Decision making in adverse events: a selected literature review.

In the 21st century organizations have to face pressing "big challenges" (George et al., 2016). It includes adverse events such as global pandemics and climate change. The impacts of these adverse events lead organizations and decision makers to adopt new behaviours. Although these adverse events are inevitable, organizations do not respond in the same way. Some organizations are better able to withstand and recover from such shocks than others (Van der Vegt et.al, 2015). High-risk events that at first appear to cause only local and isolated effects can now increase in intensity and damage vital infrastructure affecting events on a national and global scale. McFarlane and Norris' (2006, p. 4) defined an adverse event as "a potentially traumatic event that is experienced collectively, has an acute onset, and is limited in time; it can be attributed to natural, technological or human causes" adverse event is caused by factors external to the system, unforeseen and requiring immediate action (examples include hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics). The traditional way of dealing with adverse events is to develop approaches and systems to identify risks as such, in this way scholars have shifted their attention from identifying and mitigating risk to attempting to increase resilience (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). The term resilience almost always has the positive connotation of flexibility and strengthening. The desired result is better than the preparation to face disruptive unexpected events. The purpose of this study is to understand the impact of strategic choices in response to adverse events on the life of organizations. Specifically, when their responses to adverse events are in not adaptive resilience way (inertia). In order to understand this, we based this study on a review of the literature specifically linked to adverse events and the way in which it’s possible to front them.