Applied Chaos Theory

Small changes in policies or operating methods can lead to significant, unpredictable outcomes in student success and institutional dynamics.

Organizational Tolerance for Chaos: Navigating Uncertainty and Building Resilience in the Modern U.S. Labor Movement

 

Abstract

The ability of organizations to navigate uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictable environments has become critical in the evolving labor landscape of the United States. This paper explores the concept of organizational chaos tolerance through the lenses of chaos theory, resilience, adaptability, and innovation. It contrasts organizational and individual tolerance levels, identifies key influencing factors such as leadership, structure, communication, and learning culture, and examines how organizations balance chaos and order to maximize effectiveness. Drawing from recent examples in the U.S. labor movement, this study highlights the benefits of high organizational tolerance for chaos and its potential to fuel growth and social change. Also, this paper examines the interplay between chaos tolerance in organizational systems and individual tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty within the context of the modern U.S. labor movement. Drawing from contemporary labor uprisings, such as the 2023-2024 strikes by the United Auto Workers (UAW), Amazon Labor Union, and Starbucks Workers United, the analysis explores how collective resilience and adaptability have evolved in response to increasingly dynamic and volatile economic conditions. The study contrasts system-level chaos tolerance with individual psychological tolerance and proposes a framework for understanding how labor organizations sustain efficacy and cohesion under unpredictable circumstances. Implications for future union strategies and worker engagement are discussed. It is argued that effective navigation of chaos requires alignment between an organization’s structural capacity to adapt and its workforce’s psychological readiness to endure and transform under pressure. Drawing on theories of complexity, organizational resilience, and psychological adaptability, the paper explores how labor organizations—and their members—navigate unpredictability, particularly in response to technological disruption, economic shifts, and social justice demands.

Keywords: chaos tolerance, organizational resilience, adaptability, labor movement, chaos theory, leadership, innovation, labor unions, individual adaptability, uncertainty, ambiguity, complexity theory

Introduction

The nature of work in the United States has shifted dramatically over the past few decades, driven by automation, globalization, political polarization, and socio-economic inequality. These forces have rendered the modern labor environment increasingly chaotic. In response, labor organizations have had to adapt to uncertain and ambiguous conditions while advocating for worker rights. The concept of “chaos tolerance”—defined as the capacity to function effectively under unpredictable and nonlinear conditions—has emerged as a crucial attribute for both organizations and individuals (Stacey, 1996; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). However, a distinction must be made between systemic chaos tolerance and the individual’s ability to cope with disorder, ambiguity, and unpredictability. In recent years, the resurgence of the American labor movement has been characterized by increased levels of organizational complexity and environmental volatility. As unions confront challenges ranging from globalized supply chains to gig economy fragmentation and anti-union corporate strategies, understanding the role of chaos tolerance—both at the system and individual levels—has become critical. This paper explores the dynamic between organizational chaos tolerance and individual psychological tolerance for uncertainty, with particular attention to how these forces interact to shape resilience and adaptability in the labor movement.

In chaotic organizational systems, the ability to navigate uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability is crucial. These systems—marked by non-linear dynamics, fluctuating power structures, and evolving goals—demand high levels of resilience and adaptability from both organizations and individuals. The concept of “chaos tolerance” relates to how well a system or person can function amid such disorder. In the context of the modern U.S. labor movement, chaos tolerance plays a vital role in shaping both collective and individual responses to dynamic socio-economic environments. Organizational environments today are marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), especially within the labor sector, where emerging movements challenge established norms. As organizations grapple with chaotic environments, their tolerance for uncertainty becomes a defining trait of survival and success (Horney, Pasmore, & O'Shea, 2010). The resurgence of unionization in the U.S. highlights a new wave of organizational actors embracing unpredictability, reflecting resilience and adaptability in a dynamically shifting landscape.

Chaos tolerance in organizational theory refers to a system's capacity to function effectively in environments marked by unpredictability, ambiguity, and non-linear change (Stacey, 1996). Organizations with high chaos tolerance can adapt fluidly, reconfigure structure, and foster emergent strategies without succumbing to breakdowns. Individual chaos tolerance, by contrast, pertains to one's psychological ability to manage uncertainty, ambiguity, and lack of control—traits linked to adaptive capacity and resilience (Budner, 1962; Herman et al., 2010).

The distinction is vital: while systems may foster chaos tolerance through decentralized decision-making and flexible leadership models, individuals must cultivate cognitive and emotional resilience to remain effective within such volatile contexts. Together, these dimensions underpin collective action, especially in movements navigating unstable political and economic terrains.

Chaos Tolerance: Organizational vs. Individual

Individual tolerance for ambiguity varies widely and contributes to an organization’s overall capacity to absorb disruption. However, chaos tolerance at the organizational level entails system-wide mechanisms that regulate how entities adapt collectively. While individuals may resist or embrace change depending on personal traits, organizational chaos tolerance reflects structural and cultural readiness for uncertainty (Stacey, 1996). Individual chaos tolerance, on the other hand, is defined by personal resilience and psychological adaptability. Workers with higher tolerance for ambiguity tend to cope better with precarity and fluid job roles—traits that are increasingly necessary as traditional labor norms erode (Kalleberg, 2011). However, if organizational systems lack sufficient chaos tolerance, individuals may experience burnout, disillusionment, or disengagement, which ultimately weakens collective action.

A critical question is whether an organization’s chaos tolerance enhances or inhibits individual resilience. While adaptive structures may offer flexibility, they can also lead to burnout if individuals are overwhelmed by a lack of clarity or support (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Conversely, rigid organizations may suppress individual initiative, stifling resilience and innovation. The most resilient labor movements—such as those led by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers or Amazon Labor Union—strike a balance: they maintain a shared vision while empowering grassroots leadership, thus fostering mutual reinforcement between systemic and individual tolerance.

While organizations may be structurally prepared to navigate chaos, their success ultimately hinges on the individuals within them. Psychological resilience refers to the capacity of individuals to adapt positively in the face of adversity, ambiguity, and stress (Luthans, 2002). In the labor movement, workers and organizers face emotional, financial, and existential stressors—often intensified by the very chaos their organizations must navigate. Thus, individual tolerance for uncertainty is not merely desirable but essential.

The ability to engage in adaptive action—defined as the capacity to shift one’s role, mindset, or tactics in uncertain environments—is central to individual chaos tolerance (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). For instance, gig economy workers who organize across platforms without formal structures must cultivate high personal resilience and initiative. Similarly, union organizers must develop emotional intelligence, agility, and purpose-driven commitment to sustain engagement amid fluctuating political and legal contexts.

The effectiveness of decentralized organizing depends heavily on individual members’ ability to navigate ambiguity. Workers engaged in recent campaigns, such as Starbucks Workers United, often face inconsistent management responses, legal uncertainties, and retaliatory pressures. In these environments, high individual tolerance for uncertainty correlates with sustained participation and leadership emergence (Klein, 2023).

Research suggests that individuals with greater ambiguity tolerance are more likely to engage in risk-laden advocacy, make autonomous decisions, and maintain cohesion during setbacks (Furnham & Marks, 2013). Labor organizations are increasingly investing in political education, peer mentoring, and digital organizing tools to enhance such competencies among rank-and-file members.

Organizational chaos tolerance refers to an entity’s structural and cultural capacity to absorb shocks and operate without complete predictability (Stacey, 1996). It involves decentralized decision-making, flexible leadership, and iterative strategies that allow the organization to pivot in response to external pressures—key traits in contemporary labor movements responding to gig work, AI displacement, and political uncertainty (Milkman, 2017). Organizations like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) or the Fight for $15 movement have demonstrated high chaos tolerance by adjusting tactics, narratives, and coalitions in response to shifting labor landscapes (Schulman, 2020).

Historically, labor unions have been structured as hierarchical, bureaucratic entities with relatively low tolerance for ambiguity. However, modern labor movements increasingly operate within decentralized, digitally coordinated ecosystems. This shift demands a rethinking of traditional organizing strategies and embraces chaos tolerance as a core competency.

The 2023-2024 United Auto Workers (UAW) strike exemplifies this evolution. Led by a newly reformist leadership under Shawn Fain, the union adopted a flexible "stand-up strike" approach, targeting different facilities without centralized escalation (UAW, 2023). This decentralized tactic increased unpredictability for employers while maintaining strategic coherence—an illustration of high chaos tolerance at the organizational level.

The relationship between the two types of tolerance is interdependent. For example, labor organizers must possess individual adaptability to lead within increasingly informal and volatile organizing environments. Yet, their effectiveness is amplified or constrained by the organizational culture around them. In turn, movements with high systemic chaos tolerance can better support their members' psychological sustainability, allowing for broader and longer-lasting mobilization.

Benefits of High Organizational Tolerance

As labor continues to contend with political repression, climate crises, and economic volatility, chaos tolerance will become increasingly essential. Future success will depend on how well labor organizations cultivate environments that support both systemic adaptability and individual psychological resilience. Policy advocacy, educational initiatives, and new forms of democratic participation will be crucial in building this capacity.

- Adaptability

Adaptability in chaotic systems is not about stability, but rather the ongoing capacity to change form, reorganize, and learn from emergent patterns. Labor organizations that embrace this adaptive capacity are better positioned to thrive in environments shaped by automation, globalization, and deregulation. As Fine (2006) notes, modern labor movements increasingly engage in "worker-centered" organizing that reflects a shift away from traditional unionism toward more fluid, networked advocacy strategies, which aligns closely with the logic of chaotic systems. Organizations that thrive in chaotic conditions often have mechanisms in place for rapid adaptation. These include decentralized decision-making, flexible roles, and dynamic leadership that empowers experimentation and iteration (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

- Innovation

Chaos can serve as a catalyst for creativity. Non-linear environments force organizations to depart from traditional problem-solving models, resulting in innovative solutions (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017).

- Organizational Learning

High chaos tolerance promotes continuous learning and knowledge integration. Learning organizations encourage feedback, engage in reflective practices, and revise processes based on new insights (Senge, 1990).

- Resilience

The resilience of chaotic systems is tied to their capacity to absorb disturbances while still maintaining core functions and identity (Folke et al., 2010). In labor movements, this resilience is evident in how unions and worker advocacy groups have adapted to new modes of employment—such as platform-based gig work—despite limited legal protections and organizational fragmentation. They exhibit adaptability by leveraging social media, grassroots mobilization, and coalition-building, which are non-traditional yet effective approaches in the modern labor landscape (Milkman, 2013). Organizational resilience—the capacity to absorb shocks and sustain operations—is strongly linked to tolerance for chaos. Such resilience enables entities to emerge stronger post-disruption (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).

Factors Influencing Organizational Chaos Tolerance

- Leadership

Adaptive leadership styles that foster psychological safety, distributed control, and a tolerance for failure are crucial (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009).

- Organizational Structure

Agile and loosely coupled structures enable organizations to absorb change more fluidly than rigid, hierarchical models (Mintzberg, 1983).

- Communication

Transparent, multidirectional communication enhances collective sense-making in ambiguous environments (Weick, 1995).

- Learning Culture

Cultures that promote inquiry, experimentation, and shared learning build resilience and encourage adaptation amid chaos (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008).

- Balancing Chaos and Order

Chaos tolerance in organizational systems refers to the structural and cultural capacity to remain operational and responsive amid volatility. It is a hallmark of complex adaptive systems (CAS), where organizations do not merely survive disruptions but evolve through them (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Labor unions, historically hierarchical and bureaucratic, have had to shift toward more networked, adaptive structures to remain relevant. For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Fight for $15 campaign exemplify newer, decentralized strategies designed to embrace ambiguity and engage in rapid, responsive organizing (Milkman, 2017). These organizations demonstrate structural chaos tolerance by embracing distributed leadership, horizontal communication, and emergent strategy. As Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) argue, in chaotic systems, control is relinquished in favor of shared meaning and fluid responsiveness. Thus, labor organizations with high chaos tolerance can navigate change not through rigid planning but by fostering environments where innovation and adaptability are embedded.

- Maximum Viable Chaos

Organizations must find an optimal “edge of chaos” that supports innovation without descending into dysfunction (Kauffman, 1993). Too little chaos breeds stagnation: too much impairs coordination.

- Spaces of Clarity

Even high-chaos organizations require zones of clarity—stable routines, core values, and guiding principles that anchor activity (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997).

- Learning and Reflection

Both organizational and individual resilience are strengthened through continuous learning and reflection. Schön (1983) emphasized the importance of reflective practice in navigating uncertain environments. In the labor movement, reflection takes place through debriefings, leadership development, and participatory decision-making. Organizations that institutionalize learning processes help individuals convert chaos into meaning, thereby enhancing their own systemic adaptability.

Chaos Theory and Its Implications for Management Practice

Chaos theory, originally rooted in the natural sciences, posits that complex systems are inherently nonlinear, dynamic, and highly sensitive to initial conditions, making long-term prediction virtually impossible (Gleick, 1987). In a management context, this perspective challenges traditional assumptions of stability, linearity, and control, advocating instead for an adaptive and responsive organizational approach. When applied to organizational management, chaos theory reframes traditional approaches by suggesting that stability is not the natural state of systems; instead, organizations must be agile, decentralized, and adaptive to constant change (Lorenz, 1993).

Rather than attempting to impose rigid structures or deterministic planning models, organizations influenced by chaos theory are encouraged to embrace uncertainty as a natural and persistent condition of business environments (Levy, 1994). This has led to a strategic shift toward designing flexible organizational systems characterized by decentralization, continuous feedback mechanisms, and a tolerance for ambiguity (Thietart & Forgues, 1995). Such systems are better equipped to respond to unexpected changes, fostering innovation and emergent problem-solving capacities.

Furthermore, chaos theory underlines the significance of small variations and micro-level interactions in generating large-scale organizational outcomes—an idea often expressed through the metaphor of the "butterfly effect" (Lorenz, 1993). This insight has important implications for leadership and decision-making, suggesting that fostering open communication, distributed authority, and iterative learning processes can enhance organizational resilience and adaptability in volatile environments.

By viewing organizations as complex adaptive systems, managers can better navigate the unpredictable nature of global business dynamics. In this light, strategic planning becomes less about precise forecasting and more about preparing for multiple scenarios and enabling real-time responsiveness (Stacey, 1996). Consequently, chaos theory offers a powerful lens for understanding and managing complexity in contemporary organizations.

In the context of the modern U.S. labor movement, chaos theory offers a compelling framework for understanding the evolving dynamics between workers, unions, and employers. As labor markets become increasingly volatile due to globalization, automation, and shifting political landscapes, labor organizations must adopt structures and strategies that emphasize feedback mechanisms, localized autonomy, and emergent leadership rather than rigid hierarchy (Morgan, 2006). This is evident in the rise of grassroots labor activism, such as the Fight for $15 and warehouse worker strikes, which often operate outside the traditional union apparatus and exemplify bottom-up, self-organizing models of mobilization (Milkman, 2017).

Moreover, chaos theory's emphasis on nonlinearity and unpredictability underscores the strategic importance of resilience and scenario planning in union management. Labor leaders are now more likely to experiment with network-based models, digital organizing tools, and coalition-building with social justice movements, acknowledging that influence and impact often emerge from dynamic, interrelated nodes rather than centralized command (Heckscher & McCarthy, 2014).

By embracing the principles of chaos theory, the modern U.S. labor movement can reimagine its organizational and strategic paradigms to remain relevant and responsive in an era marked by systemic uncertainty and rapid change.

Case Studies in the Modern U.S. Labor Movement

- Starbucks Workers United (2021–2024)

In contrast to traditional union campaigns, Starbucks workers operated within grassroots, a horizontally organized model. With over 370 stores filing for union elections by late 2024 (NLRB, 2024), the campaign demonstrated remarkable adaptability. Workers often organized autonomously, coordinated via online platforms, and navigated employer pushback with minimal institutional support.

This decentralized movement displayed high system chaos tolerance. However, success varied based on workers’ individual capacity to handle stress, navigate legal ambiguity, and maintain collective morale amid intense pressure. Where resilience faltered, campaigns stalled or collapsed—illustrating the critical link between individual tolerance and collective endurance.

The rapid emergence of Starbucks Workers United (SWU) illustrates high organizational tolerance for chaos. Rather than centralizing control, SWU adopted a decentralized, worker-led model where each store voted independently to unionize. This approach mirrored complex adaptive systems where local nodes (individual stores) operated semi-autonomously, adapting tactics to local dynamics (Greenhouse, 2022).

Leadership played a key role in facilitating resilience by encouraging shared ownership, public storytelling, and leveraging media unpredictability. Despite Starbucks’ anti-union tactics, SWU’s flexible structure allowed it to persist and grow across multiple states (Givan & Hipp, 2023).

- Amazon Labor Union (ALU)

Founded by warehouse workers, the ALU succeeded in winning a landmark election at the JFK8 warehouse in New York in 2022. Their strategy rejected conventional union playbooks, relying instead on peer-to-peer outreach, social media virality, and grassroots mobilization. The ALU navigated the chaotic media and legal landscape by embracing uncertainty and rapid iteration (Scheiber, 2022).

The absence of formal hierarchy enabled the ALU to pivot quickly in response to corporate pushback. The organization demonstrated high chaos tolerance through its decentralized communication strategy and adaptive tactics, emphasizing relational over transactional engagement with workers.

- United Auto Workers (UAW) Stand-Up Strike (2023)

The UAW’s adoption of a strategic, nonlinear strike model enabled flexibility in negotiations while disrupting production unpredictably. The leadership openly communicated uncertainty to members, framing ambiguity as a shared struggle rather than a liability. As Fain (2023) noted in a livestreamed address: “We are writing a new playbook as we go. This is solidarity in motion.”

The strategy's success relied on members' willingness to act with limited centralized directives—evidence of cultivated individual chaos tolerance. The union’s investment in digital mobilization and transparent communications further enhanced collective resilience.

The UAW's "stand-up strike" strategy in 2023 against the Big Three automakers embraced unpredictability by refusing to announce strike targets in advance. This tactic mirrored elements of chaos theory by introducing nonlinear disruptions into traditional bargaining patterns. The union balanced chaos with order by maintaining strong internal coordination while leveraging external unpredictability to strengthen its bargaining power (Semuels, 2023).

Discussion of Case Studies, Intersections and Implications

These case studies demonstrate how chaos tolerance can become a strategic asset. In the U.S. labor movement, success increasingly correlates with the ability to organize within complex, fast-changing environments. Organizational designs that reflect the principles of chaos theory—decentralization, emergent learning, and adaptive leadership—offer a template for navigating today’s challenges.

The distinction between system-level chaos tolerance and individual ambiguity tolerance is not merely academic—it carries practical implications for organizing strategy. Labor unions must cultivate both simultaneously. High system chaos tolerance without supporting individual capacities risks burnout and attrition. Conversely, resilient individuals in rigid systems may become alienated or ineffective.

Training, psychological safety, and participatory leadership models are key enablers. For example, the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC), formed during the COVID-19 pandemic, offers training modules that explicitly address uncertainty management, decision-making under pressure, and emotional resilience—translating individual adaptability into collective action (EWOC, 2023).

Conclusion

In chaotic organizational systems—characterized by nonlinearity, emergent behaviors, and unpredictable interactions—the level of tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability is inherently high. These systems are defined less by rigid hierarchies and more by decentralized decision-making, iterative processes, and a continuous feedback loop that enables responsiveness to external shocks. Within the context of the modern U.S. labor movement, such tolerance translates into increased resilience and adaptability, crucial traits for navigating the rapidly changing dynamics of labor relations, gig economies, and technological disruption.

In summary, in the context of the modern U.S. labor movement, high organizational chaos tolerance enhances the capacity to respond resiliently to changing conditions, while individual tolerance determines personal sustainability within such environments. Aligning these two factors is essential for fostering adaptive, resilient movements that can thrive amid unpredictability.

In a labor landscape defined by unpredictability, chaos tolerance is no longer optional—it is existential. The modern U.S. labor movement must reconcile the systemic need for adaptive strategies with the psychological needs of individuals navigating those strategies. When chaos tolerance at both levels is aligned, resilience is amplified. When they diverge, burnout and fragmentation threaten organizational sustainability. Understanding and enhancing this dual tolerance is vital for ensuring that labor can remain a transformative force in American society.

In the dynamic, often chaotic landscape of modern labor activism, success hinges on both organizational and individual tolerance for uncertainty. As the U.S. labor movement enters a new era defined by decentralized strategies and digital coordination, understanding and fostering these dimensions becomes essential. Future research should explore how these capacities are built over time and how they interact with institutional frameworks, legal environments, and cultural norms.

Chaos tolerance is no longer a luxury but a necessity for organizations operating in high-uncertainty contexts like the modern labor movement. The ability to navigate ambiguity and complexity through resilient, adaptive, and learning-oriented practices is key to long-term sustainability. Organizations that embrace, rather than resist, the dynamic nature of their environment are better positioned to innovate, grow, and lead transformative change.

In essence, chaotic organizational systems, due to their high tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, support innovative and resilient responses within labor movements. This systemic fluidity enables labor groups to challenge conventional institutional boundaries, enact adaptive strategies, and remain viable in the face of evolving socio-economic pressures.

References

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x

Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee. (2023). Organizer training modules. https://workerorganizing.org

Fain, S. (2023, October 15). UAW Stand-Up Strike Address [Livestream]. United Auto Workers.

Fine, J. (2006). Worker centers: Organizing communities at the edge of the dream. Cornell University Press.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(09), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.

Givan, R. K., & Hipp, L. (2023). Organizing Starbucks: Strategies for success in decentralized labor activism. ILR Review, 76(2), 295–314.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. Penguin Books.

Greenhouse, S. (2022, June 3). The young workers fighting to unionize Starbucks. The American Prospect. https://prospect.org

Heckscher, C., & McCarthy, J. D. (2014). Transcending organizational boundaries: A framework for understanding new models of organizing. In W. K. Roche, P. Teague, & A. Healy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of conflict management in organizations (pp. 459–478). Oxford University Press.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Toward a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.004

Horney, N., Pasmore, B., & O'Shea, T. (2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA world. People & Strategy, 33(4), 32–38.

Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s–2000s. Russell Sage Foundation.

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press.

Klein, M. (2023). The Starbucks labor movement is winning—and it’s just getting started. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/starbucks-workers-united/

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.

Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250151011

Lorenz, E. N. (1993). The essence of chaos. University of Washington Press.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.165

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311

Milkman, R. (2017). A new political generation: Millennials and the post-2008 wave of protest. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416681031

Milkman, R. (2013). Back to the future? US labor in the new gilded age. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(4), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12045

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Sage Publications.

National Labor Relations Board. (2024). Starbucks petition data summary. https://www.nlrb.gov

Scheiber, N. (2022, April 1). Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize in landmark win. The New York Times. https://nytimes.com

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Schulman, D. (2020). Labor's last stand: The Fight for $15 and the future of the labor movement. Dissent, 67(2), 23–30.

Semuels, A. (2023, September 15). The United Auto Workers' surprise strike strategy. Time. https://time.com

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76.

Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler.

Thietart, R. A., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science, 6(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.19

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009