

Abbreviations

ADPC

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

CADRE

Community Action for Disaster Response

CSSR

Collapse Structure Search and Rescue

HOPE

Hospital Preparedness in Emergencies

MFR

Medical First Responder

PEER

Programme Enhancement for Emergency Response

SETS

Social, Ecological, Technological Systems Resilience

SRC

Synergistic Resilience Compass

SRD

Synergistic Resilience Direction

SRO

Synergistic Resilience Opportunity

SRSD

Synergistic Resilience Sub-direction

SSLs

Systems, Sectors, and Levels

UNDRR

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

USAID BHA

U.S. Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance

WHO

World Health Organization

Acknowledgments

Author gratefully acknowledges Nicolle Errett, Kelli N. O’Laughlin, David Townes, and Judith N. Wasserheit from the University of Washington; Nathan Weed from Washington State Department of Health, Deidre Combs from Combs & Company and Montana State University, and Reuben Samuel from World Health Organization, South-East Asia Regional Office and Indu Abeyaratne from World Food Programme Somalia for their valuable feedback and comments on the manuscript. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this manuscript, which do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which the author is affiliated.

Author contribution

NW conceptualized the essay, conducted the literature review, visualized the framework, and developed the manuscript at all stages.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

None.

Use of AI

During the preparation of this work the author used Grammarly to improve language and readability with caution. After using this tool, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

IRB approval

As per the University of Washington IRB, this study is exempt from detailed review as it did not involve engagement of human subjects.

References

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Terminology. 2017. Accessed July 11, 2022. https://www.undrr.org/terminologyGoogle Scholar
Hillmann, J. Disciplines of organizational resilience: contributions, critiques, and future research avenues. Rev Manag Sci. 2021;15:879–936. doi:10.1007/s11846-020-00384-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løvschal, M. Retranslating resilience theory in archaeology. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2022;51:195–211. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-011705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Guevara B, Bliesemann, Budny, P, Kostić, R. The global-capitalist elephant in the room: how resilient peacebuilding hinders substantive transformation and undermines long-term peace prospects. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2023;62:101291. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. Health Systems Resilience. 2024. Accessed February 11, 2024. https://www.who.int/teams/primary-health-care/health-systems-resilienceGoogle Scholar
Sulistiadi, W, Wasir, R, Thalib, W, Ayuningtyas, D, Bawazier, N, Buskens, E. Building health systems resilience: understanding the social, economic, and cultural impacts of climate change from stakeholders’ perspectives in Indonesia. Arch Public Health. 2024;82(1):168. doi:10.1186/s13690-024-01403-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copeland, S, Hinrichs-Krapels, S, Fecondo, F, Santizo, ER, Bal, R, Comes, T. A resilience view on health system resilience: a scoping review of empirical studies and reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1297. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-10022-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paschoalotto, MAC, Lazzari, EA, Rocha, R, Massuda, A, Castro, MC. Health systems resilience: is it time to revisit resilience after COVID-19? Soc Sci Med. 2023;320:115716. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115716CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Operational Framework for Building Climate Resilient Health Systems. World Health Organization; 2015. Accessed April 24, 2024. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/189951Google Scholar
Walpole, EH, Loerzel, J, Dillard, M. A Review of Community Resilience Frameworks and Assessment Tools: An Annotated Bibliography. National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.); 2021:NIST TN 2172. doi:10.6028/NIST.TN.2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, T, Dong, Y, Liu, Z. A review of social-ecological system resilience: mechanism, assessment and management. Sci Total Environ. 2020;723:138113. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhearson, T, Cook, EM, Berbés-Blázquez, M, et al. A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth. 2022;5(5):505–518. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifi, A. Resilience of urban social-ecological-technological systems (SETS): a review. Sustain Cities Soc. 2023;99:104910. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2023.104910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A, ‘t Hart, P, Stern, E, Sundelius, B. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2016. doi:10.1017/9781316339756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A, Cadar, L, Weller, M. Crisis Capital Management Development: A Survey Tool. London School of Economics; 2018. https://www.lse.ac.uk/accounting/assets/CARR/documents/Transcrisis/D7.1-Crisis-capital-management-development.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pinet, P. Striving for One Health resilience. WOAH—World Organisation for Animal Health. May 25, 2021. Accessed February 1, 2025. https://www.woah.org/en/striving-for-one-health-resilience/Google Scholar
Mumford, EL, Martinez, DJ, Tyance-Hassell, K, et al. Evolution and expansion of the One Health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: a call to action. Front Public Health. 2023;10:1056459. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1056459CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, UM, Boost, M, Ziglio, E. Resilience as a major asset for planetary health: taking an integrative occupational approach towards climate resilience. In: Filho, WL, Vidal, DG, Dinis, MAP, eds. Planetary Health and Climate Change: Understanding the Impacts of Climate Change to the Well-Being of Our Planet. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024:435–452. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72740-5_20Google Scholar
WHO. Strengthening the Global Architecture for Health Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Resilience. May 21, 2023. Accessed October 16, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/strengthening-the-global-architecture-for-health-emergency-prevention--preparedness--response-and-resilienceGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. Regional Strategic Roadmap on Health Security and Health System Resilience for Emergencies 2023-2027. World Health Organization; 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789290209959Google Scholar
World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia. Strategic Action Framework for Strengthening Community Engagement and Resilience to Health Emergencies in the WHO South-East Asia Region (2025-2029). World Health Organization; 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789290229629Google Scholar
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Blueprint for Global Health Resilience. USAID; 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/blueprint-for-global-health-resilienceGoogle Scholar
World Bank. Rising to the Challenge: Success Stories and Strategies for Achieving Climate Adaptation and Resilience. The World Bank; 2024. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/rising-to-the-challenge-climate-adaptation-resilienceGoogle Scholar
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Hazard Information Profiles (HIPs) Online Reference. September 18, 2023. Accessed January 25, 2025. https://www.preventionweb.net/drr-glossary/hipsGoogle Scholar
WHO. Key Approaches to Strengthening Emergency Preparedness and Response. 2025. Accessed January 25, 2025. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/our-work-in-emergencies/key-approachesGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, P. Governance of Systemic Risks for Disaster Prevention and Mitigation. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR); 2019.10.1108/DPM-09-2019-0282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, H, Ozkan, KSL, Deligonul, S, Cavusgil, E. Redefining the organizational resilience construct using a frame based methodology: a new perspective from the ecology based approach. J Bus Res. 2024;172:114397. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, D. The Way of Conflict: Elemental Wisdom for Resolving Disputes and Transcending Differences. 2004. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.amazon.com/Way-Conflict-Elemental-Transcending-Differences/dp/1577314492Google Scholar
Gunderson, LH, Holling, CS, eds. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press; 2002.Google Scholar
Holling, CS. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Natl Acad Sci. Published online 1996.Google Scholar
Pimm, SL. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature. 1984;307(5949):321–326. doi:10.1038/307321a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, AE, Berbés-Blázquez, M, Haider, LJ, Peterson, GD. Measuring and assessing resilience: broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J Appl Ecol. 2016;53(3):677–687. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. 2015. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/793460?ln=en&v=pdfGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Dev. 1974;45(1):1–5.10.2307/1127743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbrook-Johnson, P, Penn, AS. Causal loop diagrams. In: Systems Mapping: How to Build and Use Causal Models of Systems. Springer International Publishing; 2022:47–59. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, RB, Applewhite, EJ. SYNERGETICS Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.; 1975. https://monoskop.org/images/4/46/Fuller_R_Buckminster_Synergetics_1997.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Wilson, P, Marcos-Marcos, J, Morgan, A, Eriksson, M, Lindström, B, Álvarez-Dardet, C. “A synergy model of health”: an integration of salutogenesis and the health assets model. Health Promot Int. 2021;36(3):884–894. doi:10.1093/heapro/daaa084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brodzik, C, Darren, MG, Nodi, N. Build Trust in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commitments. Deloitte Insights. January 13, 2022. Accessed October 12, 2024. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/building-employee-trust-dei-programs.htmlGoogle Scholar
McNamara, S. Four Ways to Drive Accountability for DEI in Your Organization. Seramount. March 7, 2022. Accessed October 12, 2024. https://seramount.com/articles/four-ways-to-drive-accountability-for-dei-in-your-organization/Google Scholar
World Economic Forum. These Organizations Are Scaling Impactful Corporate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Initiatives. World Economic Forum. January 8, 2024. Accessed October 12, 2024. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/organizations-impactful-corporate-dei-initiatives/Google Scholar
Spillane, JP. A Distributed perspective on school leadership and management. In: Peterson, P, Baker, E, McGaw, B, eds. International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition). Elsevier; 2010:1–6. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00438-3Google Scholar
Silva, JAM, Mininel, VA, Fernandes Agreli, H, Peduzzi, M, Harrison, R, Xyrichis, A. Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;10(10):CD013850. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013850.pub2Google ScholarPubMed
Witt, SL, Weber EP. Book Reviews: Chrislip, David, D. and Larson, Carl E., Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994. 182 pp. Rev Public Pers Adm. 1998;18(2):88-93. doi:10.1177/0734371X9801800208Google Scholar
Fick-Cooper, L, Williams, A, Moffatt, S, Baker, EL. Boundary spanning leadership: promising practices for public health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2019;25(3):288. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000001004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, RJ. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Adm Sci Q. 1971;16(3):321–339. doi:10.2307/2391905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heifetz, RA., Marty, L, Alexander, G. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press; 2009.Google Scholar
Niphadkar, DC. The new age transformational leader: Richard Branson. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2017;8(6):542–547.Google Scholar
Yousef Farhan, B. Visionary leadership and innovative mindset for sustainable business development: case studies and practical applications. Res Glob. 2024;8:100219. doi:10.1016/j.resglo.2024.100219Google Scholar
Collins, EC. Qualitative research as art: toward a holistic process. Theory Pract. 1992;31(2):181–186.10.1080/00405849209543540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, T. Skinny Legs and All. Bantam Books; 1990.Google Scholar
Holling, CS, Gunderson, LH. Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Gunderson, LH, Holling, CS, eds. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Island Press; 2002:25–62.Google Scholar
Cumming, GS, Peterson, GD. Unifying research on social-ecological resilience and collapse. Trends Ecol Evol. 2017;32(9):695–713. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CDC. One Health in Action | One Health | CDC. March 11, 2022. Accessed July 30, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/in-action/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Whitmee, S, Haines, A, Beyrer, C, et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015;386(10007):1973–2028. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, BJ, Lewis, MA, Clauser, SB, Stitzenberg, KB. In search of synergy: strategies for combining interventions at multiple levels. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012(44):34–41. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonovsky, A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(1):11–18. doi:10.1093/heapro/11.1.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, B, Eriksson, M. Contextualizing salutogenesis and Antonovsky in public health development. Health Promot Int. 2006;21(3):238–244. doi:10.1093/heapro/dal016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PM4NGOs. Project DPro—Project Management for Development Professionals Guide—PMD Pro—2nd Edition; 2020:17. https://pm4ngos.org/methodologies-guides/project-dpro/Google Scholar
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC). PEER South Asia Stage 5 Brochure. Published online 2021. https://app.adpc.net/resources/peer-south-asia-brochure-2/Google Scholar
Asian Preparedness Partnership (APP). Validating HOPE in Sri Lanka. Asian Preparedness Partnership (APP). November 24, 2024. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://app.adpc.net/news/validating-hope-in-sri-lanka/Google Scholar
Wijesinghe, MSD, Ariyaratne, VS, Gunawardana, BMI, et al. Role of religious leaders in COVID-19 prevention: a community-level prevention model in Sri Lanka. J Relig Health. 2022;61(1):687–702. doi:10.1007/s10943-021-01463-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daily, FT. Sri Lanka Insurance staff donates PCR machine to Teaching Hospital Ratnapura. April 6, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://www.ft.lk/healthcare/Sri-Lanka-Insurance-staff-donates-PCR-machine-to-Teaching-Hospital-Ratnapura/45-715907Google Scholar
Sunday Times. Rotary Club donates PCR machine to MRI for diagnosis process of COVID-19. July 2, 2020. https://sundaytimes.lk/online/news-online/rotary-club-donates-pcr-machine-to-mri-for-diagnosis-process-of-covid-19/2-1121817Google Scholar
Hemas. Mahela and Sanga partners with Hemas to Donate a PCR Machine to LRH. January 7, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://hemas.com/news/mahela-and-sanga-partners-with-hemas-to-donate-a-pcr-machine-to-lrh.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tissera, H, Samaraweera, P, Jayamanne, D, et al. Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) for an emergency operation against a dengue outbreak in the western province, Sri Lanka. Dengue Bull. 2014;38:64.Google Scholar
Carmen, E, Fazey, I, Ross, H, et al. Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio. 2022;51(6):1371–1387. doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization AFRO. Strengthening Community Protection and Resilience: Regional Strategy for Community Engagement. 2023. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/sessions/resolutions/AFR-RC73-WP3%20Strengthening%20community%20protection%20and%20resilience%20regional%20strategy%20for%20community%20engagement%2C%202023%E2%80%932030%20in%20the%20WHO%20African.pdfGoogle Scholar
WHO. Communicating Risk In Public Health Emergencies: A WHO Guideline for Emergency Risk Communication (ERC) Policy and Practice. January 10, 2018. Accessed February 19, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241550208Google Scholar
Collignon, PJ, McEwen, SA. One health-its importance in helping to better control antimicrobial resistance. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019;4(1):E22. doi:10.3390/tropicalmed4010022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, BJ. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):67. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lash, JP. Helen and Teacher: The Story of Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan Macy. A Merloyd Lawrence Book: Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence; 1980.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. The seven gaps of the know-do gap and the seven prerequisites. This figure illustrates seven interconnected gaps that make up the know-do gap that hinders collaborative resilience across systems, sectors, and levels. Each gap is visualized as a break in the stream of collective action, bridged by a corresponding prerequisite: shared challenges, shared elemental resilience energies, shared synergistic resilience opportunities, shared partner identification, shared directions, shared values, and shared leadership.

Figure 1

Table 1. Theoretical foundations of the synergistic resilience

Figure 2

Figure 2. The synergistic resilience compass.Challenge at 12 o’clock—Represents the starting point (Prerequisite 1: Shared Challenges)1Four outer quadrants—Arranged clockwise, stability of earth, fluidity of water, transformability of fire, mobility of air (Prerequisite 2: Shared Elemental Resilience Energies)2–5Two swirls of the spiral—Pre-challenge (anticipation, mitigation, preparation, testing) and post-challenge (withstanding, coping, restoration, thriving) (Prerequisite 3: Synergistic Resilience Opportunities)6–13Three concentric layers—Representing distal, reference, and proximal levels (Prerequisite 4: Shared Partner Identification)14–16Four main directions with sub-directions—Shared purpose (reflective learning and visioning), shared information (sense-making and meaning-making), shared resources (regeneration and redistribution), shared action (decision-making and implementation) (Prerequisite 5: Shared Directions)17–25Eight sectors—Represent the eight core values (trust, diversity, equity, inclusivity, innovation, accountability, productivity, sustainability) (Prerequisite 6: Shared Values)29–36Central fulcrum—Leadership serves as the guiding, adaptive force that enables balance and coordination across all elements (Prerequisite 7: Shared Leadership)37

Figure 3

Table 2. Prerequisites, terms, interpretations in relation to SRC and reference

Figure 4

Table 3. Seven steps in the rollout of the SRC

Figure 5

Table 4. Application of the synergistic resilience compass across the four Case Vignettes

Figure 6

Table 5. Research and practice implication of the synergistic resilience compass