The CEO of a large logistics company appeared on screen at the start of the quarterly earnings call in October of last year from what appeared to be a tastefully neutral conference room, the kind with a potted plant placed just behind him. He used the word resilience three times in the first four minutes. The count was eleven by the end of the call. An employee in a Memphis break room reportedly simply turned off the speaker in the middle of it.
That brief, nearly undetectable moment perfectly captures the state of corporate communication in 2025. Without formally acknowledging that anything has gone wrong, executives have subtly adopted resilience as their go-to all-weather term. This term is flexible enough to explain supply chain failures, workforce reductions, geopolitical chaos, and slow revenue. It’s a powerful word. Survival is implied. And more and more, those who are asked to embody it are observing precisely what it omits.
It’s easy to understand why the term became popular. A sincere discussion about how businesses react to shocks was sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic; business school researchers published papers, consultants created frameworks, and leaders’ discussions of strategy revolved around the notion that businesses could either adapt or fail. Academic terminology permeated the boardroom, and resilience arrived with the authority of a concept supported by research. However, this is what usually happens when a communications team appropriates a useful idea: the original tension was removed, the idea was smoothed out, and it was made more palatable.
Because resilience is not painless in the real research. Three different paths were identified by studies looking at how businesses dealt with COVID: some had to completely dismantle their business model in order to survive, others had to repurpose what they had to continue operating, and still others scaled quickly to meet the spike in demand. There was friction on every one of those routes. They all required actual choices with actual repercussions for actual people. The response process was characterized by the researchers who examined these organizations as “intense and highly consequential.” The earnings calls did not fully incorporate that framing.
Because it hides this challenge, there’s a feeling that the word has become extremely helpful. It sounds like praise for the company, the team, and the culture when a CEO tells analysts that the company showed resilience in a difficult quarter. In a sense, it’s also preemptive absolution. Although the word admits that there was turbulence, the story swiftly shifts toward adaptation and forward momentum. Who specifically adapted, how much it cost, and whether or not those who were affected by the disruption had a say in how it was handled are all overlooked.
Workers are observing the trend. Workers have always been fairly skeptical of corporate language, so it’s not that they’re suddenly cynical; rather, it’s because the gap between the word and the lived experience has widened to the point where it feels almost offensive. Resilience is not experienced by a warehouse worker who works double shifts during a supply chain crunch. With a better press release, a mid-level manager who quietly takes on the duties of two eliminated positions perceives it as something closer to exhaustion.
It’s possible that some executives sincerely think the phrase sums up what happened—that their companies did, in fact, adapt without breaking, find new footing, or prove something under duress. To be fair, a lot of them did. It’s difficult to deny that some significant adaptation took place as businesses have navigated the last five years of compounding disruption. However, being resilient is not the same as just telling employees to be resilient. One is a structural accomplishment. Quietly, the other is a request.
The issue isn’t the word itself. The term “resilience” refers to a significant aspect of how individuals and organizations overcome adversity. The issue is that it has evolved into a rhetorical shield between decisions made by leaders and their effects on people. It will continue to do exactly what employees suspect it is doing until executives pair the word with specifics, such as who is being supported, what is being changed, and what the actual cost is. bridging the gap between what is truly felt and what is promised.
