In the academic literature, the concept of the “new normal” was popularized during the global financial and economic crisis of 2008. It refers to “the dramatic economic, cultural, and social transformations that seriously impact collective perceptions and individual lifestyles (Manuti, 2022; p.1). Idris and Imanuella (2024) contended that the “new normal” is also linked to broader social and cultural transformations, accompanied by major changes in the fields of health, technology, organisations, human development, and public policy. They reflected a broader transformation of societal norms and practices. As such, the new normal is fundamentally linked to crisis contingencies. A crisis is a “disruption that physically affects a system as a whole and threatens its basic assumptions, its subjective sense of self, its existential core” (Pauchant & Mitroff, 1992, p. 15). Bastesen *et al.* (2025) added that a crisis is a state of affairs that emerges after significant disruptions, such as economic crises or pandemics, in which new standards and practices replace previous norms.

The 2008 crisis marked a significant shift in economic practices and policies, leading to a redefinition of what was considered normal in the global economy (Silin *et al.*, 2016). For Ristanović and Andrlić (2023), this paradigm shift resulted in a new approach and a profound transformation of existing organizational forms and practices.

Drawing on the Nobel laureate Paul Romer’s observation “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste”, some authors claim that “systemic shocks can serve as a momentum-breaking factor that can help bring about big and potentially long-lasting changes” (Olsen *et al.*, 2021). They argue that responses to crises (e.g., SARS, COVID-19) and stimulus packages offer an opportunity for governments to accelerate action on the sustainable development agenda and build resilience to COVID-like crises. Referring to the Oklahoma bombings and the 9/11 attacks, Simon (2004) posits that crisis and disaster do not have to mean disruption and chaos for organizations. As Bolino *et al.* (2023) suggested, the new normal triggered by similar crises presents an opportunity for organizations to learn how to manage future ones. Furthermore, they offer a “unique laboratory of social and political life” (Rosenthal & Kouzmin, 1993, p. 3) that provides researchers with an opportunity to uncover novel insights into the coping strategies of organizational actors under extreme situations (Anicich *et al.*, 2020). Such conditions are even considered ideal research settings insofar as they make observable some specific psychological reactions and dynamics that scholars could not capture in other contexts (Barnett & Pratt, 2000). In the same vein, Bonetti and Vecchi (2022) argue that disruptive events (e.g., COVID-19) present an opportunity for scholars to gain a deeper understanding of managerial perspectives on innovation and processes across different sectors and to test the relevance of existing theoretical models.

This paper serves as an introduction to the special issue on the New Normal in management. It builds on insights derived from the four papers published in the special issue and aims to better situate the New Normal within the management literature by providing a historical context for the emergence of different concepts and their connections with central theories and phenomena in management research. Based on the development mentioned above, we build three contributions to this special issue that may nurture and work as an endeavour to future research on the New Normal. First, we aim to study the institutionalization process of New Normal practices, and we suggest the concept of proto-institution (Lawrence *et al.*, 2002) as a theoretical lens. Second, we invite researchers to revisit and rethink organizational resilience in a New Normal world. Our third contribution and call sheds light on the central role of technology in exploring the relationships between the New Norma and organizations.
# The new normal state of the art: taking stock

## New normal in management studies

The emergence of a “new normal” coerces management literature to address a complex set of questions and issues, particularly regarding organisational adaptation and appropriation. The aftermath of the 2008 financial recession, characterised by an “unfounded hope” for a return to normalcy, exposed a notable deficiency in management studies concerning crisis management (Starkey, 2015). This lacuna is further exacerbated by the limited research on organisational learning mechanisms within the tourism industry, despite the recognised imperative of organisational knowledge management for future crisis preparedness (Bhaskara & Filimonau, 2021). Consequently, as underscored by Bolino et al. (2023), there is a compelling need to investigate organizational learning derived from the recent pandemic and to identify those strategies that proved most efficacious in navigating its unprecedented challenges. Additionally, Williams et al. (2017) highlight two types of crises: crises as an event and crises as a process, both of which necessitate an organizational response. Based on a literature review focusing on crisis and crisis management, the authors identified three main streams of empirical studies: “(1) crisis management as a normative and staged activity to restore equilibrium, (2) the role of leaders in crisis management, and (3) the importance of crisis management teams” (Williams et al., 2017, p. 736). These research interests are further supported by Bolino et al. (2023)’s scoping review, which provides evidence from several research fields that focus, in particular, on individuals, teams, leaders, organisations, and society.

Studies on crisis management focusing on teams have mainly adopted the crisis-as-event perspective, with only a few focusing on the role of multiple partners, including organisational teams and decision-makers, in addressing organisational weaknesses, learning from crises, and taking safeguards (Simon, 2004; Williams et al., 2017). For instance, in the tourism industry, it has been demonstrated that individual skills and organisational resources are crucial for organisational learning and stakeholder collaboration during times of crisis (Ritchie, 2004). Besides, studies have focused on the skills that are critical in times of crisis, such as leadership skills (e.g., adaptability, flexibility, and innovation) and business skills (Iordanoglou & Ioannidis, 2014). The recent pandemic has uncovered the difficulty of securing external talent and outsourcing skills. This highlights the need for lockdown self-sufficiency, which in turn underlines the importance of managerial competence, creativity, and entrepreneurial thinking (Łupicka, 2021). Essential leadership skills during crises, such as open communication, honesty, adaptability, the capability to coordinate with team members, empathy, seeking and finding solutions, are essential for organisations to navigate crises (Dimitrovska *et al.*, 2023).

In times of crisis, organisations’ leaders must rapidly adapt to the “new normal” of work, which includes significant changes such as remote work, flexible hours, modified job responsibilities, or even periods of unemployment (Srivastava & Gupta, 2022). This “new normal” requires leaders to develop the ability to perform activities such as providing strong roles and purpose, sharing leadership, communicating, ensuring employees’ access to technology, prioritizing employees’ emotional stability, maintaining organizational financial health, and promoting organizational resilience (Dirani *et al.*, 2020, p. 391). Against this backdrop, there is limited research offering a comprehensive look at crisis leadership (Islam, 2025). The author focused on the leadership in crisis literature published between 1992 and 2024 to identify seven areas of research i.e., digital leadership and performance during crisis, servant leadership during crisis, crisis leadership for resilience, transactional, transformational and virtual leadership, building trust in leadership through communication and ethics, ethical leadership and organisational outcomes and political leadership and crisis communication for resilience (Islam, 2025).

Management studies focused on various aspects related to well-being in organisations during a crisis. For instance, Srivastava and Gupta (2022) highlighted the need for organisations to develop appropriate practices and systems that ensure flexibility, adaptability, and promptness in responding to disruptive situations, thereby managing employees’ mental health and wellbeing. Additionally, Qin and Men (2023) emphasized the importance of social responsibility and the significance of care, empathy, and psychological well-being. Other studies have focused on work-life balance (Vyas, 2022), job satisfaction, perceived efficacy, and mental well-being (Capone *et al.*, 2024), as well as employee stress and emotional exhaustion (Ayoko, 2021).

Despite various forms of remote work existing for decades (e.g., teleworking), it only became a central topic of societal discussion with the widespread restrictions on physical mobility imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic (Leonardi *et al.*, 2024). Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has significantly disrupted many sectors, including airlines, hospitality, hotels, and manufacturing (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020; He & Harris, 2020). A major business transformation, directly attributable to the pandemic’s global spread, was the widespread adoption of remote work (Newbold *et al.*, 2021; Bolino *et al.*, 2023). This rapid shift necessitated that the remote workforce adapt their practices and adopt new strategies (Newbold *et al.*, 2021).

In their analyses of papers published in the British Journal of Management during extreme contexts, Brammer *et al.* (2023) identified similar research interests: (1) at the societal level, the authors highlight the significance of the institutional quality as the determinants of the effectiveness of COVID-19 response measures; (2) the organisational level gained the most interest uncovering antecedents of organizations’ reactions to the pandemic and experiences, thereby, confirming prior resilience studies e.g., revealing the importance of financial and other resources and capabilities in shaping organizational experiences and responses (Linnenluecke, 2017); (3) at the individual level, researchers focused on diverse stakeholder/individual roles to identify the highly critical challenge posed by the pandemic e.g., the unclear boundaries between roles and spheres.

Despite the many contributions of these studies, Brammers *et al.* (2023) pointed out the paucity of studies focusing on the outcomes of the pandemic, especially at the societal and organisational levels, compared to individual-level studies that highlighted outcomes in terms of well-being, health, and work performance.

From a methodological perspective, based on twenty years of publications in Risks, Hazards, Crises, and Public Policies, Wolbers *et al.* (2021) stated that, in the pre-COVID-19 context, management research primarily employed single-case studies and exploratory research, with a focus shifted from preparedness to response and limited methodological diversity. Brammer *et al.* (2023) noted that substantive management studies during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to previous critical crises, employ a mix of research designs, including quantitative and qualitative methods, experimental methods, and case studies.

## New normal and Crisis

In this paper, we subscribe to the thesis that crises and their severity act as catalysts and accelerators for disruptive changes and paradigm shifts, such as the emergence of the new normal.

Indeed, crises prepare minds for change. They are often an opportunity to blame those responsible and to question existing processes. Management studies have extensively examined crisis management during crises and how organisations should prepare for them. Weick’s work (1995) emphasizes the crucial role of improvisation, tinkering, and informal relationships among members of an organization during a crisis. Bahri-Korbi *et al.* (2021) highlight the crucial role of corporate culture and the emergence of a transitional leadership style in crisis management. However, the post-crisis period is also an important time for understanding how crises impact organisations and their environments. Indeed, the post-crisis period is an opportune time for organisations to revisit their processes and practices, preventing the same crises from occurring or the mistakes made during crises from being repeated (Weick, 1996). The post-crisis period is therefore often synonymous with organisational learning and changes in strategies and doctrine on the sources of organisational vulnerability and how to overcome them. According to Altintas and Royer (2009), there are two types of post-crisis learning: positive reinforcement learning, which enhances the ability to absorb shocks, and double-loop learning, in which strategic changes reduce an organisation’s vulnerability.

This is how crises accelerate change. The greater the impact of crises and their consequences, the greater the likelihood of a paradigm shift. Recently, the concept of polycrisis has emerged as a framework for describing serious, complex, and interconnected crises, in which one crisis is caused by and influences another.

A polycrisis is a situation in which several diverse and varied crises simultaneously affect an organization’s commercial and institutional environment. Initially coined by French philosopher Edgar Morin, the term “polycrisis” has found its way into academia, politics, and public discourse.

We believe the COVID-19 pandemic is more than a crisis; it is likely a polycrisis that has accelerated the paradigm shift towards the new normal in management and organisational theory. While research on post-crisis learning emphasizes actions implemented at the managerial level, we subscribe to the thesis that the generalization and accumulation of organizational actions can lead to paradigm shifts at the meso or macro level.

Indeed, in their study of 21 multinational companies based in Colombia, Asshidi *et al.* (2022) show that changes at the organisational level can have an impact on the macro-organisational and social levels if the changes converge towards standard practices and resonate with the values expected in the post-crisis context.

What began as a health crisis has mutated or revealed communication crises resulting in collective panic, organisational crises to ensure the continuity of services and activities, and social and psychosocial crises resulting from multiple lockdown decisions, not to mention the value and moral crises sparked by the policies of pharmaceutical companies and governments at the international level.

Questions about the continuity of practices and changes implemented during the COVID-19 crisis have sparked considerable debate among management researchers (Frimousse & Peretti, 2020).

On an academic level, recent research indicates that the severity and multi-crisis nature of the COVID-19 pandemic have led to the development of new theories and organizational practices. Following the 1970s theories of organization as a system open to its environment, researchers are increasingly focusing on viable systems with an emphasis on vulnerability to crises, their control, and anticipation. For instance, we can refer to the theory of supply chain viability introduced by Ivanov *et al.* (2023).

## COVID-19 as a catalyst for the new normal

Considered more than a health crisis by the United Nations (UN) due to its economic and social consequences, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 769.77 million infections and 6.95 million deaths worldwide (Statista, August 18, 2023). The global economic impact of the outbreak is alarming. In 2020, the international real GDP declined by 3.6%. The volume of world merchandise trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows decreased by 5.3% and 42%, respectively. World economies struggle with rising unemployment, as nearly 8.8 percent of total working hours were lost in 2020 (ILO, 2021). Most economies are on the brink of recession, and many experienced a fall in household income during the crisis (McKinsey, 2020).

This crisis, which has put high pressure on healthcare systems in most countries, has revealed the limitations of traditional methods of managing health emergencies and ensuring effective treatment of the disease, thus highlighting the need to find innovative solutions (Garavand *et al.*, 2024) that exploit, among other things, advances in information and communication technologies in software and equipment and have a global reach (Khorram-Manesh *et al.*, 2024).

It has also highlighted the need for robust and comprehensive plans, along with adequate funding, to prepare for and respond to pandemics (Ezenwaji *et al.*, 2024). In addition, it has revealed gaps between nations in their surveillance systems and a lack of collaboration between countries to exchange data and launch simulations to detect signals and deploy emergency plans despite the heavy toll of the Spanish flu crisis and other major health crises that have hit the world since 2000 (SARS-CoV, H1N1, and Ebola) (Khorram-Manesh *et al.*, 2024).

Niblett (2020) advocated that the pandemic could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of economic globalization, as it has highlighted the vulnerabilities of global supply chains and provided arguments for more protectionism and stricter border control (Free and Hecimovic, 2021). COVID-19 has also exacerbated the underlying impacts of climate change, threatening food and water security and significantly compromising the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in developing countries (Ingutia, 2021).

These unforeseen changes have profoundly impacted organizations worldwide, as businesses and societies have faced their most significant challenges in decades (Bailey & Breslin, 2021). They have significantly disrupted the actions of organizations and the behavior of individuals (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020; Norris *et al.*, 2020). The disruptions triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic can be analyzed at three levels: sectoral, organizational, and individual levels.

Due to the unexpected increase in the demand for some products and services, some sectors such as health care sector, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment manufacturers, emergency service maintenance (e.g. water, electricity), home delivery persons, were overstressed, whilst many others (e,g. travel and hospitality tourism, entertainment, and retail, etc.) were underutilized (Debata *et al.*, 2020; Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020; He and Harris, 2020; Prakash *et al.*, 2020). For instance, the decline in demand for some non-essential products and services led to the closure of many fashion and apparel retail stores and halted production in global factories (Brydges and Hanlon, 2020). Similarly, the health crisis has had a profound impact on franchising (Bretas and Alon, 2020), as well as on the tourism and hospitality sectors (Donthu and Gustafsson, 2020; He and Harris, 2020), and has been devastating to the airline industry worldwide (Goodell, 2020). The financial sector also witnessed financial market distortions, misaligned prices, and funding concerns for many market participants, as well as an inability of individuals and organizations to service their liabilities and pay their debts adequately, resulting in a significant increase in borrowers’ default rates.
# The new Normal in business environment: Research agenda and research perspectives

The selected papers treated the new normal as a disruption to the way organizations design and implement their strategies, and attempted to shed light on its consequences from multiple perspectives. Building on the insights from the four selected papers and recent debates on the New Normal in organizations and management research, we have constructed the following three perspectives, which we hope will nurture future debates and research.

## New Normal as a proto-institution

Theoretical debates and public discourse, more generally, on the new normal raise a question: Will the changes brought about during the pandemic continue, or will we return to our old practices and habits? This raises the question of institutionalizing the new normal. Institutionalisation is defined as the process by which practices and organisational forms become so embedded in collective cognition that they appear obvious and self-evident (Greenwood et al., 2002). Institutionalisation is therefore synonymous with stability and reproduction (Ben Slimane, 2012). According to Jepperson (1991), institutionalisation allows social practices and forms to exist without any effort to support them.

At this stage, and with the hindsight provided by numerous empirical studies, it is difficult to say that the new practices emerging from the new normal are becoming self-evident. Moreover, current debates on returning to the office, for example, reveal that the discussion remains lively regarding certain practices and organisational forms. In the same vein, in this issue, Cuenoud *et al.* (2025) raise the same question about the long-standing legitimacy and institutionalisation of micro-donation in France.

Although neo-institutional theory clearly defines what an institution is and what institutionalization entails, it is not always easy to conceive of non-institutionalization. However, two avenues can be explored. The first is that of fads and trends (Abrahamson, 1991). The second refers to what is known as proto-institutionalisation (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002). Managerial fads and trends are new practices and forms that fail to endure over time and gradually disappear. They generally generate considerable excitement and enthusiasm when they first emerge, but eventually disappear because they have not created the cognitive, normative, and coercive conditions necessary for their institutionalisation and reproducibility. According to Abrahamson (1991), fads and trends, after generating enthusiasm within organisations, end up being rejected because they no longer elicit the same emotions and no longer fulfil the same symbolic role.

The literature emphasizes the importance of taking intentional and thoughtful action to reject practices deemed ineffective, thereby condemning them to be considered fads or trends (Pollach, 2022). Regarding the practices and forms emerging from the new normal, even though the emotional and symbolic aspects, in the sense of Abrahamson (1991), are well established, as shown by Ben Arfi and Ben Cherbib (2025), it is nonetheless true that they provoke rejection or mistrust. We can therefore conclude that practices arising from the New Normal, since they do not elicit the rejection defined by the literature, are neither fads nor trends. It is therefore highly likely that we are dealing with a case of proto-institutions. A proto-institution is defined as: “new practices, rules and technologies that transcend a particular collaborative relationship and may become new institutions if they diffuse sufficiently” (Lawrence, Hardy & Phillips, 2002: 281). The widespread diffusion of proto-institutions, on the one hand, and the ability of the actors who support them to create an institutional system in the sense of Scott (1995), composed of a cognitive, normative, and coercive pillar, would enable proto-institutions to become institutions in their own right.

## Rethinking organizational resilience

A central question arises: Have we indeed reached a point of no return, where organizations and their stakeholders must irrevocably adjust to this “new normal”? Evidence strongly suggests this is the case. It has been consistently shown that organizations with superior management practices demonstrate enhanced crisis adaptability (Krammer, 2022). This resilience is exemplified by the rapid and decisive actions taken by World Business Council for Sustainable Development member companies (including 3M, Microsoft Corporation, Banco Santander, Unilever, and Shell) and their partners. These entities have proactively responded to support people, communities, and economies worldwide, showcasing the critical role of robust leadership in navigating unprecedented challenges.

Despite initial hopes for a swift return to pre-crisis conditions, a pervasive belief has emerged that we have entered a lasting “new normal” rather than merely a transient economic downturn. This perspective underscores that the familiar adage of “doing more with less” will take on even greater significance during these challenging times (Force, 2008). This evidence had been supported by the work of Ben Arfi and Ben Cherbib (2025), in this special issue.

Routines are presented as a central mechanism for how organizations learn, adapt, and evolve (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Organizations must capitalize on the routines developed as a response to crises. These routines serve as organizational memory and are embedded in the tacit knowledge (Nelson and Winter, 1982). The paper by Tanveer *et al.* in this issue shows that a resourceful organization is more likely to be resilient and more prepared to face crisis in the future because of their increased capacity to learn.

Williams *et al.* (2017) competent teams and other relational systems embedded in organizations can generate positive outcomes and facilitate a return to (or improvement upon) the status quo (e.g., James *et al.*, 2011; Kahn *et al.*, 2013; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). It is this tension around whether the organization can successfully navigate adversity through leaders or teams that presents an opportunity to explain not only how organizations respond to challenges but also how an organization disarms challenges before they escalate and trigger a crisis event.

## The role of Technology in building the new normal

The climate crisis, geopolitical conflicts, economic/financial crises, and political polarization have reshaped the landscape of management research, driving scholars to explore innovative solutions and strategies to navigate and thrive in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

The pivotal role that technology advancements play in extreme crisis and disaster contexts is widely recognized among academics from different scientific and humanities disciplines. Indeed, they are of significant usefulness and effectiveness throughout the various phases of the disaster management cycle, namely: 1) mitigation, 2) preparedness, 3) response, and 4) recovery (Musavi *et al.*, 2010; Vasilache, 2012; Aretoulaki *et al.*, 2024). For instance, compared to the devastating earthquake of October 2005 in Kashmir (Pakistan), various warning systems in Japan were used for early detection of tsunamis, issuing alerts, saving lives, and avoiding significant losses during the 2011 Japan Earthquake (Vasilache, 2012).

Moreover, during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, ICT provided substantial support for financial institutions in managing credit risk by adopting scorecard models to develop their decision-making processes further (Elhassouni *et al.*, 2020). They also played a significant role in restoring investor trust in financial services actors (Tiwari *et al.*, 2023). Similarly, blockchain technologies have evolved and are utilized to enhance decision-making processes (Kahyaoglu, 2019), navigating and adapting to the complex situations triggered by the extreme crisis context. Businesses have leveraged innovation and digital technologies to develop new business models and strategies, enhancing their resilience and adaptability during crises. This has been particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where companies have turned challenges into opportunities, ensuring the sustainability of goods and services flow (Leonardi *et al.*, 2024; Sharma *et al.*, 2022; Schaltegger, 2021). The health crisis has directly engendered progress in medical technology and improvements in public health systems. Similarly, it accelerated the introduction and/or adoption of next-generation digital technologies (e.g., AI, big data, and 5G) (Monlezun, 2024; Navaz *et al.*, 2021).

Despite the technological progress including in ICT, lithe COVID-19 has not only put under pressure the health worldwide as well as many other high-contact service fields, working places, transportation, etc., but also it has noticeably shown the limits of the conventional solutions used to cope with and manage effectively health emergencies, underscoring the need to find innovative solutions utilizing the ICT progress in software and hardware (Garavand et al, 2024; Khorram-Manesh *et al.*, 2024).

It is also worth noting that the COVID-19 crisis has given rise to the often hasty development and implementation of technological solutions/applications, particularly in Low-Income Countries (Hossain, 2021; Mynarek & Jahr, 2025). For instance, in the work environment, Caroll and Conboy (2020) compared changes in working methods (remote working, distancing, interference between the private and professional spheres, etc.) to a “big bang” that took place under conditions of extreme urgency, preventing organizations from developing strategies, training or experimenting with new operating practices.

Furthermore, the pandemic revealed gaps between nations in their surveillance systems and a lack of collaboration between countries to exchange data and run simulations to detect signals and deploy emergency plans, despite the heavy toll of the Spanish flu crisis and the other major health crises that have hit the world since 2000 (SARS-CoV, H1N1 and Ebola) (Khorram-Manesh *et al.*, 2024).
# Conclusion

This paper provides valuable insights for individuals and organisations navigating the post-pandemic “new normal,” offering guidance for a positive transition. Have we reached a point of no return, where organisations and their stakeholders must adjust to the “new normal”?

The global landscape has undergone a fundamental shift, paving the way for a post-pandemic “new normal” that necessitates a reevaluation of traditional approaches and presents a critical opportunity for a positive transition. As numerous studies demonstrate, this period marks a significant evolution in management research interest, particularly concerning the profound impacts of the recent crisis.

The role of scholars in management is crucial in such an environment. Management research should help organizations better identify sources of change and disruption in their environment, without succumbing to fashion and trends. In the meantime, the need to rethink our approach to teaching management and training managers should also be driven by the need to adapt to the New Normal. The new manager should be an agent of adaptation more than a source of rationalizing organizations, and a designing process geared toward achieving performance (Czarniawska-Joerges, & Wolff, 1991).

## Références

E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of
        innovations. *Academy of Management Review*, *16*(3), 586-612.

Ahsan, T., Ali Gull, A.,
        Boubaker, S. & Manita, R. (2025). Does a competitive Business strategy make firms more
        resilient? Evidence from the COVID‑19 Pandemic. *Management international, 29*(3),
        71-81. https://doi.org/10.59876/a-6bdp-jh81l

G., & Royer,
        I. (2009). Renforcement de la résilience par un apprentissage post-crise: une étude
        longitudinale sur deux périodes de turbulence. *M@ n@ gement*, *12*(4),
        266-293. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.124.0266

E. M., Foulk, T.
        A., Osborne, M. R., Gale, J., & Schaerer, M. (2020). Getting back to the “new normal”:
        Autonomy restoration during a global pandemic. *Journal of Applied Psychology*,
        *105*(9), 931. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000655

O. B., Caputo, A.,
        & Mendy, J. (2021). Management research contributions to the COVID-19: A bibliometric
        literature review and analysis of the contributions from the Journal of Management &
        Organization. *Journal of Management & Organization*, *27*(6), 1183-1209.
        https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.70

C. K., &
        Pratt, M. G. (2000). From threat-rigidity to flexibility-Toward a learning model of
        autogenic crisis in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1),
        74-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010310258

J., Lange, B. K.,
        & Tranøy, B. S. (2025). Making sense of uncertainty–Interrogating conceptions of the
        *New Normal. Scandinavian Journal of Management*, 101407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2025.101407

D., Cheikhrouhou,
        S., Sebri, M., & Blouin, M. (2025) Analyse par classes latentes de l’intention
        d’utilisation future d’une application mobile de santé publique concernant la COVID-19.
        *Management international, 29*(3), 94-102. https://doi.org/10.59876/a-n585-amt9

G. I., &
        Filimonau, V. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational learning for disaster
        planning and management: A perspective of tourism businesses from a destination prone to
        consecutive disasters. *Journal of Hospitality and Tourism management*, 46, 364-375.
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.011

Arfi W & Ben
        Cherbib J (2025) Organizational Resilience and Strategic Agility: An Integrative Framework
        Based on Evidence During COVID-19, *Management international, 29*(3), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.59876/a-gw5m-hyfr

Ben Slimane K.. (2012).
        Backpedalling to stay ahead of the game: Discursive Institutional Work in the Deployment of
        Digital Terrestrial Television in France. *M@n@gement*, *15*(2), 145-179.

V., Schettino,
        G., Marino, L., Camerlingo, C., Smith, A., & Depolo, M. (2024). The new normal of remote
        work: exploring individual and organizational factors affecting work-related outcomes and
        well-being in academia. *Frontiers in Psychology*, *15*, 1340094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1340094

T, Dang R,
        L’Houanti H, Sahut JM & Yanat Z (2025) Le micro-don à l’ère de la digitalisation: une
        réciprocité sociologique du don/contre don limitée? *Management international,
        29*(3), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.59876/a-61c2-8ym3

B.,
        & Wolff, R. (1991). Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and off the organizational
        stage. *Organization studies*, *12*(4), 529-546.

M.,
        Stamenkova, L. P., & Stošić, L. (2023). Leadership in times of crisis. *SCIENCE
        International journal*, *2*(1), 19-23. https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej020119d

K. M.,
        Abadi, M., Alizadeh, A., Barhate, B., Garza, R. C., Gunasekara, N., ... & Majzun, Z.
        (2020). Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource development in
        times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. *Human resource development
        international*, *23*(4), 380-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1780078

N. J. (2020).
        Behavioral strategy and the COVID-19 disruption. *Journal of Management*,
        *46*(8), 1322-1329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320945015

S.,
        & Peretti, J. M. (2020). Les changements organisationnels induits par la crise de la
        Covid-19. *Question (s) de management*, *29*(3), 105-149. https://doi.org/10.3917/qdm.203.0105

R., Suddaby, R.,
        & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the
        transformation of institutionalized fields. *Academy of management
        journal*, *45*(1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285

H., & Harris, L.
        (2020). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing
        philosophy. *Journal of business research*, 116, 176-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285

M. (2021). Unequal
        experience of COVID-induced remote schooling in four developing countries. *International
        Journal of Educational Development*, *85*, 102446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102446

A., & Imanuella,
        S. F. (2024). Social Transformation in the New Normal: A Reflection. In *The New Normal
        and Its Impact on Society: Perspectives from ASEAN and the European Union* (pp. 99-106).
        Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0527-6_7

Islam, M. A., & Sunway,
        B. (2025). Leadership in crisis periods: A bibliometric analysis and future research agenda.
        *International Journal of Management Practice* · Available at file: ///C:
        /Users/kkooli/Downloads/2025_IJMP-234583draftpdf.pdf. accessed on 29 May 2025.

Iordanoglou, D., &
        Ioannidis, K. (2014). Essential leadership skills for young professionals in times of
        crisis. *Economics and Management*, *19*(4), 359-364.

Jepperson, R. L. (1991).
        Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J.
        DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago,
        IL: University of Chicago Press

F. B., Ben-Slimane,
        K., & Triki, D. (2021). How do international joint ventures build resilience to navigate
        institutional crisis? The case of a Tunisian-French IJV during the Arab-Spring. *Journal
        of Business Research*, *129*, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.059

S. M. (2022).
        Navigating the New Normal: Which firms have adapted better to the COVID-19 disruption?.
        *Technovation*, *110*, 102368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102368

T. B., Hardy, C.,
        & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The
        emergence of proto-institutions. *Academy of Management Journal*, *45*(1),
        281-290.

P. M., Parker, S. H., & Shen, R. (2024). How remote work changes the world of work.
        *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior*, 11(1),
        193-219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852

A. (2021).
        F*uture competences in times of an economic crisis*. In E. Mińska-Struzik, & B.
        Jankowska (Eds.), Toward the “new normal” after Covid-19 – a post-transition economy
        perspective (pp. 223–233). Poznań University of Economics and Business Press.

A., Bag, S., &
        Aich, P. (2023). Changing Role of Human Resource Management in the New Normal: A
        Post-Pandemic Paradigm Change. In Human Resource Management in a Post-Epidemic Global
        Environment (pp. 1-15). Apple Academic Press.

A., Van der
        Heijden, B., Kruyen, P., De Vos, A., Zaharie, M., & Lo Presti, A. (2022). How normal is
        the new normal? Individual and organizational implications of the Covid-19 pandemic.
        *Frontiers in Psychology*, 13, 931236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931236

C., Russo-Spena, T.,
        Corsaro, D., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2022). Guest editorial: Crisis management in the
        COVID-19 pandemic waves. *Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing*,
        *37*(10), 1949-1958. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2022-599

F., &
        Jahr, M. (2025). Effects of social distancing during COVID-19 on informal learning
        behaviours and work performance: the role of organisational remote working cultures.
        *Human Resource Development International*, *28*(2), 222-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2024.2356503

Monlezun, D. J. (2024).
        Responsible artificial intelligence re-engineering the global public health ecosystem: a
        humanity worth saving. Elsevier.

A. N., Serhani, M.
        A., El Kassabi, H. T., Al-Qirim, N., & Ismail, H. (2021). Trends, technologies, and key
        challenges in smart and connected healthcare. Ieee Access, 9, 74044-74067. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3079217

J. W., Rudnicka,
        A., Cook, D., Cecchinato, M. E., Gould, S. J., & Cox, A. L. (2022). The new normals of
        work: a framework for understanding responses to disruptions created by new futures of work.
        *Human–Computer Interaction*, *37*(6), 508-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1982391

Olsen, S. H., E. Zusman, M.
        Hengesbaugh, N. Amanuma, and S. Onoda. 2021. Governing the Sustainable Development Goals in
        the COVID-19 Era: Bringing Back Hierarchic Styles of Governance? ADBI Working Paper 1227.
        Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: www.adb.org/publications/governing-sustainable-development-goals-covid-19-era,accessed
        on March 23, 2022

Pauchant, T. C., & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). *Transforming the crisis-prone
        organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies*. (No
        Title). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA 1992, 227 pages

Y.S. and Men, L.R.
        (2023), “Exploring the impact of internal communication on employee psychological well-being
        during the covid-19 pandemic: the mediating role of employee organizational trust”,
        *International Journal of Business Communication*, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 1197-1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221081838

V. M., &
        Andrlić, B. (2023). The Concept of Global Growth and Development With the New Normal. In
        *Sustainable Growth and Global Social Development in Competitive Economies* (pp.
        1-21). IGI Global.

B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis
        management in the tourism industry. *Tourism Management*, 25(6), 669-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004

Y. P., Animitsa, Y.
        G., & Novikova, N. V. (2016). New normal in Russian economy: regional specificity.
        *Ekonomika regiona= Economy of Regions*, (3), 714-725.

S., &
        Gupta, P. (2022). Workplace spirituality as panacea for waning well-being during the
        pandemic crisis: A SDT perspective. *Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management*,
        *50*, 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.11.014

N. (2004). Living in
        the “new normal”. Journal of Emergency Management, 2(2), 41-46.

A. V., Panayiotou,
        A., Berti, M., e Cunha, M. P., Kanji, S., & Clegg, S. (2023). Pandemic, power and
        paradox: Improvising as the New Normal during the COVID-19 crisis. *Management
        Learning*, *54*(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076221132980

Starkey Ken (2025). The
        Strange Absence of Management During the Current Financial Crisis, Available at https: //journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/amr.2015.0109, accessed on 20 May 2025.

N., Ramirez,
        R., & Khuntia, J. (2023). Resilience through operational flexibility for crisis
        response: an international investigation of firm responses during COVID-19. *Aslib
        Journal of Information Management*, *75*(6), 1253-1279. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2022-0204

S. (2021).
        Sustainability learnings from the COVID-19 crisis. Opportunities for resilient industry and
        business development. *Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal*,
        *12*(5), 889-897. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2020-0296

M., Luthra, S.,
        Joshi, S., & Kumar, A. (2022). Developing a framework for enhancing survivability of
        sustainable supply chains during and post-COVID-19 pandemic. *International Journal of
        Logistics Research and Applications*, 25(4-5), 433-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1810213

Turhan, G. D., Bekki, N.,
        & Rady, G. (2022). Socially Responsible Value Creation in the Post-COVID-19 Era: Taking
        Advantage of Dynamic and Digital Capabilities. In Future Advancements for CSR and the
        Sustainable Development Goals in a Post-COVID-19 World, pp. 67-89.

L. (2022). “New
        normal” at work in a post-COVID world: work–life balance and labor markets. *Policy and
        Society*, *41*(1), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab011

Weick, K. E., &
        Weick, K. E. (1995). *Sensemaking in organizations* (Vol. 3, No. 10.1002). Thousand
        Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

T. A., Gruber, D.
        A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to
        adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. *Academy of
        Management Annals*, 11(2), 733-769. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/annals.2015.0134