The limits of resilience: Knowing when to persevere, when to change and when to quit. By Michael Ungar ( 1st edition) (2024, Sutherland House, Toronto), 256pp, CAD 19.95, ISBN 978-1-990823-56-5.

Abstract

The 2023 collapse of Wilko, a prominent UK retail chain, exemplifies the ‘resilience paradox’ in corporate restructuring—a compelling and counterintuitive dynamic within systems, organisations and societies: The very mechanisms that bolster short-term resilience can inadvertently sow the seeds of long-term vulnerability. To solve financial challenges, Wilko secured a £40 million loan from Hilco Capital in early 2023 and implemented cost-cutting measures, including up to 400 job cuts.1 These actions provided short-term stability but led to overreliance on external financing and reduced operational flexibility. Consequently, Wilko entered administration in August 2023, resulting in the closure of all 400 stores and the loss of over 12,000 jobs.2 This case highlights how strategies aimed at immediate resilience can inadvertently increase medium and long-term vulnerabilities, underscoring the complex balance between short-term recovery efforts and long-term sustainability.3

Resilience has long been celebrated as the hallmark of human strength and adaptability.4 Michael Ungar's The Limits of Resilience does not take the Wilko case but challenges this simplistic valorisation by revealing its inherent complexities and paradoxes with other examples. As Ungar argues, resilience is not the panacea; it is often portrayed to be; instead, it is a process laden with trade-offs, contradictions and systemic dependencies. Drawing on real-world examples, such as the evolution of Drayton Valley from an oil-dependent boomtown to a community grappling with diversification, Ungar highlights how resilience can perpetuate unsustainable cycles of recovery that prioritise short-term survival over long-term transformation.5 In light of this idea, resilience becomes a double-edged sword—offering hope and progress for some while exacerbating inequalities or vulnerabilities for others. By interrogating resilience as both an individual and systemic phenomenon, Ungar reframes it as a dynamic interplay of opportunities and costs, urging readers to reconsider its role in fostering equitable and sustainable futures.

Ungar introduces and expands upon several concepts that challenge traditional understandings of resilience. Central to his argument is the ‘resilience paradox’, which describes how the success of one system's resilience can create vulnerabilities in others or even within itself over time. Ungar critiques the dominant view of resilience as mere recovery, framing it instead as a process of adaptive trade-offs—decisions and adjustments made by individuals, communities and systems that inevitably come with costs. He distinguishes between personal resilience, often characterised by individual endurance or ‘bouncing back’, and ‘systemic resilience’, which depends on the interaction of interdependent networks, such as families, governments and economies. Ungar also explores the concept of ‘resilience silos’, where one system's self-contained approach to resilience undermines broader collective efforts. By redefining resilience as an interplay of redundancy, flexibility and diversity within interconnected systems, Ungar provides a new idea to discuss how resilience operates across personal, social and structural domains and shapes outcomes that are neither universally positive nor sustainable. This book review evaluates Ungar's contributions, methodological approach and the broader implications of his ‘resilience paradox’ and other ideas.

The book unfolds across 10 chapters, each addressing a unique dimension of resilience. From the critique of success-driven paradigms in Chapter 1 to exploring resilience trade-offs in Chapter 10, Ungar weaves personal anecdotes, academic research and policy implications into a cohesive argument. Ungar's exploration of the ‘resilience paradox’ is vividly illustrated in his case study of Drayton Valley, a Canadian oil town grappling with the boom-and-bust cycles of resource extraction. Traditionally, resilience in such communities is framed as an individual or familial capacity to endure economic fluctuations—working long hours during booms or scaling back during busts. However, Ungar challenges this notion by framing Drayton Valley's transformation as a communal and systemic process, where resilience extends beyond personal endurance to encompass collective adaptation and structural change.6

Drayton Valley's evolution highlights the paradox at the heart of resilience. For decades, the town's identity and economy were tethered to the oil industry, fostering a singular, short-term vision of resilience rooted in ‘bouncing back’ to the next economic boom. This narrow focus on recovery entrenched dependency, making the community more vulnerable to external shocks like plummeting oil prices and increasing global calls for decarbonisation. The paradox emerges when resilience in one domain—such as maintaining oil-driven economic stability—ultimately undermines long-term sustainability and broader systemic well-being.

A turning point in Drayton Valley occurred when community leaders began to embrace diversification, investing in initiatives like education centres, renewable energy projects and social programs.7 These efforts exemplify what Ungar describes as ‘systemic resilience’, where adaptive trade-offs are made to prioritise the collective good over short-term recovery. The town's shift away from an oil-dependent identity required grappling with the ‘resilience paradox’: letting go of deeply ingrained systems that once sustained the community to create space for new, more sustainable forms of growth. By addressing resilience as a communal achievement shaped by interdependent systems, Drayton Valley illustrates how resilience is about enduring adversity and reimagining the future to balance competing priorities and trade-offs.

Ungar's contributions to the discourse on resilience are undeniably transformative, particularly in his redefinition of resilience as a systemic, multi-layered process rather than an individual trait. By emphasising the interdependencies among systems—social, economic, environmental and institutional—Ungar broadens the scope of resilience studies, shifting the focus from isolated instances of recovery to the ‘dynamics of collective adaptation’. However, these theoretical advancements are not without their limitations, which warrant critical reflection.

One of the limitations of Ungar's framework is the potential overshadowing of individual agency in favour of ‘systemic resilience’. While his emphasis on the interconnectedness of systems is compelling, it risks minimising the role of personal responsibility and individual decision-making in fostering resilience. Ungar's focus on systemic solutions can give the impression that individuals are passive recipients of external influences rather than active agents capable of shaping their resilience. This raises important questions about the balance between ‘systemic support and personal initiative’: How can policies and interventions empower individuals without fostering dependency on systemic structures? Ungar's work leaves this balance somewhat unresolved, pointing to a tension between the ‘macro-level transformations’ he advocates and the ‘micro-level resilience-building strategies’ individuals may need in practice.

Another critique of Ungar's approach is the practicality of implementing his proposed alternatives to resilience as recovery. While his critique of resilience as ‘bouncing back’ is persuasive, the systemic overhauls he suggests often require extensive institutional reform, long-term investments and a willingness to challenge entrenched power dynamics. For example, his advocacy for economic diversification in resource-dependent communities, as seen in the case of Drayton Valley, necessitates significant political will, community buy-in and resource allocation. These changes are challenging to achieve universally, especially in contexts with limited resources, weak governance structures or strong cultural resistance to change. This raises concerns about the scalability of his solutions and whether they can be realistically applied across diverse socio-economic and political landscapes.

Ungar's work also prompts a broader philosophical question: Can resilience ever be fully disentangled from recovery in the public imagination and policy discourse? While his systemic approach offers a more holistic vision of resilience, its practical implementation may require a new approach to recovery and transformation rather than a wholesale rejection of the former. This suggests that Ungar's framework, while ground-breaking, might benefit from further exploration of hybrid models that integrate systemic reforms with incremental, recovery-oriented strategies.

Michael Ungar's reframing of resilience as a transformative, systemic process rather than a mere return to normalcy carries significant implications for policymakers, managers and community leaders. His work challenges these stakeholders to rethink traditional approaches, such as disaster recovery or multinational enterprises (MNEs) strategies, urging a shift from short-term recovery models to long-term strategies that foster sustainability, equity and systemic adaptability.

Michael Ungar's work, emphasising ‘systemic resilience’ and adaptive trade-offs, opens significant avenues for interdisciplinary research and practical application, particularly in restructuring and insolvency. By reframing resilience as a dynamic interplay of systems influenced by cultural, economic and environmental factors, Ungar offers a lens through which businesses, policymakers and communities can more effectively deal with financial crises and structural transformations.

Michael Ungar's The Limits of Resilience provides a transformative perspective on resilience, challenging long-held assumptions and reframing it as a paradoxical and systemic process. The book's key message lies in its argument that resilience is not simply about enduring adversity or bouncing back to pre-crisis conditions but about adapting, transforming and negotiating trade-offs across interconnected systems. Ungar's insights highlight that resilience cannot be reduced to individual fortitude or single-dimensional recovery but must be understood as an intricate interplay of social, economic and environmental systems. This redefinition not only broadens the conceptual scope of resilience but also underscores the necessity of systemic change to address complex and interdependent challenges.

Ungar's key research findings illustrate that resilience involves adaptive trade-offs, where success in one domain may come at the expense of vulnerabilities in others. His case studies, such as the transformation of Drayton Valley, emphasise the importance of collective adaptation and systemic innovation over short-term recovery. By exploring the ‘resilience paradox’, Ungar reveals how traditional resilience strategies can inadvertently perpetuate inequality and systemic fragility. The broader implications of his work extend to fields such as disaster recovery, urban planning and social services, where resilience must be reconceptualised to balance competing priorities and foster equitable, sustainable outcomes.

The main research contribution of the book lies in its interdisciplinary framework, which bridges sociology, economics and environmental science to provide a holistic understanding of resilience. Ungar's work opens new avenues for research, particularly in comparing resilience models across diverse cultural and economic contexts and integrating ‘systemic resilience’ into policy design. Future directions include exploring hybrid resilience models that combine systemic reforms with incremental recovery strategies and examining how resilience can be operationalised in various institutional and regional settings. Ungar's call to action challenges policymakers, managers and community leaders to embrace resilience as a transformative process, requiring collaboration and systemic innovation to create a more equitable and adaptive future. His vision redefines resilience not as an endpoint but as an ongoing negotiation of priorities, offering a robust framework for addressing the complexities of our interconnected world.