Preparing to lead in polycrisis: a multi-method process evaluation of HR-driven psychosocial resilience training for leaders

Modern organizational landscapes are increasingly defined by compounding and interconnected disruptions—a phenomenon commonly described as a polycrisis. From geopolitical conflicts and global supply chain volatility to sector-wide labor actions and public health restrictions, contemporary public and private sector leaders face continuous, simultaneous pressures that defy simple operational fixes. In response to these extreme working environments, a pioneering multi-method study has evaluated a novel Human Resource Management (HRM)-driven psychosocial resilience training program designed to bolster the adaptive capacities of organizational leaders.

The research, conducted across two major Danish organizations during intense crisis conditions, provides critical insights into how structured resilience interventions function in practice. By investigating the intersection of crisis leadership, psychological resilience, and strategic human resource development, the study highlights the challenges and mechanisms involved in training leaders to anticipate, cope with, and learn from acute workplace adversity.

Background Context and Study Framework

As global uncertainties multiply, organizations can no longer rely solely on traditional risk management or accidental solutions. Instead, modern management theory increasingly emphasizes the necessity of organizational resilience—acting as a human immune system that absorbs external stressors, learns from them, and strengthens the enterprise moving forward.

However, while psychological resilience has been extensively studied, empirical research evaluating specific resilience training programs tailored for professional business and public-sector leaders remains remarkably scarce. To address this gap, researchers designed a multi-month intervention consisting of cyclic resilience sprints. These sprints incorporated cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social training modules tailored to the unique operational pressures of the participating organizations.

The study examined 48 leaders—20 from an acute public-sector organization providing round-the-clock human-facing services, and 28 from a private-sector enterprise dependent on global production and supply-chain logistics. Throughout the study period, these leaders navigated severe operational hurdles, including COVID-19 safety restrictions, staffing shortages, compensatory leave obligations, and sudden market demand surges.

Chronology and Program Implementation

The resilience intervention was structured around a series of weekly experiential learning cycles, or resilience sprints, spanning nearly six months. Internal HR teams were pre-educated to deliver the curriculum, utilizing peer-group gatherings, self-evaluation notebooks, and structured reflections on past and anticipated adversities.

To evaluate the program’s real-world execution, the research team employed a process evaluation framework based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines, focusing on implementation fidelity, mechanisms of impact, and contextual influences. Participant evaluations were tracked using an adapted Kirkpatrick model measuring reaction, learning, behavior, and results, alongside longitudinal surveys assessing contextual factors at baseline, during the intervention, and post-training.

Participant numbers experienced expected attrition due to the turbulent operational environment, dropping from 48 pre-intervention to 41 during the program, and settling at 36 at the three-month post-evaluation mark.

Key Findings and Supporting Data

The evaluation revealed distinct patterns regarding how leaders experienced and integrated the resilience training:

• Implementation Realities: While 49% of participants rated the distribution of sprint elements within individual sessions as appropriate, structural parameters such as the overall number of sprints (20 sessions), weekly intervals, and 60-minute durations met with higher friction. Only 20% to 31% of leaders agreed that these parameters were fully suitable for their demanding work schedules, with many selecting neutral or disagree responses.
• Mechanisms of Impact: Weekly Kirkpatrick evaluations demonstrated that leaders predominantly reported effective training—focusing on immediate reactions and new knowledge—accounting for 78% of evaluations. Conversely, training effectiveness measures targeting behavioral application and results accounted for only 21%. Inferential chi-square testing revealed significant differences in mental resilience evaluations between the public and private organizations, reflecting divergent cognitive appraisal demands in human-facing versus production-driven environments.
• Contextual Facilitators and Barriers: High psychological safety, peer support, and committed internal trainers emerged as primary contextual facilitators, with 74% to 77% of leaders reporting a free and open atmosphere for sharing experiences. However, significant barriers materialized around workload prioritization. While 60% of participants reported strong initial motivation, motivation dropped to 40% post-training. Furthermore, the proportion of leaders who felt able to prioritize training without disrupting their work fell to just 31%, while those who found the training schedule well-timed dropped from 51% to 34% over time.

Stakeholder Reactions and Analytical Insights

The study underscores a fundamental paradox in executive development: the leaders who arguably stand to benefit most from psychosocial resilience training are frequently the least able to consistently engage due to acute operational workloads and stress.

Qualitative observations during the program illuminated the difficulty leaders face in self-assessing abstract concepts like resilience. Moments of hesitation—such as leaders questioning whether they could accurately score their own developmental progress—suggest that observed concentrations of evaluations at the reaction and learning levels stem partly from the complexities of measuring psychosocial adaptation rather than a complete absence of behavioral change.

Furthermore, Markov chain predictive modeling suggested a relatively slow projected progression toward long-term behavioral change if programs are extended linearly under identical conditions, reinforcing the need for flexible, context-sensitive HR architectures.

Broader Implications for HRM and Crisis Leadership

The implications of this research extend directly to human resource practitioners, organizational consultants, and executive leadership teams. The findings suggest that future resilience initiatives must avoid individualizing organizational stress and instead treat resilience as a shared, systemic responsibility. HR professionals are advised to build structural slack into training schedules, protect participants from competing operational demands, and establish clear psychoeducational baselines to help leaders connect daily practices to long-term capability building.

Ultimately, preparing leaders for a world defined by polycrisis requires moving beyond rigid, one-size-fits-all training models. By embedding experiential learning within supportive, psychologically safe peer communities, organizations can successfully harness human capacity, transforming unavoidable workplace adversities into crucibles for long-term operational strength and strategic adaptation.