Resort management is becoming increasingly concerned with crisis preparation and improving business resilience around the globe. This is because the business climate of the twenty-first century is increasingly marked by uncertainty, hyper competition, and rapid technological development, making survival the fundamental challenge for companies. This is being aggravated by the COVID-19 global pandemic crisis where the hotel industry has recently undergone a rapid and radical transformation particularly early in the crises when the government mandated restrictions and control in the operations of businesses. According to a Statista survey, revenues for the global hotel and resort industry fell to $198.6 billion in 2020, a 46% year-over-year decline; the number of users in the hotel and resort industry decreased by half due to the pandemic, from 1.1 billion in 2019 to 595 million in 2020; and by 2023, the number of customers will have increased to $390 billion.

In the Philippines, because of the pandemic's negative effects on MICE, corporate, and leisure travel, many hotels and resorts have also stopped operating. This impacted on the hotels and resorts in Central Luzon (Region III) which resulted in a high number of temporary business closures.

Many resorts re-imagine and refine their product and service offerings, business model, organizational practices, policies, and culture, thus resulting in organizational change and innovation for them to survive the economic crises and become resilient despite of the challenges. As a result, organizational culture and innovation have become critical factors in the hotel industry's continuous survival, resilience, and success.

Organizational culture and innovation have positive impact on the success and overall performance of firms; however, no literature was found to directly connect business and organizational resilience with these factors. Though its impact has tended to be overlooked in the literature on hospitality management, organizational culture is crucial to the development and execution of business strategy as well as to performance evaluation [1]. Furthermore, no study on resort hotel’s resilience was explored. With these reasons, the current study was conceptualized which aims to fill this research gap in academic literature and contribute some theoretical and practical implications as a foundation for developing a business resilience framework for the hotel industry.

Organizational culture is the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that shape an organization's identity and guide employee behavior. It is the shared presumptions, attitudes, beliefs, practices, and behaviors that define an organization. On the other hand, organizational innovations are the process of creating new or improved products, services, structures, or processes that deliver value to customers and increase an organization's competitiveness and long-term organizational success. Moreover, organizational resilience refers to the ability to recover from or adapt to disruptive events, such as economic downturns, natural disasters, business crises, pandemics, or changes in market conditions. It describes an organization's capacity for change adaptation, effective crisis or disruption response, and maintenance of its basic operations. It entails creating and putting into action plans meant to lessen the effects of unpredictable occurrences including natural catastrophes, economic downturns, and cyberattacks. Fostering a culture of adaptability, innovation, and collaboration among employees is another aspect of organizational resilience. Being resilient is crucial for companies because it allows them to carry on and accomplish their goals in the face of challenges.

For the theoretical foundations, Gonzales-Rodriguez et. al. [2] suggested that to enhance company performance in the hotel business, an integrated model encompassing the interactions among CSR practices, organizational culture, and corporate reputation. The proposed model is created utilizing the general managers' perceptions and the stakeholder theory. The study's findings indicate that several CSR characteristics are influenced by organizational culture. Due to the presence of diverse organizational culture characteristics (clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy) in hotel and resort enterprises, organizational culture has been used as a second-order construct to examine its impact on the creation and implementation of CSR initiatives. They adopted the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn in 2016. The study of Rabbani [3] concluded that organizational learning and innovation has a positive impact on performance of employees as well as in the company’s overall financial stability and performance. Furthermore, Chen et al. [4] said that the Covid-19 pandemic has drawn significant attention to the idea of organizational resilience, which is a crucial tool for dealing with disasters and emergencies. Yet, studies on organizational resilience have so far produced conflicting results, making it challenging to give concrete suggestions for handling crises. Research on the concept and measurement of organizational resilience is currently in the exploratory stage. In accordance with the findings of their study, organizational resilience has five components: capital resilience, strategic resilience, cultural resilience, relationship resilience, and learning resilience. The assessment scale's high levels of validity and reliability enable it to capture the idea of organizational resilience more accurately. This research fills in the gaps in the literature on organizational resilience and its measuring scales, laying the groundwork for further research.

According to Azeem et al. [5], strong and supportive organizational cultures are frequently associated with high levels of innovation and resilience. Research by Nguyen et al. [6] supports the notion that supportive organizational cultures are linked to innovation and resilience. Hanifah et al. [7] argue that an organization's values and norms, which are central to defining its culture, play a significant role in determining its capacity for innovation and resilience.

In recent years, the concept of organizational culture in hotels has held an important theoretical and practical position because this culture has a significant impact on organizational performance and hotel strategies; and as a result, it is regarded as one of the most important factors in determining hotels' proclivity for outsourcing and long-term performance [8].

With the foregoing ideas, this study was conceptualized to explore the interplay of organizational culture and innovation and how it is linked to hotel resilience. A framework for resort resilience was made based on the significant findings of the study.

Recent studies in hospitality management emphasize that interpersonal cohesion and leadership values are central to how organizations generate innovation and sustain recovery during times of disruption. These dynamics align closely with the cultural–innovative–resilience linkage advanced in the present framework. Ibrahim [9] noted that when employees feel emotionally connected to their workplace, they exhibit greater initiative, openness in communication, and collaborative problem-solving-behaviors that constitute the social foundation for creative thinking and operational flexibility during crises. Similarly, Dimitriou [10] found that leadership rooted in ethical principles and cultural sensitivity enhances employees’ dedication to service excellence, reinforcing organizational stability while enabling adaptive responses to environmental changes. Collectively, these findings suggest that resorts promoting a strong sense of belonging and principled leadership foster psychological safety and shared expectations that stimulate both technical and administrative innovations. Such innovations, in turn, strengthen organizational resilience by maintaining financial stability, sustaining stakeholder relationships, and embedding continuous learning within daily operations-demonstrating the cyclical and mutually reinforcing nature of the proposed Resort Resiliency Framework.

This proposed resort resilience framework was designed to help resort hotel managers to direct its operation and manage its resources during times of crisis. This will make them aware of possible solutions to problems and challenges that they will encounter in the future. For the resort employees, the findings may help them understand the severity of coping with problems during pandemic and how business operations of the resorts are being totally changed. They will also understand their important role in maintaining the sustainability and productivity of the resort during tough times and situations. For resort customers or guests, they shall be provided with continuous delivery of quality service where operations will be designed based on their current needs with due considerations on their safety and wellness.

Objective of the Study

This study determined the interplay of organizational culture, innovations, and resilience among resorts in Central Luzon as assessed by the resort employees. Analysis of the findings was used to develop a resort resilience framework during challenging times (like that of the Covid-19 Pandemic).

Specifically, it aimed to: (1) assess the organizational culture of the resorts using the following dimensions: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy culture; (2) assess the organizational innovations of the resorts along the dimensions of technical innovations, administrative innovations, and innovative culture; (3) assess the organizational resilience of the resort in terms of capital, strategic, cultural, relationship, and learning resilience; (4) test the correlations of organizational culture and innovations to the organizational resilience of the resorts; and (5) develop a resort resilience framework based on the findings of the study.

The study utilized the embedded mixed methods design. It is a methodological approach that strategically incorporates one type of data-qualitative or quantitative-within a primary research framework dominated by the other. Its purpose is to generate additional layers of understanding or to address supplementary research questions that extend beyond the main study focus. Early conceptualizations by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham [11], later refined by Creswell and Plano Clark, underscored the value of integrating distinct data strands to enrich analysis, strengthen interpretation, and illuminate participants’ experiences. Within this design, a secondary dataset is “embedded” at any point in the research process-prior to, during, or following the principal phase of data collection and analysis. This embedded component may serve as a supportive function, such as using qualitative narratives to clarify outcomes from a quantitative experiment or applying statistical results to elaborate on qualitative themes, ultimately enhancing the coherence and depth of mixed methods inquiry. The quantitative part used the descriptive-correlation study. It describes the variables and entails a systematic investigation of the nature of relationships, or associations between and among variables, rather than direct cause-effect relationships and natural relationships between and among them [12].

Only those resorts accredited by the Department of Tourism (DOT) in the provinces of Central Luzon (Region III) - Aurora, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, and Zambales were considered and only those resorts with more than 30-room capacity and with at least 20 regular employees were included in the study. The participants of the study were the 333 regular employees out of the total population of 2,208 from the thirty-two (32) resorts in Central Luzon. Only employees who were in the company prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and those who were willing to answer the instrument were considered as participants. The number was determined using the Raosoft Calculator at 5% margin of error. Stratified random sample of participants was considered to get the appropriate sample proportion per resort.

The instrument used in the study is a survey questionnaire-checklist adapted from the studies of Gonzalez-Rodriguez, et al. [2], Rabbani [3], and Chen, et al. [4]. The revised instrument was validated by the research adviser and 7 resorts operation/general managers. A pre-test was done among 48 resort employees which were taken using snowball sampling or referrals - from different provinces of the Philippines.

Cronbach’s alpha value for organizational culture (0.957), signifies that the instrument has strong or excellent internal consistency in the rule of thumb while the computed Cronbach’s alpha value for organizational innovation (0.764) and organizational resilience (0.784) was acceptable.

Data was collected from the target participants through Google Form survey and in-person administration. Random unstructured interviews with resort employees and selected managers (face-to-face and/or virtual) and observation were also used for validation and clarification of the data gathered. Ethics in research was discussed with the selected participants and to the Disclaimer portion of the Google Form. They were assured that their personal data and that of the company was protected and held confidential. The researcher ensured that the provisions on Data Privacy Law were followed accordingly. An Informed Consent and Data Privacy Agreement formed was prepared and signed by the participants.

The Shapiro Wilk test for the three major variables was used to test the normality of data gathered. Since the data was normally distributed, Pearson r Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to test the significant correlation of organizational culture, innovations, and resilience at 5% alpha.

Organizational culture

Resort employees agreed that the organization developed the clan culture and market culture. The clan culture, which is associated with inward concentration and adaptability. This culture, where an organization is seen as a second family and all members are encouraged to participate in decision-making, is considered supportive. Adhocracy culture, which emphasizes flexibility and an external emphasis, views creativity and innovation as the primary contributors to an organization's success. The hierarchy culture is characterized by internal stability and focus. This culture, which includes clear policies and regulations within which a corporation can function, is intimately tied to stability in an organization's operation. The market culture is characterized by consistency and an emphasis on the outside world. This culture is task-oriented, coordinated, has clear objectives, and emphasizes decision-making.

The findings imply that clan is the most significant cultural element. to oversee resort operations. Nonetheless, hierarchy is regarded by Joseph and Kibera [13] as a crucial culture in creating the best internal conditions to promote market and adhocracy cultures and to control organizational environmental adaptation. The mindset of employees is crucial for the development and effective application of market-driven strategies, and this mindset is shaped by organizational culture. The foundation for connecting organizational competencies with market possibilities is organizational culture. The importance of organizational culture in achieving superior performance outcomes is still valid if it adapts to changes in the business environment in a timely and competitive manner. According to Pathiranage [14], clan culture is an approachable workplace where people are willing to disclose a lot about themselves. It resembles a large family. Leaders are viewed as role models or even parents. There is a strong feeling of tradition and group loyalty. The long-term advantages of developing human resources are emphasized, and group cohesion is given a high priority. The welfare of people is a top priority. The company values collaboration, involvement, and agreement.

Resort employees generally perceived that their organizations had developed both clan and market-oriented cultures. The clan culture, which emphasizes internal cohesion and adaptability, reflects an environment where the organization operates like an extended family, encouraging participation, teamwork, and open communication. The adhocracy culture highlights flexibility and creativity as key drivers of success, while the hierarchical culture ensures internal stability through formal structures and standardized procedures. In contrast, the market culture focuses on competitiveness, task achievement, and external performance outcomes.

To complement the quantitative data, qualitative information from interviews and observations was analyzed through thematic analysis. Interview transcripts were repeatedly reviewed to identify recurring concepts, patterns, and phrases that reflected employees lived experiences and perceptions of organizational culture. Codes such as family-like atmosphere, shared responsibility, and mutual trust emerged frequently and were grouped into broader themes corresponding to the clan and hierarchy dimensions of the Competing Values Framework. Similarly, observation notes were examined using pattern matching, focusing on visible behaviors, communication styles, and decision-making processes that exemplified specific cultural traits.

The integration of these qualitative findings provided contextual depth to the quantitative results. Interview data revealed that both managers and staff viewed their resort as a “second home,” highlighting trust, cooperation, and emotional support as stabilizing forces during and after the pandemic. These themes directly reinforced the survey results, which identified clan culture as the most dominant cultural type.

Observation data further validated these findings. The researcher consistently noted participative management practices, such as employees consulting supervisors and contributing suggestions during daily briefings, which illustrated collaboration and adaptability-key attributes of clan culture. However, hierarchical elements were also evident in administrative and financial operations of larger resorts, confirming that a hybrid of clan and hierarchy cultures coexisted within many organizations. This alignment between qualitative and quantitative evidence strengthens the conclusion that while resorts in Central Luzon prioritize familial cohesion and teamwork, they also rely on structural coordination and managerial control to maintain operational stability.

Overall, the integration of interview and observation analyses supports and explains the quantitative correlations, demonstrating that the clan culture’s relational dynamics and the hierarchy culture’s structural discipline jointly sustain organizational effectiveness and resilience in the resort context.         

Organizational Innovations

The employee-participants believed that the resorts were promoting and strengthening their technical innovations, administrative innovations, and innovative culture. The introduction of a new organizational method into business operations, workplace structure, or a company's external relations is referred to as organizational technological innovation. Businesses that use their employees' creativity to develop innovative products and services outpace the competition.

The basic tenet of success for every company in the modern business world is technical innovation Shahzad et al. [15] and rapid technological advancement, shorter product life cycles, and a greater rate of product creation may accelerate innovation, which leads to alterations in the character of economic development. To gain and maintain a competitive advantage in the market, innovation is increasingly a crucial component of organizational strategies. Due to the quick changes in client preferences and technology, it will be more complicated. The technical innovation phenomenon, according to Anzola-Roman et al. [16], is a process in which a given firm's output is a function of its strategy, practices, and resources, or the result of new combinations of innovation inputs in the form of resources, ideas, information, knowledge, and/or technologies.

It is feasible to develop a set of standards for what can be deemed innovative if creativity and innovation are kept apart from the hegemony of change Riley & Szivas, [17]. Shahzad et al. [15] stated that organizations must create a culture that supports innovation performance for sustainable development in the face of international competition due to the rapid revolution in technological innovation; and that the corporate atmosphere and flexibility/support for change are the two relatively important determinants for creativity and innovation performance. If agencies in the hospitality and tourism sector want to profit from the market industry and even hold onto their position in the market, they should concentrate on innovating more and more because innovations are a critical component of the current economic system [18]. The research of Zhang et al. [19] has revealed that organizational values, beliefs, work environment, information sharing, and all cultural activities in the organization have an impact on organizational creativity, innovation, and learning.

The qualitative findings provided valuable contextual support for the survey results. Interviews revealed that most resorts prioritized low-cost, high-impact innovations, particularly those improving guest experience and operational safety. Managers frequently mentioned adopting digital booking systems, contactless payment solutions, and flexible check-in procedures as part of their adaptive strategies during and after the pandemic. Employees described innovation as a collective endeavor, emerging from teamwork, brainstorming sessions, and peer feedback, rather than as a top-down directive. This indicates that innovation was deeply embedded in the resorts’ operational culture and sustained through social collaboration.

Observation data reinforced these themes. The researcher noted practical examples such as the creative use of locally sourced materials in design, the repurposing of open spaces for socially distanced gatherings, and the integration of environmental sustainability into service concepts. These observed practices verified that innovation extended beyond technology adoption to include adaptive problem-solving and creative resource utilization-key indicators of an innovation-oriented culture.

Overall, the qualitative evidence supported and expanded the quantitative results by showing that while resorts demonstrated strong technical and administrative innovation, their innovative culture was largely shaped by necessity, shared creativity, and collaborative effort rather than by formal research and development structures. This synthesis of findings highlights that in the resort industry, innovation functions as a social and adaptive process, enabling organizations to sustain competitiveness and service quality amid uncertainty.

Organizational Resilience

The resorts surveyed demonstrated capital resilience, cultural resilience, and relationship resilience as perceived by the employees. It was perceived that capital-wise, the resorts are resilient because they are financially stable with enough working capital and could still pay the salaries and benefits of the employees, and loans. Furthermore, they believe that the company always explores ways to maximize revenue and profit. Resilience can only be attained if these resorts know how to adjust financial capabilities, extending more efforts on cutting the cost of operations, maximizing profits through business innovations.

According to Didier et al. [20] a company's ability to function throughout the pandemic crisis depends not only on the extent of the decrease in its revenues but also on its ability to raise additional money and alter expenses (such as payroll, supplier payments, and other overhead costs) .Other ideas include providing support for wage payments, the need for "safety net money" [21], restricting financial institutions' voluntary payouts [22], allowing equity-like cash flow injections [23], providing a liquidity lifeline to cash-strapped businesses [24], evergreening [25]. Since the pandemic's economic effects have persisted for several months, economists have examined alternate lockdown techniques [26]. On the other hand, there was also a suggestion of highlighting the need for money or the need for liquidity to continue in the businesses [27].

To provide deeper insight into these survey results, qualitative data from interviews and observations were analyzed using thematic analysis and triangulation techniques. Interview transcripts were systematically coded to identify recurring concepts that reflected the resorts’ adaptive practices. Emerging themes such as financial prudence, employee welfare, and collective adaptability were grouped into categories corresponding to capital, cultural, and relationship resilience. Thematic clustering allowed the researcher to link individual narratives with the quantitative dimensions of resilience, confirming patterns of organizational adaptability and employee support mechanisms.

Observation data were analyzed through pattern matching, comparing field notes on operational practices with the thematic findings from interviews. Observed behaviors and management routines were organized into descriptive categories (e.g., financial adjustments, staff redeployment, and collaborative initiatives) to verify whether resilience was reflected in actual workplace actions.

The integration of qualitative results substantiated and enriched the quantitative findings. Interview data highlighted that financial recovery and employee welfare were recurring priorities among resort managers. Respondents emphasized management’s efforts to maintain salary continuity, implement flexible work arrangements, and conduct morale-boosting activities even during periods of low occupancy. These narratives provided concrete examples of capital and cultural resilience, supporting the statistical evidence that resorts effectively balanced financial stability with employee care.

Observational findings further confirmed these themes. The researcher noted widespread cross-training practices, where employees were assigned multiple roles to sustain operations when staffing levels were reduced. Regular safety meetings, inter-departmental collaboration, and community outreach programs demonstrated a strong sense of relationship and strategic resilience. These practices revealed that resilience was not merely a formal policy but an embedded organizational behavior, expressed through adaptability, teamwork, and proactive problem-solving in daily operations.

In summary, the qualitative analyses validated the quantitative evidence by showing how financial flexibility, employee-centered management, and collaborative operational systems collectively formed the foundation of resilience among resorts. The interviews and observations transformed abstract measures of resilience into observable behaviors, illustrating that organizational strength during crises emerged from both prudent resource management and a cohesive, people-oriented culture.

Correlations of Organizational Culture and Innovations to Organizational Resilience

Table 1: Summary of Correlations of Organizational Culture, Innovation and Resilience.

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The highly significant correlation between the resorts’ organizational culture and resilience implies that the two have positive associations that affect one another. A positive culture may contribute to the resorts’ overall resilience; and being resilient in times of organizational crises may result in strengthening of the clan, hierarchical, adhocracy, and market culture of the resorts. However, correlation analysis alone is insufficient to claim strong explanatory relationships but rather describe the extent and the direction of the correlation.

Mixed results have been reported from studies examining the impact of various organizational culture types on performance and resilience. Calciolari et al. [28] found that adhocracy and hierarchical cultures had a significant favorable impact on performance. Clan and adhocracy cultures, however, were found to be substantial positive predictors of performance by Fekete and Bocskei [29]. They show the detrimental effects of hierarchical culture on financial performance. Zhang and Zhu [30] demonstrated a considerable favorable influence of both adhocracy and market cultures on performance, although finding opposing data about hierarchical culture. The indirect beneficial relationship between market culture and market performance via customer happiness is supported by Morgan and Vorhies [31]. Yet, they clarify that market culture has both a direct and indirect favorable impact on financial performance [13]. It was discovered that adhocracy, the market, and hierarchical culture all had a considerable favorable impact on performance. The results confirm prior findings published by Chatman et al. [32], however they don't agree with their generalization regarding the impact of all types of culture on performance.

The highly significant correlation between the resorts’ organizational innovations and resilience also implies that the two have positive associations that affect one another. Technical and administrative innovations as well as innovative culture may impact the resorts’ overall resilience; and being resilient in times of organizational crises may result in formulation, development and implementation of creative ideas and innovations.

Innovation is one of the capabilities supporting a company's resilience [33]. Reinmoeller and Van Baardwijk [34] discovered that over the course of 20 years, the emphasis on innovation increased by 235% among the resilient firms they surveyed. According to Golgeci and Ponomarov [35], innovativeness is one of the main boosters of resilience and is a crucial component of a firm's continuation. Parast et al. [36] discovered that both firm innovativeness and innovation magnitude are favorably correlated with supply chain resilience on the influence of firm innovativeness on efficient responses to supply chain disruption, and their findings showing significant associations between resilience-capacity variables and a firm's product innovativeness, Akgün and Keskin [37] studied 112 firms to investigate the relationship between organizational resilience capacity, product innovation, and firm performance. Product innovativeness mediates the relationship between a firm's resilience and performance. However, Thukral [38] concluded that entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity are the key ingredients for organizational resilience, but government intervention is also required to build a favorable environment.

By combining survey data with field interviews and direct observation, the study demonstrates that the interplay among culture, innovation, and resilience is not only statistical but behavioral and experiential. The qualitative findings explain how an inclusive culture motivates employees to innovate and how innovation practices, in turn, foster a resilient mindset. This triangulation strengthens the theoretical claim that resilience evolves through a cycle of cultural reinforcement and adaptive innovation, rather than existing as an isolated outcome.

Proposed Resort Resilience Framework

Figure 1: Proposed Resilience Framework.

The resort resilience framework interrelates organizational culture and innovations with organizational resilience of resorts. Overall, it shows that there are highly significant correlations among the three variables. Organizational culture in terms of clan, market, hierarchy, and adhocracy was rated high by the resort employees and flagged high significant correlations with organizational resilience in terms of capital, cultural, relationship, strategic, and learning resilience. Similarly, the organizational innovations in terms of technical, administrative, and innovative culture obtained high ratings in the assessment of the resort employees and obtained high significant correlations with the organizational resilience in terms of capital, cultural, relationship, strategic, and learning resilience. The framework will be a guide among resort managers on how they should attain organizational resilience.

To stabilize operations after a crisis, resorts must react quickly. They must innovate to adapt to changes through entrepreneurial responses, product learning and improvement, and skill upgrades for employees. To maximize the likelihood of overcoming the crisis, resorts must organize and strengthen both their existing and new capacities.

Organizational culture, innovations, and resilience are intricately linked, as a strong culture can foster innovation and resilience, while innovation and resilience can strengthen organizational culture. A strong culture can promote innovation by encouraging risk-taking, experimentation, and collaboration. In turn, innovation can reinforce and enhance organizational culture by demonstrating the organization's commitment to creativity and continuous improvement. A resilient culture can help organizations weather periods of disruption by fostering a sense of collective purpose, adaptability, and resourcefulness. Conversely, resilience can reinforce and strengthen organizational culture by demonstrating the organization's ability to navigate challenges and emerge stronger.

Although earlier studies have examined the separate relationships between organizational culture, innovation, and resilience, this study advances theoretical understanding by combining these constructs within a single integrative framework specifically designed for resort operations in crisis and post-crisis contexts. Rather than simply reaffirming known correlations, the proposed Resort Resilience Framework introduces the concept of resilience as a dynamic organizational capability that develops through the ongoing interaction between cultural orientation and innovative behavior. In this view, organizational resilience is not treated as a static result of favorable culture or innovation but as a reciprocal process in which culture shapes innovation, innovation reinforces resilience, and resilience feeds back to strengthen organizational values and practices.

This theoretical extension also adds to the Competing Values Framework [39] by reinterpreting its cultural dimensions under the pressures of uncertainty and crisis. For example, clan and adhocracy cultures are shown not only as mechanisms for collaboration and creativity but also as sources of adaptive strength that sustain innovation during disruptive periods. Through this reframing, the model contributes a crisis-responsive lens to the understanding of organizational culture and innovation theories.

Additionally, the framework expands existing resilience theory by situating it within a service-based and tourism-oriented context, which has been underrepresented in organizational studies. By integrating empirical insights from resort operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides a contextualized theoretical model showing how hospitality organizations transform cultural values and innovation practices into resilient structures capable of sustaining long-term stability.

A strong clan and adhocracy culture, as identified in the study, cultivates collaboration, trust, and openness to experimentation-conditions that form the cognitive and emotional infrastructure for innovation. Culture functions as a reservoir of meaning and motivation: it defines what is valued, legitimizes creative risk-taking, and establishes informal networks that accelerate idea exchange. When employees perceive their organization as a “second home,” they are more willing to share insights and propose unconventional solutions. Such psychological safety and participative decision-making-core features of clan-oriented cultures-are critical antecedents to innovative behavior and collective learning [40].

At the same time, innovation acts as the operational mechanism through which cultural values translate into adaptive behavior. Innovations, whether technological or administrative, are not isolated events but manifestations of an organization’s learning capability. The adoption of new service models, contactless systems, or local-sourcing practices during crises demonstrates how innovation embodies a resort’s capacity to reconfigure routines, redeploy resources, and maintain service quality under pressure. Within the framework of Organizational Learning Theory [41], innovation serves as a feedback process: experiential learning from past disruptions strengthens the organization’s knowledge base and prepares it for future shocks.

Resilience, therefore, is not a static end-state but a dynamic outcome emerging from this interaction between culture and innovation. It represents the ability of the organization to continually align its internal capacities with environmental volatility. A cohesive culture provides the social foundation for trust and coordinated action; innovation supplies technical and procedural flexibility; and their integration yields an adaptive equilibrium that defines organizational resilience. This triadic relationship suggests that resilience is co-produced by the value system that sustains commitment and the creative processes that enable transformation.

The findings affirm that resorts demonstrating high cultural cohesion and innovation capability exhibit greater capital, relational, and cultural resilience. However, the theoretical contribution extends beyond correlation: the results empirically illustrate how cultural orientations (clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy) activate specific adaptive mechanisms. For instance, clan cultures enhance social capital, facilitating emotional resilience and cooperation, while adhocracy cultures encourage improvisation and experimentation, essential for strategic resilience. Market and hierarchical elements, though less dominant, contribute to structure and accountability that stabilize post-crisis recovery. This balanced configuration of values reflects an ambidextrous culture-a hallmark of resilient organizations capable of both stability and change [42].

In summary, this model adds theoretical depth by conceptualizing resilience as both an outcome and a reinforcing mechanism within the culture-innovation-resilience cycle, offering a novel perspective that connects organizational behavior and crisis management theories in hospitality research. A strong organizational culture that encourages innovation and resilience can be a powerful driver of organizational success and growth. By understanding the correlations between these three factors, organizations can develop strategies to optimize their culture, support innovation, and build resilience in the face of disruption.

The proposed Resort Resilience Framework conceptualizes resilience as a cyclical capability system grounded in three interdependent layers: cultural orientation, innovation capability, and adaptive resilience. Rather than depicting a linear cause-effect relationship, the model positions culture as the enabling substrate, innovation as the transformational process, and resilience as the emergent property of their interaction.

Cultural Orientation (Foundation Layer). Organizational culture provides the normative and emotional infrastructure that guides behavior. Clan and adhocracy dimensions nurture shared purpose, empowerment, and openness to change-conditions that sustain creativity under uncertainty. Through continuous socialization and internal communication, culture embeds the cognitive scripts that normalize adaptation and experimentation, forming the psychological readiness necessary for resilience.

Innovation Capability (Transitional Layer). Innovation represents the organization’s capacity to transform cultural values into concrete adaptive action. It encompasses technical, administrative, and service innovations that operate flexibility. Within this framework, innovation acts as the conversion mechanism, turning collective beliefs and trust into reconfigurable systems, processes, and solutions. The more an organization institutionalizes innovation as routine behavior, the stronger its adaptive learning cycle becomes.

Adaptive Resilience (Outcome Layer). Resilience emerges as a dynamic equilibrium of stability and change. It is expressed through the organization’s ability to sustain operations (capital resilience), preserve values (cultural resilience), maintain stakeholder relationships (relational resilience), and derive learning from adversity (learning resilience). These resilience capacities are not external outcomes but internal manifestations of an organization’s cultural and innovative vitality.

The framework introduces a recursive loop rather than a one-way model. When resorts effectively adapt and recover, they reinforce their cultural identity and institutional memory, which in turn enhances their readiness for future disruptions. This recursive cycle explains resilience as an evolving capability, consistent with the dynamic capability’s perspective, where sensing, seizing, and transforming competencies continuously renew the firm’s competitive advantage [43].

From a theoretical standpoint, this model extends the Competing Values Framework by integrating resilience as a contextual moderator-a condition under which cultural flexibility (adhocracy) and cohesion (clan) synergize to produce sustained adaptability. It also advances resilience theory by grounding it in the social architecture of service organizations, illustrating that emotional connectedness and learning-based innovation are as crucial as financial capital in weathering crises.

This reconceptualization contributes to hospitality management theory by framing resilience as an organizational learning process driven by culture-innovation alignment. It moves beyond the descriptive notion of correlation and presents resilience as a dynamic, path-dependent capability. The model highlights that in service-oriented organizations like resorts, resilience is not only about recovery but also about renewal, transforming adversity into an opportunity for cultural strengthening and continuous innovation.

The resorts in Central Luzon have a strong clan culture as exhibited by team-spirit, family-like atmosphere, solidarity, and oneness; and market culture as evidenced by evaluating employee’s performance based on actual outcomes and emphasis based on competition and outcome excellence. This implies that resorts should maintain these cultures to maintain harmonious relationships in the organization as well as to promote quality service and excellent performance of employees.

They are good at technical innovations, particularly in taking up business against new competitors because of new products and services. They should invest more capital and effort in taking up against new competitors because of new products and services, on becoming the first to market new products and services, and on leading and advancing in marketing innovations (entering new markets, new pricing methods, new distribution methods, etc.).

They experienced capital, cultural and relationship resilience where they paid employee’s salaries and benefits on time, paid loans to creditors, and had enough funds to cover expenses, fostered corporate culture that reflects the care and love for employees, and promoted good communication and interpersonal relationships among employees. However, it is implied that to optimize the overall organizational resilience, the resort management must also strengthen its strategic and learning resilience.

Organizational culture and innovations both have high significant correlations with organizational resilience. Resorts with positive culture and those that innovate tend to be more capital, cultural and relationship resilient. The resort management must always assess its internal structure, processes, relationship, shared values, beliefs, and practices. Its culture must be attuned to the organizational goals and objectives for the resort to become successful and resilient. Furthermore, management must promote innovative culture to every member of the organization to ensure a high level of resilience.

A Resort Resilience Framework was developed as a guide towards organizational resilience that leads to a more effective, more sustainable operations of resorts. The framework stressed out that organizational culture, innovations, and resilience are intricately linked, as a strong culture can foster innovation and resilience, while innovation and resilience can strengthen organizational culture. Similarly, positive organizational culture and well-planned and executed innovations are assurance for organizational resilience.

For the resort management to enhance organizational culture, they must allot budget for organizational innovations to compensate employees who introduce innovations; and must promote open line of communication - top-down, lateral, and bottom-up communication lines. For them to enhance organizational innovations, they must seek innovative ideas from all employees and employees, should not be penalized nor punished for new ideas that do not work. Resort managers at Central Luzon should also deal with customers’ suggestions and complaints urgently and with the utmost care and should produce new products and services that are very novel to the customers. They must make their resorts more resilient; they must come up with updated orientation and re-orientation program that will help employees to develop a deep awareness and understanding of the situation among employees during this time. They must also strategize on how to focus on business growth by creating strategies to increase customer arrivals and satisfaction.

The resort management may adopt the proposed Hotel Resilience Framework as a basis for improved operations during the time of crisis.

For future researchers to use the findings of this study as baseline data to explore more possibilities of improving the organizational culture, innovations, and resilience of business enterprises in the hospitality and tourism industry. They may investigate variables like leadership, human relations, and communications, among others as determinants to organizational resilience. They may also do in-depth analysis of the resilience practices of the hotel by considering other stakeholders like suppliers, customers, and supervisors as respondents. A wider coverage and scope in terms of national to international perspective of resilience may be considered.

1. Dwyer L, Teal G, Kemp S. Organisational culture & strategic management in a resort hotel. Asia Pacific J Tourism Res. 1998; 3: 27-36.
2. González-Rodríguez MR, Martín-Samper RC, Köseoglu MA, Okumus F. Hotels’ corporate social responsibility practices, organizational culture, firm reputation. And performance. J Sustainable Tourism. 2019; 27: 398-419.
3. Rabbani S, Sarmad M, Khattak A, Khan M. Creative self-efficacy and product innovation: Uncovering the role of creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Int J Innov. Creativity Change. 2020; 13: 901-924.
4. Chen R, Xie Y, Liu Y. Defining, conceptualizing and measuring organizational resilience: A multiple case study. Sustainability. 2021; 13: 2517.
5. Azeem M, Ahmed M, Haider S, Sajjad M. Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technology in Society. 2021; 66: 101635.
6. Nguyen VT, Siengthai S, Swierczek F, Bamel UK. The effects of organizational culture and commitment on employee innovation: Evidence from Vietnam’s IT industry. J Asia Bus Stud. 2019; 13: 719-742.
7. Hanifah H, Abdul Halim H, Ahmad NH, Vafaei-Zadeh A. Emanating the key factors of innovation performance: Leveraging on the innovation culture among SMEs in Malaysia. J Asia Bus Stud. 2019; 13: 559-587.
8. Gebril Taha M, Espino-Rodríguez TF. The impact of the organizational culture on hotel outsourcing and sustainable performance: An empirical application in the Egyptian hotel sector. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 9687.
9. Ibrahim AM. Organisational attachment in hospitality organisations: A review. Research in Hospitality Management. 2024; 14: 94-99.
10. Dimitriou CK. The critical role that national culture and ethical leadership play in fostering employee commitment to service quality in the hotel industry. Research in Hospitality Management. 2022; 12: 255-271.
11. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989; 11: 255-274.
12. Quaranta J. Descriptive correlational research: Asthma management by school nurses. In SAGE Research Methods Cases. 2017.
13. Joseph OO, Kibera F. Organizational culture and performance: Evidence from microfinance institutions in Kenya. SAGE Open. 2019; 9: 2158244019835934.
14. Pathiranage J. Organizational culture and business performance: An empirical study. International J Econ Management. 2019; 24: 264-278.
15. Shahzad F, Xiu G, Shahbaz M. Organizational culture and innovation performance in Pakistan’s software industry. Technology in Society. 2017; 51: 66-73.
16. Anzola-Román P, Bayona-Sáez C, García-Marco T. Organizational innovation, internal R&D and externally sourced innovation practices: Effects on technological innovation outcomes. J Bus Res. 2018; 91: 233-247.
17. Riley M, Szivas E. Luxury and innovation: Towards an evaluative framework. Research in Hospitality Management. 2015; 5: 147-152.
18. Genç R, Genç EA. Market-oriented innovations in tourism. Research in Hospitality Management. 2017; 7: 51-57.
19. Zhang W, Xu F, Wang X. How green transformational leadership affects green creativity: Creative process engagement as intermediary bond and green innovation strategy as boundary spanner. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 3841.
20. Didier T, Huneeus F, Larrain M, Schmukler SL. Financing firms in hibernation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Stability. 2021; 53: 100837.
21. Cukierman A. COVID-19, helicopter money, and the fiscal-monetary nexus. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 14734. 2020.
22. Beck MJ, Hensher DA, Wei E. Slowly coming out of COVID-19 restrictions in Australia: Implications for working from home and commuting trips by car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography. 2020; 88: 102846.
23. Boot AB, Eerland A, Jongerling J, Verkoeijen PP, Zwaan RA. Gathering, processing and interpreting information about COVID-19. Scientific Reports, 2021; 11: 6569.
24. Brunnermeier M, Krishnamurthy Stick, carrot and evergreen loans: A policy proposal to save small and medium-sized firms. Pro-Market Blog, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (Econfip). 2020.
25. Acharya V, Steffen S. Stress tests for banks as liquidity insurers in a time of COVID. VoxEU. 2020.
26. Abel AB, Panageas S. Optimal management of a pandemic in the short run and the long run (NBER Working Paper No. 27742). National Bureau of Economic Research. 2020.
27. Button R, Rojicek M, Waldron M, Walker D. Financing larger UK companies through COVID-19. 2020.
28. Calciolari S, Prenestini A, Lega F. An organizational culture for all seasons? How culture type dominance and strength influence different performance goals. Public Management Review. 2018; 20: 1400-1422.
29. Fekete H, Bocskei E. Cultural waves in company performance. Research Journal of Economics Business and ICT. 2019; 3: 38-42.
30. Zhang Z, Zhu X. Empirical analysis of the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Information Technology and Computer Science. Atlantis Press. 2022.
31. Morgan AN, Vorhies DW. The business performance outcomes of market orientation culture and behaviours. Innovation and Strategy. 2018; 15: 255-282.
32. Chatman JA, Caldwell DF, O’Reilly CA, Doerr B. Parsing organizational culture: How the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus and financial performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2014; 35: 785-808.
33. Kamalahmadi M, Parast MM. A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. Int J Production Econ. 2016; 171: 116-133.
34. Reinmoeller P, Van Baardwijk N. The link between diversity and resilience. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2015.
35. Golgeci I, Ponomarov SY. Does firm innovativeness enable effective responses to supply chain disruptions? An empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 2018; 18: 604-617.
36. Parast MM, Sabahi S, Kamalahmadi M. The relationship between firm resilience to supply chain disruptions and firm innovation. In G.A. Zsidisin & M Henke (Eds.), Revisiting supply chain risk. 2019; 279-298.
37. Akgün AE, Keskin H. Organisational resilience capacity and firm product innovativeness and performance. Int J Production Res. 2014; 52: 6918-6937.
38. Thukral E. COVID?19: Small and medium enterprises challenges and responses with creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Change. 2021; 30: 153-158.
39. Cameron KS, Quinn RE. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 2016.
40. Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 2017.
41. Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Addison-Wesley. 1996.
42. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 2013; 27: 324-338.
43. Teece DJ. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning. 2018; 51: 40-49.
44. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. 2018.