This research aims to explore how business models of SMEs revolve in the face of a crisis to be resilient. The business model canvas was used as a tool to analyse business models of SMEs in Greater Christchurch. The purpose was to evaluate the changes SMEs brought in their business models after hit by a series of earthquake in 2010 and 2011. The idea was to conduct interviews of business owners and analyse using grounded theory methods. Because this method is iterative, a tentative theoretical framework was proposed, half way through the data collection. It was realised that owner specific characteristics were more prominent in the data than the elements business model. Although, SMEs in this study experienced several operational changes in their business models such as change of location and modification of payment terms. However, the suggested framework highlights how owner specific attributes influence the survival of a small business. Small businesses and their owners are extremely interrelated that the business models personify the owner specific characteristics. In other words, the adaptation of the business model reflects the extent to which the owner possess these attributes. These attributes are (a) Mindsets – the attitude and optimism of business owner; (b) Adaptive coping – the ability of business owner to take corrective actions; and (c) Social capital – the network of a business owner, including family, friends, neighbours and business partners.
This study explores the nature of smaller businesses’ resilience following two major earthquakes that severely disrupted their place of doing business. Data from the owners of ten smaller businesses are qualitative and longitudinal, spanning the period 2011 through 2018, providing first-hand narrative accounts of their responses in the earthquakes’ aftermath. All ten owners showed some individual resilience; six businesses survived through to 2018, of which three have recovered strongly. All three owned their premises; operated business-tobusiness models; and were able to adapt and continue to follow path-extension strategies. All the other businesses had direct business-to-customer models operating from leased premises, typically in major retail malls. Four eventually recognised path-exhaustion at different times and so did not survive through to 2018. We conclude however that post-disaster recovery is best explained in terms of business model resilience. Even the most resilient of individual owners will struggle to survive if their business model is either not resilient or cannot be made so. Individual resilience is necessary but not sufficient.
Research indicates that aside from the disaster itself, the next major source of adverse outcomes during such events, is from errors by either the response leader or organisation. Yet, despite their frequency, challenge, complexity, and the risks involved; situations of extreme context remain one of the least researched areas in the leadership field. This is perhaps surprising. In the 2010 and 2011 (Christchurch) earthquakes alone, 185 people died and rebuild costs are estimated to have been $40b. Add to this the damage and losses annually around the globe arising from natural disasters, major business catastrophes, and military conflict; there is certainly a lot at stake (lives, way of life, and our well-being). While over the years, much has been written on leadership, there is a much smaller subset of articles on leadership in extreme contexts, with the majority of these focusing on the event rather than leadership itself. Where leadership has been the focus, the spotlight has shone on the actions and capabilities of one person - the leader. Leadership, however, is not simply one person, it is a chain or network of people, delivering outcomes with the support of others, guided by a governance structure, contextualised by the environment, and operating on a continuum across time (before, during, and after an event). This particular research is intended to examine the following: • What are the leadership capabilities and systems necessary to deliver more successful outcomes during situations of extreme context; • How does leadership in these circumstances differ from leadership during business as usual conditions; • Lastly, through effective leadership, can we leverage these unfortunate events to thrive, rather than merely survive?
