Capital resource-based resilience in post-pandemic hospitality: a comparison of family and non-family ownership

Resilience has emerged as a pivotal concept in family business research, particularly following global disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Yilmaz et al., 2024). Defined as an organization's capacity to absorb shocks, adapt effectively and swiftly recover from disturbances (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005), resilience is fundamental to long-term continuity and sustained organizational performance (Duchek, 2020). Within the family business literature, the notion of resilience occupies a prominent position due to the unique governance structures, temporal orientations and resource configurations that distinguish family-owned firms from their non-family counterparts (Calabrò et al., 2021). Amid intensifying global uncertainty, assessing family-business resilience is essential to long-term viability. Although the family business literature underscores the vital role of organizational resilience, viewing it as a catalyst for the survival and long-term success of family-owned firms, particularly in highly uncertain environments (Hurtado-González and Herrero-Chacon, 2025; Mihotić et al., 2023), several notable research gaps remain unaddressed. First, empirical evidence on whether family businesses are more resilient is mixed, with studies documenting both advantages and liabilities. Proponents argue that family firms inherently exhibit higher resilience through distinctive resource configurations, notably superior economic, social and human capital (Dyer, 2019; Dyer et al., 2014). Specifically, family businesses tend to manage economic capital conservatively, emphasizing patient capital, lower financial leverage and cautious investment strategies, thus providing greater financial stability during downturns (Amann and Jaussaud, 2012; Bloch et al., 2012). Social capital is another critical advantage attributed to family firms, underpinned by strong internal cohesion, relational trust and embeddedness within local communities, enabling rapid mobilization of resources and coordinated responses during disruptions (Caspersz et al., 2025; Danes et al., 2009). Furthermore, family-managed enterprises often cultivate robust human capital through high employee retention, extensive tenure, strong organizational commitment and the effective transmission of intergenerational knowledge (Schulze and Bövers, 2022; Kuntz et al., 2016). Conversely, critics highlight several capital-related vulnerabilities in family firms that could undermine resilience. Family enterprises frequently experience constrained access to external financial capital due to their reluctance to dilute family ownership or incur significant debt, limiting flexibility during severe or prolonged crises (Iborra et al., 2024; Calabrò et al., 2021). Additionally, the tight-knit, insular networks characterizing their social capital may restrict exposure to diverse external knowledge and innovation sources, potentially hindering adaptability in dynamic or uncertain contexts (Carr and Hmieleski, 2015; Gedajlovic and Carney, 2010). Human capital also presents vulnerabilities, particularly where family firms rely heavily on informal management structures, display resistance to professionalization and face conflicts arising from intergenerational succession, all of which can impair effective crisis response and adaptive capabilities (Renko et al., 2021; Acquaah et al., 2011). Second, most studies examine family and non-family businesses in isolation rather than comparatively, limiting robust conclusions about how ownership structure shapes resilience (Kallmuenzer and López-Chávez, 2024). Third, resilience research often adopts fragmented lenses, focusing on isolated dimensions such as financial (Chen et al., 2022), leadership (Zhang et al., 2024) or employee resilience (Zhang et al., 2023), with few holistic analyses integrating multiple interrelated forms of capital (economic, social, human, physical, natural and cultural) as advocated by capital-resource-based frameworks (Dyer, 2019; Brown et al., 2018). Finally, the field remains dominated by qualitative designs, yielding limited quantitative, comparative evidence capable of supporting generalizable insights into resilience differences between family and non-family enterprises (Borazon et al., 2023; Rovelli et al., 2022).

Addressing these gaps is crucial because clarifying whether family firms exhibit resilience advantages relative to non-family firms carries significant theoretical and practical implications. Empirical clarification would enhance family capital theory (FCT) by examining whether family involvement distinctively enables firms to mobilize specific capital resources, thereby bolstering adaptive capacity, internal cohesion and strategic longevity during crises (Dyer, 2019; Dyer et al., 2014). Practically, such insights offer valuable guidance for managers and policymakers, particularly in resource-sensitive sectors like tourism and hospitality (T&H), where capital deployment critically impacts organizational recovery and stability (Dryglas and Salamaga, 2023; Hall et al., 2023).

Therefore, our study aims to fill these gaps by addressing two main research objectives: (1) to quantitatively examine whether family-managed firms demonstrate significantly higher overall organizational resilience compared to non-family-managed firms and (2) to determine whether family-managed firms exhibit significantly higher resilience levels across six capital dimensions (economic, social, human, physical, natural and cultural).

To empirically address these critical issues, we adopt the comprehensive capital resource-based framework proposed by Brown et al. (2018), conceptualizing resilience as a multidimensional construct comprised of six interrelated forms of capital (economic, social, human, physical, natural and cultural capital). This framework is particularly well-suited to the hospitality sector, which is frequently family-owned (Singal and Batra, 2021) and to post-crisis recovery research, as it enables a comprehensive examination of how diverse resource endowments contribute to organizational resilience. By integrating both internal (e.g. human and physical capital) and external (e.g. social and natural capital) as well as tangible (e.g. economic capital) and intangible (e.g. cultural capital) dimensions, the framework captures the complex and multifaceted nature of resilience-building. Drawing on a rigorous quantitative comparison of independently operated hotels in Poland, we explicitly test directional hypotheses derived from FCT, positing that family-managed firms exhibit higher levels of organizational resilience than their non-family counterparts, both in general terms and across their six dimensions.

Grounded in FCT, our study makes three key contributions to the family business literature. First, it empirically clarifies the ongoing theoretical debate regarding whether family ownership confers resilience advantages relative to non-family ownership. Second, employing a holistic, multidimensional capital framework, we move beyond fragmented analyses to deepen theoretical understanding of how specific capital resources collectively shape resilience capabilities. Third, by explicitly testing directional hypotheses, we provide robust, generalizable evidence regarding which particular capital dimensions most significantly differentiate resilience in family versus non-family firms, thus offering valuable strategic guidance for resilience-building within the family business context.

Organizational resilience has garnered considerable scholarly interest, particularly in the wake of systemic shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Traditionally defined as an organization's capacity to absorb strain and maintain core functions in the face of adversity (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005), resilience is now increasingly understood as a dynamic capability rather than a static trait. As Duchek (2020) emphasizes, resilience involves a continuous process of anticipation, coping and adaptive learning, enabling firms to navigate uncertainty and emerge stronger. Central to this conceptualization is the ability of organizations to effectively mobilize, reconfigure and deploy their resources in response to external disruptions (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007). In this regard, resilience becomes not only a reactive mechanism but also a strategic competency that supports innovation, agility and long-term sustainability. Extending this dynamic-capability perspective to ownership forms, the literature advances arguments supporting the resilience of both family and non-family firms.

Family firms are widely regarded as resilient because they constitute a distinct organizational form shaped by familiness, resource configurations rooted in family-centered values (Habbershon and Williams, 1999). These configurations strengthen the capacity to navigate environmental turbulence and financial constraints, positioning family firms as comparatively resilient (Bégin and Chabaud, 2010). A central implication is that resilience advantages are conditional on strategic behavior, resource endowments and organizational attributes (Iborra et al., 2024). For instance, family firms that actively engage in exploration behaviors, such as adopting new technologies or entering unfamiliar markets, are more likely to innovate and adapt in turbulent environments (Leppäaho and Ritala, 2022). Complementing this, family firms routinely activate short-term adaptation repertoires that stabilize operations and preserve recovery options: they safeguard liquidity (cost containment, access to public support and stakeholder renegotiations), safeguard operations (space reallocation, shift systems, crisis cells) and safeguard communication with employees and partners; many also recalibrate business models and report cultural changes marked by heightened internal solidarity and cohesion (Kraus et al., 2020). Complementing this behavioral lens, a recent systematic review indicates that long-term orientation and risk-aware financial standing cohere to enhance adaptability and crisis response, providing a strategic pathway to resilience (von Ritter et al., 2025). In combination, these behaviors translate value-laden orientations into concrete, time-sensitive responses. Antecedents highlighted by Memili et al. (2023) – socioemotional wealth (SEW), leadership and structural flexibility – provide the channels through which values are orchestrated into resilient action. SEW, non-financial goals tied to legacy, identity and status, support continuity, patient capital and a multigenerational vision (Yilmaz et al., 2024; Calabrò et al., 2021; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Emotional leadership can catalyze rapid, adaptive responses that exceed purely calculative managerial logics; illustrative evidence shows family hotel owners drawing on personal initiative and endurance to sustain operations in turbulence (Engeset, 2020). Structural flexibility, including flexible role adaptation whereby employees redeploy existing competencies across tasks, is more prevalent where trust and social cohesion are high, reinforcing coordinated performance under pressure (Schulze and Bövers, 2022). Finally, scale and leadership concentration matter: larger family firms, particularly those led by a first-generation family Chief Executive Officer (CEO), often display stronger resilience owing to centralized control, faster decision cycles and tighter goal alignment (Iborra et al., 2024; Abdi et al., 2023).

Parallel evidence identifies a non-family pathway to resilience, characterized by more formalized crisis procedures and greater reliance on external expertise during disruptions (Calabrò et al., 2021). Non-family firms (especially chain-affiliated hotels) often exhibit professionalized governance, codified business-continuity routines and standardized crisis protocols that enable swift coordination and redundancy at scale (Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021; Filimonau et al., 2020). Access to external finance and diversified revenue models improves liquidity management and cushions cash-flow shocks (Amore et al., 2022). Broader boundary-spanning networks support faster acquisition and diffusion of novel practices (digital tools, contactless operations and supply-chain reconfiguration) (Acquaah et al., 2011). More formal Human Resource Management (HRM) systems (structured training, performance management) can institutionalize learning and scalability of human-capital responses during protracted crises (Zhang et al., 2024). Finally, group-level sustainability standards and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) certifications can systematize environmental risk mitigation and operational reliability (dos Santos et al., 2020).

The family business literature reveals a theoretical tension regarding the mechanisms and boundary conditions that influence whether one ownership form exhibits greater resilience (Calabrò et al., 2021; Dyer, 2019). At the core of prevailing explanations for a family-firm resilience advantage is FCT, which posits that such advantages stem from distinctive, hard-to-imitate constellations of economic, social and human capital that uniquely position family firms to manage and overcome external shocks (Dyer, 2019, 2021a; Dyer et al., 2014). Building explicitly on FCT, we analyze resilience through economic, social and human capital, while also acknowledging complementary physical, natural and cultural dimensions salient in T&H (Brown et al., 2018) (Figure 1).

Economic capital, defined as the financial assets and liquidity available to an organization, is a foundational determinant of resilience, particularly in crisis contexts (Duchek, 2020; Brown et al., 2018). Empirical studies indicate that family firms often exhibit superior financial performance and more robust capital structures than non-family firms (Amann and Jaussaud, 2012; Bloch et al., 2012). Additional evidence from the COVID-19 period reveals that family-controlled firms in France outperformed their non-family counterparts on stock market indicators (Abdi et al., 2023). Moreover, family firms tend to be less risky and less prone to bankruptcy (Ntoung et al., 2019), a resilience often attributed to their financial prudence, including frugality, conservative investment strategies and low reliance on debt (Amann and Jaussaud, 2012). Strategic diversification, understood as a key dimension of resilience, is also more actively pursued in family firms, helping mitigate liquidity and financial risks (Conz et al., 2020). By contrast, non-family firms often rely on external finance and higher leverage; such buffers help in short shocks but falter when credit tightens or crises persist (Amore et al., 2022).

In the context of family-run T&H enterprises, these financial dynamics take on heightened importance. Engeset's (2020) evidence indicates that family-owned rural hotels adopt “sacrificial resilience” during crises (e.g. longer work hours, forgone salaries and mobilizing family members mechanisms) that provide short-term survival levers not typically available to non-family firms. Consistent with this, families can inject “survivability capital” under extreme conditions through unpaid labor and income deferral (Calabrò et al., 2021). Given these theoretically derived expectations, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Social capital is broadly defined as the networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation among actors. In family firms, social capital is often deeply embedded in local community relationships and intergenerational ties, forming an intangible yet strategic asset that enhances resilience (Danes and Stafford, 2011; Arregle et al., 2007). This relational embeddedness is uniquely leveraged by family firms and often translates into greater social cohesion, customer loyalty and stakeholder engagement. Gutierrez-Broncano et al. (2024) highlight that the effectiveness of social capital in enhancing firm adaptability varies by ownership structure, with family firms more likely to benefit from close-knit networks and relational trust. Additionally, owner-managers in family firms are often embedded within a web of strong social ties encompassing family members, employees, business associates and the broader community (Schulze and Bövers, 2022). During periods of adversity, these networks become crucial for sharing knowledge, accessing support and reallocating resources, an essential feature of resilient organizations (Gedajlovic and Carney, 2010; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). By contrast, non-family firms typically rely more on arm's-length, formalized stakeholder relations and experience higher managerial turnover, which can weaken the depth of bonding ties and slow the mobilization of place-specific support during shocks (Filimonau et al., 2020; Acquaah et al., 2011). Recent evidence further shows that family social capital and governance design condition how these ties convert to resilient action: boards that balance independent, family and executive directors amplify bridging (not only bonding) ties and credible commitments, while misaligned boards dampen these effects (Hurtado and Herrero, 2024). Likewise, family constitutions (FCs) that codify decision rights, succession and participation rules improve the reliability of coordination; generic or symbolic FCs do not (Hurtado-González and Herrero-Chacón, 2025). In contrast, non-family governance arrangements, particularly in multi-unit or asset-light chains, often diffuse authority across corporate and property levels, making it harder to translate relational capital into fast, credible commitments at the unit level (El-Said et al., 2023; Filimonau et al., 2020).

Research further indicates that family-run hotels are more involved in their local communities, often employing local residents and supporting civic initiatives (Hallak et al., 2014). This fosters reciprocity and social legitimacy, further embedding the business in the community. Entrepreneurs' embeddedness in local social structures gives them access to place-specific knowledge and support systems that enhance business performance and survival (Bujan, 2020). Community respect is also viewed as a core metric of success in small family-run hospitality businesses (Getz and Carlsen, 2005). To address this issue, we propose the following hypothesis:

Human capital, understood as the collective capabilities, knowledge, skills, experience and values embedded in an organization's people, is widely recognized as a fundamental pillar of organizational resilience (Brewton et al., 2010; Danes et al., 2009). Family businesses often exhibit distinctive patterns in the development and utilization of human capital. Their long-term orientation and relational governance cultivate internal labor markets, loyalty and strong organizational identification, producing workforces that retain tacit knowledge, adapt roles quickly and sustain coordinated action under stress (Schulze and Bövers, 2022; Dyer et al., 2014). These patterns are reflected in lower annual staff turnover, which strengthens trust and firm-specific know-how and underpins high-reliability routines (Bloch et al., 2012). Employee resilience often emerges from stable employment ties and a shared sense of mission; owners frequently absorb short-term sacrifices to preserve teams, expressing a “familial resilience logic” grounded in continuity and emotional commitment (Kuntz et al., 2016; Bloch et al., 2012). For instance, flexible role reconfiguration, employees creatively redeploying existing competencies across tasks, appears more readily where trust and social cohesion are high (Schulze and Bövers, 2022). Moreover, entrepreneurial stewardship amplifies these effects: personal initiative and emotional ownership accelerate improvisation and compress decision cycles when governance arrangements and family social capital enable rapid coordination and credible commitment (Hurtado-González and Herrero-Chacón, 2025; Hurtado and Herrero, 2024). Recent evidence further indicates that CEO resilience in family firms is contingent on dynamics at the individual, family and business levels, reflecting a crisis “bricolage” that mobilizes resources at hand (Caspersz et al., 2025). In line with this multi-level perspective, human-capital advantages in family firms operate across both employee and entrepreneur levels, generating complementary capacities that sustain performance under turbulence (Santoro et al., 2021). By comparison, non-family firms can partially offset these advantages with more formal HRM architectures, standardized training, scalable talent pipelines and structured performance systems that institutionalize learning and speed deployment across units (Zhang et al., 2024; Acquaah et al., 2011). However, the discretionary effort rooted in family identity and the deep socioemotional bonds that sustain cohesion during shocks are typically weaker in non-family contexts, where responsibility is more diffusely allocated and relational attachments are shallower.

The salience of human capital is particularly pronounced in people-intensive industries such as T&H, where service quality, adaptability and staff continuity are tightly coupled with organizational performance (Brown et al., 2018). For instance, family-run hotels mobilize mission-driven commitment and locally embedded ties to retain staff, protect tacit service knowledge and reconfigure roles without eroding experiential quality (Engeset, 2020). In this setting, family motivation further strengthens employee commitment and resilience, particularly when other motivational levers are weak, by sustaining discretionary effort and cohesion under strain (Lin et al., 2024). Based on this premise, we propose the following research hypothesis:

While economic, social and human capital constitute the theoretical core of FCT, recent organizational resilience frameworks have introduced supplementary resource dimensions, namely physical, natural and cultural capital, which are particularly salient within the hospitality context (Brown et al., 2018). Although FCT does not explicitly address these dimensions, family firms' embeddedness, long-term orientation and stewardship principles theoretically position them to effectively leverage these additional capital forms.

Physical capital refers to the tangible resources that support organizational operations, including buildings, equipment, technology and other infrastructural assets (Brown et al., 2018). In family firms, capital allocation typically follows a conservative, long-horizon logic: families tend to own core real estate and equipment, monitor facilities closely and avoid deferred maintenance to preserve legacy and intergenerational continuity (Berrone et al., 2012). Over time, this approach produces deeper buffers, preventive routines, redundancy in critical systems and timely, targeted upgrades that can be mobilized under stress. Concentrated control rights further enable rapid investment decisions under uncertainty, shortening the interval between problem detection and remediation (Amann and Jaussaud, 2012). Non-family firms, by contrast, particularly asset-light or franchised chains, often exhibit dispersed authority over capital outlays and portfolio-average standards, which can slow unit-level upgrades and complicate rapid, property-specific reconfiguration during shocks (Filimonau et al., 2020).

These contrasts are magnified in T&H, where the physical environment directly shapes guest safety and experience. Although some rural, family-run hotels struggled to meet newly imposed standards (e.g. enhanced hygiene protocols, ventilation/filtration upgrades) due to legacy facilities and slower upgrade cycles (Engeset, 2020), many owner-operated family properties reconfigured spaces and systems swiftly precisely because they controlled the asset base and could authorize works without multilayer approvals (Schweiger et al., 2024). Therefore, we posit that:

Natural capital denotes the stock of land, water, air quality and biodiversity on which organizations depend and which they affect through their operations (Brown et al., 2018). In resilience terms, it is both an asset, enabling sustainable practices that stabilize operations and a potential liability when environmental shocks disrupt resource access, especially in sensitive settings such as T&H (Dryglas et al., 2024). Family firms tend to approach this domain through intergenerational stewardship: long time horizons and deep ties to local communities foster a custodial mindset oriented toward preserving environmental quality for both business continuity and future family generations (Berrone et al., 2012). This place-embeddedness encourages proactive behaviors, local co-management, conservation partnerships and the integration of nature-friendly routines into business models that anchor adaptive capacity (Gedajlovic and Carney, 2010). Non-family firms, particularly at scale, frequently rely on formal environmental management systems and third-party certifications that professionalize measurement and control; however, such tools may not fully substitute for locally rooted stewardship and context-specific responsiveness (Ruppenthal and Rückert-John, 2024; dos Santos et al., 2020).

In T&H, where demand is closely tied to the aesthetic, recreational and cultural qualities of natural landscapes, these differences are especially salient (Brown et al., 2017). Family-run hotels and rural lodgings often leverage eco-tourism and locally grounded environmental initiatives, using preservation of the natural setting as a competitive differentiator, thereby reinforcing both destination quality and organizational resilience (Altın et al., 2021; Engeset, 2020). Therefore, the additional hypothesis is as follows:

Cultural capital comprises the values, traditions, symbols and locally grounded knowledge that shape organizational identity and guide behavior over time (Brown et al., 2018). It spans tangible expressions, such as architectural style and regional cuisines and intangible dimensions, including customs, storytelling and intergenerational know-how. In sectors where authenticity and place are core to value creation, notably T&H, cultural capital can be a distinctive source of competitive advantage and organizational resilience. Family firms typically accumulate rich cultural capital anchored in familial narratives, community identity and local traditions; their long-time horizons and intergenerational continuity preserve and transmit these meanings, reinforcing stakeholder trust, employee loyalty, internal cohesion and local legitimacy (Berrone et al., 2012; Zellweger et al., 2012; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). In crises, such embedded meanings operate as stabilizing forces, providing purpose, unity and strategic continuity, while professionalized management and a transparent culture further consolidate these benefits (Ingram and Głód, 2018). Cultural capital in family firms is also closely intertwined with SEW: identity, control and legacy concerns shape risk preferences and decision processes in ways that can sustain resilience-enhancing commitments (Calabrò et al., 2021; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Non-family firms, by contrast, tend to cultivate cultural capital through formal branding or CSR programs; although such initiatives can commodify local culture to meet consumer tastes, they often lack the depth and authenticity that stem from multigenerational, place-rooted ownership (Altın et al., 2021).

Within T&H, cultural capital directly informs guest perceptions, differentiation strategies and destination identity. Family-run hotels frequently deliver experiences steeped in local character, regional design cues, cuisine and interaction styles that heighten perceived authenticity and emotional connection, key drivers of satisfaction and loyalty (Getz and Carlsen, 2005). Guided by this logic, we hypothesize:

Integrating evidence across the six capital resources (economic, social, human, physical, natural and cultural) points to a systemic advantage for family-managed firms. If family firms outperform on these constituent resources (H1–H6), they should, in turn, exhibit a higher aggregate level of organizational resilience. Accordingly, we advance the following hypothesis:

The aim of this study was to examine organizational resilience levels in hotels operating under conditions of market instability and uncertainty. T&H is a highly revealing setting because its structural features amplify both exposure to shocks and the visibility of firm-level responses. The sector combines high fixed and sunk costs, perishable capacity (unsold room-nights), pronounced seasonality and volatile demand, while relying on labor-intensive, place-bound service co-production with guests. This configuration heightens sensitivity to exogenous disruptions (e.g. pandemics, extreme weather, geopolitical events) and to regulatory shifts in health and safety, thereby generating frequent, observable “stress tests” of resilience (Crespí-Cladera et al., 2021). In turn, it sharpens identification of how firms configure and mobilize capital resources to stabilize operations and restore performance, making T&H a stringent testbed for theory (Hall et al., 2023). Moreover, the hospitality industry is dominated by small and medium-sized hotels that are frequently family-owned and operated (Singal and Batra, 2021), providing natural variation in ownership forms for comparative analysis. Small independent hotels in Poland were chosen as the research population, as their limited scale, financial resources and organizational capacities render them particularly vulnerable to external disruptions such as economic crises, regulatory changes or fluctuating tourism demand. Unlike large hotel chains, small independent hotels typically lack extensive financial reserves and formalized risk management frameworks, which makes analyzing their adaptive capabilities especially relevant to the theory of organizational resilience. Additionally, within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the owner or primary manager directly influences resilience-related decisions, significantly affecting organizational survival and development.

Given the notable presence of family-owned businesses in this segment, the sample was divided into family- and non-family-managed hotels. This classification facilitates a comparative analysis of management styles, decision-making processes, resource utilization and survival strategies, which are critical factors in understanding resilience dynamics across different ownership structures.

A structured questionnaire comprising 37 items was developed based on a review of contemporary literature on organizational resilience in the hospitality sector (Brown et al., 2019) (Table 1). The questionnaire addressed six theoretically distinct dimensions of capital: economic (EC), social (SC), human (HC), physical (PhC), natural (NC) and cultural (CC). Collectively, these dimensions constitute the multidimensional construct of capital resource-based resilience (RES), encapsulating a firm's ability to respond, adapt and transform in the face of disruptions.

Prior to data collection, the questionnaire underwent rigorous expert validation involving four scholars specializing in entrepreneurship and hospitality management. It was further refined through a pilot study conducted via semi-structured interviews with representatives from the hospitality sector. All items employed a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). Data collection was conducted between May and June 2023 through a professional research firm, utilizing computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI) techniques, depending on respondents' preferences and logistical considerations. Respondents were owners, general managers or senior executives, individuals directly involved in the strategic and operational decision-making processes, who are considered appropriate informants in SME studies.

The study was based on a random sample of 120 small independent hotels drawn from a population of 541 entities listed in the Central Register of Hotel Facilities in Poland. The data collection was outsourced to a specialized research agency and conducted in May and June 2023 using standardized, structured questionnaires. In the first round of invitations, approximately 80% of the selected hotels agreed to participate. To complete the sample, additional hotels were randomly drawn in accordance with the initial sampling procedure.

The final response rate exceeded 80%, and the sample represented over 22% of the population. Statistical power analysis performed using GPower software (Faul et al., 2007) indicated a power level of 0.933, exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.8 and confirming the adequacy of the sample for comparative analyses.

The sample was segmented by ownership (family vs non-family) and includes key characteristics such as hotel age, size, number of beds and geographic location (see Table 2).

Since the primary aim of the study was to compare the level of organizational resilience between family-run and non-family-run hotels, it was essential to ensure that the core characteristics of the enterprises did not significantly differ between these two groups. Therefore, appropriate statistical tests were conducted to verify whether the distributions of the examined characteristics (i.e. firm age, number of employees, number of beds and location) were comparable between the groups.

For quantitative variables (age, number of employees, number of beds), the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was applied to test the equality of distributions, while for the categorical variable (location), a chi-square test of independence was used. The results indicated that the distributions of firm age were not significantly different (DN = 0.1529; p = 0.4975) nor were the distributions of location (χ²(3) = 1.938; p = 0.585). However, statistically significant differences were found in the distribution of number of employees (DN = 0.3993; p = 0.0001) and number of beds (DN = 0.3425; p = 0.0018).

To ensure that the subsequent group comparisons were not biased by these differences, data cleaning was performed. Following the approach proposed by Pivcevic (2009), who defined small hotels as those with no more than 100 beds, we excluded hotels exceeding this threshold. We also removed hotels categorized as medium-sized enterprises (with 50 or more employees) and one outlier hotel with exactly 100 beds. Most of the excluded cases belonged to the non-family group.

As a result, the final sample consisted of 97 small or micro hotels, each with no more than 90 beds. After these adjustments, repeated statistical tests showed no significant differences in the distributions of the key characteristics between the two groups. Although certain discrepancies in distribution patterns between family-owned and non-family-owned hotels are observable (see Table 3), the test results do not confirm their statistical significance. Therefore, at this stage, it can be assumed that the structural profiles of family and non-family hotels are comparable with respect to the reported characteristics. In our initial analyses, we also included large non-family hotels in the models. However, the results indicated that resilience outcomes were overwhelmingly determined by firm size, which overshadowed ownership effects. Therefore, to ensure a meaningful comparison between family and non-family hotels, we decided to exclude these cases and focus on a subsample of comparable-sized firms. The final sample characteristics, segmented by ownership type, are presented in Table 3.

We operationalize organizational resilience as a multidimensional construct formed by six capital resources (economic, social, human, physical, natural and cultural), following the conceptualization proposed by Brown et al. (2018). This framework assumes that resilience emerges from how these capitals are configured and mobilized. To translate this conceptual model into empirical measurement, we relied on the validated scale developed and tested by Brown et al. (2019), which provides concrete survey items and psychometric evaluation for each of the six dimensions.

Each sub-dimension (EC, SC, HC, PhC, NC and CC) was measured with multiple items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sub-dimensions were then combined into composite scores, calculated as the arithmetic mean of their respective items. The overall RES index was subsequently computed as the unweighted average of the six sub-dimensions, treating them as equally important components of resilience.

In the present approach, the variables were treated as composites with fixed weights rather than as reflective latent constructs. Consequently, their reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, as this is the most appropriate metric for evaluating internal consistency in composite-based measurement. The results (see Table 4) indicated high reliability, with the overall RES index achieving α = 0.950 and all sub-dimensions exceeding the recommended 0.70 threshold (range: 0.731–0.893). These findings confirm that the survey items reliably represent the intended theoretical constructs. The values of pairwise correlations between the sub-dimensions (see Table 4) range from 0.273 to 0.744. This indicates a moderate to high degree of association among the constructs, suggesting that while they are conceptually related, each captures a distinct facet of resilience. The observed correlation pattern confirms the multidimensional structure of the overall RES index without indicating construct redundancy.

Descriptive statistics, including means, medians, standard deviations and coefficients of variation (CV), were calculated for each resilience dimension (Table 4). Mean scores ranging from 5.05 to 6.08 indicated a generally high level of perceived resilience among respondents. Furthermore, relatively low CV values (ranging between 0.146 and 0.251) suggested homogeneous perceptions across respondents, thus supporting the reliability and consistency of the measurement scales.

The normality of variable distributions was evaluated through skewness and kurtosis statistics. Several variables (particularly SC, PhC and CC) displayed standardized skewness and kurtosis values exceeding the acceptable threshold (±2) suggested by Kim (2013), indicating substantial departures from normal distribution. Given these results, parametric tests were deemed inappropriate and non-parametric statistical methods were adopted instead.

The statistical analysis was conducted in two stages using complementary approaches. The preliminary stage employed the Mann–Whitney U test (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) to assess whether family-managed hotels demonstrate significantly higher levels of resilience compared to non-family-managed ones, without controlling for other contextual characteristics. This one-sided non-parametric test is appropriate when normality assumptions are violated (Conover, 1999), as confirmed by prior distributional checks. To complement the significance tests, Hodges–Lehmann estimates of the location shift (i.e. the median difference between groups) and corresponding one-sided 90% confidence intervals were calculated, aligning with the directional hypothesis and α = 0.05.

In the second, extended stage, a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) (Dobson and Barnett, 2018) was applied using a hierarchical modeling approach. This allowed us to assess whether the results obtained in the preliminary analysis (via the Mann–Whitney U test) would hold after accounting for additional contextual variables that might influence perceived resilience. The hierarchical procedure comprised three steps: (1) a baseline model including only the hotel type (family vs non-family); (2) a series of two-variable models, each adding one contextual variable (such as number of employees, age, location or number of beds); and (3) a full model including all five predictors. In line with the directional hypothesis, a one-sided test was applied specifically for the hotel type variable (family vs non-family), assuming that family-managed hotels exhibit higher resilience. Two-sided tests were used for all control variables. All tests were conducted using a significance level of 0.05.

To enhance the robustness of both analyses, bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples was applied to estimate confidence intervals and assess the stability of the results. Bootstrapping is particularly useful when sample sizes are moderate and the data deviate from normality, as it provides more reliable statistical inferences (Efron and Tibshirani, 1994).

All tests were two-tailed and evaluated at the conventional significance level of α = 0.05.

All statistical analyses were conducted using R software. The following R packages were employed: boot (for resampling procedures), coin (for non-parametric permutation tests), stats (for GLMs and Hodges–Lehmann estimates) and dplyr (for data wrangling and manipulation).

The empirical results are presented in two stages, following the dual analytical strategy described earlier. In the first stage, we report the outcomes of the Mann–Whitney U test, which compares levels of capital resource-based resilience between family-managed and non-family-managed hotels. Given the directional hypothesis that family-managed hotels exhibit higher resilience, a one-sided test was employed for this variable. This part of the analysis is structured in two parts: (1) first, we assess differences in the overall index of resilience (RES_Total); (2) second, we investigate variation across its six specific dimensions: economic (EC), social (SC), human (HC), physical (PhC), natural (NC) and cultural (CC) capital.

In the second stage, we present findings from the GLMs estimated using a hierarchical approach. Here, we focus on the most comprehensive model specification (Model 3), which controls simultaneously all contextual factors: hotel size (number of employees, number of beds), hotel age and location. These results allow us to determine whether differences in resilience remain statistically robust after adjusting for structural hotel characteristics.

To investigate whether family-managed hotels are more resilient than non-family-managed hotels in terms of capital resource-based resilience, we conducted a series of one-sided Mann–Whitney U tests, supported by descriptive statistics and bootstrapped Hodges–Lehmann estimates of location differences. Tables 5 and 6 present the results.

Table 5 shows that family-managed hotels exhibited slightly lower levels of overall resilience (M = 5.41; Med = 5.55) compared to non-family-managed hotels (M = 5.56; Med = 5.73). The one-sided Mann–Whitney U test, which tested the hypothesis that family-managed hotels are more resilient, yielded a Z-value of −0.910 and a p-value of 0.807. The Hodges–Lehmann estimate of the location shift was −0.174, with a one-sided 90% confidence interval of (−0.497; ∞). The test not only failed to support the hypothesized direction of the effect but also indicated that the observed difference was in the opposite direction, thus providing clear grounds for rejecting Hypothesis H1.

When resilience is disaggregated into its six dimensions, non-family-managed hotels generally scored higher across almost all components. However, as shown in Table 6, none of these differences reached statistical significance.

1. Economic capital (RES_EC): Family-managed hotels reported a slightly higher average score (M = 5.05; Med = 5.00) compared to non-family-managed ones (M = 5.04; Med = 4.85). However, the Mann–Whitney U test yielded a Z-value of 0.119 and a one-tailed p-value of 0.444, indicating that the observed difference is not statistically significant in the hypothesized direction. The Hodges–Lehmann estimate of the location shift was 0.059, and the 90% lower confidence bound was −0.415, suggesting that the difference in medians is not sufficiently large to support the assumption that family-managed hotels are more resilient in terms of economic capital. Thus, hypothesis H1EC is not supported.

2. Social capital (RES_SC): Family-managed hotels exhibited slightly lower average and median scores (M = 5.43; Med = 5.43) compared to non-family-managed ones (M = 5.62; Med = 5.78). The Mann–Whitney U test yielded a Z-value of −0.875 and a one-tailed p-value of 0.810. The Hodges–Lehmann estimate of the location shift was −0.210, with a 90% lower confidence bound of −0.657. These results do not support the hypothesis that family-managed hotels outperform their non-family counterparts in terms of social capital-based resilience. Thus, hypothesis H1SC is not supported.

3. Human capital (RES_HC): Family-managed hotels reported slightly lower average and median values (M = 4.84; Med = 4.78) compared to non-family-managed ones (M = 5.08; Med = 5.21). The Mann–Whitney U test yielded a Z-value of −0.932 and a one-tailed p-value of 0.819. The Hodges–Lehmann estimate of the location shift was −0.338, with a 90% lower confidence bound of −0.866. These findings do not support the hypothesis that family-managed hotels are more resilient in terms of human capital. Therefore, hypothesis H1HC is not supported.

4. Physical capital (RES_PhC): Family-managed hotels reported slightly lower average and median values (M = 5.70; Med = 5.81) than non-family-managed ones (M = 5.83; Med = 6.09). The Mann–Whitney U test yielded a Z-value of −0.568 and a one-tailed p-value of 0.714. The Hodges–Lehmann estimate of the location shift was −0.154, with a 90% lower confidence bound of −0.600. Thus, hypothesis H1PhC is not supported, as the results do not indicate that family-managed hotels are more resilient in terms of physical capital.

5. Family-managed hotels demonstrated slightly lower average and median values (M = 5.63; Med = 5.98) compared to non-family-managed ones (M = 5.77; Med = 6.00). The Mann–Whitney U test yielded a Z-value of −0.526 and a one-tailed p-value of 0.701. The Hodges–Lehmann estimate of the location shift was 0.000, with a 90% lower confidence bound of −0.559. Therefore, hypothesis H1NC is not supported, as the results do not indicate higher natural capital-based resilience in family-managed hotels.

6. Family-managed hotels again reported slightly lower scores (M = 6.01; Med = 6.14) compared to their non-family counterparts (M = 6.19; Med = 6.40). The Z-value was −0.985 with a one-tailed p-value of 0.836. The HL estimate was −0.117 with a 90% lower confidence bound of −0.534. These results provide no support for hypothesis H1CC, as they do not suggest greater cultural capital-based resilience among family-managed hotels.

Overall, the results do not support the hypothesis that family-managed hotels demonstrate higher levels of capital resource-based resilience than non-family-managed ones. In fact, non-family hotels exhibited slightly higher average scores in five out of six resilience dimensions. However, none of these differences were statistically significant based on one-tailed Mann–Whitney U tests. The effect sizes, expressed through Hodges–Lehmann estimates, were small, and their one-sided 90% confidence intervals included zero or extended into the negative range, indicating no meaningful advantage for family-managed hotels across the examined resilience dimensions.

As described in the Statistical Analysis Methods section, the GLM analysis was conducted using a three-step hierarchical procedure. In the first step, we estimated a baseline model including only the ownership type (family vs non-family). In the second step, each model was extended by adding one contextual factor (hotel age, size, number of beds or location). Finally, a full model was constructed for each dependent variable, incorporating all five predictors simultaneously.

Given the directional nature of our hypotheses, specifically, that family-managed hotels exhibit higher resilience than non-family-managed ones, we applied one-tailed significance tests for the ownership variable. For the remaining control variables, two-tailed tests were used. Due to the high consistency of the results across the three modeling steps, both in terms of statistical significance and the direction of effects, only the full model results are reported. These are presented in Table 7 (for overall resilience) and Table 8 (for the individual resilience dimensions).

The results of the GLM analysis indicate that none of the predictors, including ownership type, exhibited a statistically significant effect on the overall resilience index (RES Total) in the full model. Specifically, the coefficient for family-managed hotels was negative and not statistically significant in the one-tailed test [β = −0.114, p = 0.738, 90% one-sided CI (−0.499; ∞)], thus failing to support the hypothesis that family-managed hotels demonstrate higher resilience. Similarly, none of the contextual variables (age, number of employees, number of beds, location) reached conventional levels of statistical significance, as all p-values were well above 0.05 and their confidence intervals included zero.

Among the six individual resilience dimensions, only in the case of economic capital (RES_EC) was the coefficient for family-managed hotels positive (β = 0.075), indicating slightly higher scores for family businesses. However, this effect did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.116, 90% CI [–0.219; ∞]). For all other dimensions, the estimated coefficients were negative, which contradicted the hypothesized direction and consequently led to non-significant results in the one-tailed tests. For example, the coefficients for family ownership were negative for social capital [RES_SC; β = −0.168, p = 0.471, 90% CI (−0.549; ∞)], human capital [RES_HC; β = −0.165, p = 0.537, 90% CI [–0.602; ∞]) and natural capital (RES_NC; β = −0.071, p = 0.792, 90% CI (−0.514; ∞)]. These patterns suggest no empirical support for the hypothesis that family-managed hotels are more resilient than their non-family counterparts across the analyzed dimensions.

Additionally, none of the contextual control variables (hotel age, number of employees, number of beds or location) reached statistical significance in any of the models. This indicates that, under the current model specification, these factors did not significantly contribute to explaining the variance in resilience across hotels.

All GLM assumptions were tested and met. There were no signs of multicollinearity or heteroscedasticity. Residual analyses and bootstrapped confidence intervals confirmed the robustness and internal validity of the models.

Consistent with the Mann–Whitney U test results, the GLM models did not identify any statistically significant differences in resilience between family and non-family hotels. However, the GLM approach allowed for the inclusion of additional contextual factors, which also failed to demonstrate a significant effect. These results confirm that none of the examined structural characteristics meaningfully explained variations in resilience.

Overall, the second-stage GLM analysis reinforces the conclusion that ownership type alone does not exert a strong or consistent influence on capital resource-based resilience in small hotels. It should also be noted that the dataset was preprocessed to reduce distributional bias and ensure comparability between the two groups. Preliminary analyses suggested that hotel size might be a differentiating factor in resilience levels.

In this study, we conducted a comparative assessment of the organizational resilience of family and non-family businesses, guided by a desire to resolve theoretical tensions that exist in FCT with regard to the resilience of family businesses (Dyer, 2019; Dyer et al., 2014). Our research aimed to help resolve the dilemma of whether ownership structure matters in building resilience and whether family-managed companies demonstrate significantly higher overall organizational resilience than non-family-managed companies. We contextualized our research within the T&H industry in Poland, using the capital resources approach proposed by Brown et al. (2018), which allowed us to further test individual components of resilience. Based on the hypotheses tested, two key findings emerged.

The first finding is that ownership structure does not differentiate the level of organizational resilience. In particular, the analysis showed that family businesses do not exhibit higher levels of overall resilience compared to their non-family-managed counterparts.

This finding is particularly valuable given the preponderance of arguments in favor of greater resilience of family businesses in the FCT literature (e.g. Dyer, 2019; Dyer et al., 2014; Abdi et al., 2023; Amore et al., 2022; Bloch et al., 2012; Calabrò et al., 2021; Iborra et al., 2024; Kraus et al., 2020). However, the evidence presented in this study does not support this position but rather offers empirical support for the less widely accepted view that non-family businesses may in fact demonstrate no less resilience in times of crisis (e.g. Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021; Filimonau et al., 2020). Family businesses do not necessarily have to be more resilient, given their limitations, such as difficult access to external financing, risk aversion, strategic inertia, resistance to innovation and intergenerational misalignment (Iborra et al., 2024; Dyer, 2021b) or leadership style and varying levels of social engagement (Gutierrez-Broncano et al., 2024). Weaknesses of family businesses that may undermine their resilience compared to non-family businesses also include emotional attachment to traditional practices and resource allocation patterns (Leppäaho and Ritala, 2022), conservative decision-making (Renko et al., 2021) and limited access to external expertise and resources necessary for innovation and strategic renewal during prolonged crises (Acquaah et al., 2011; Carr and Hmieleski, 2015). Our findings confirm that non-family businesses can build resilience just as effectively thanks to more formal crisis management procedures, stronger market orientation and better access to external resources (e.g. Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021; Filimonau et al., 2020). At the same time, our results align with Hall et al. (2023), who emphasize that the resilience of the T&H sector, which is characterized by high dynamics of change, seasonality and competitive pressure, is highly contextual. In the case of the T&H sector, factors such as formalization, professionalization and diversification may prove to be as important as family involvement and local roots (Hall et al., 2023). Therefore, to better understand this contextual variability, we applied a capital-based model developed by Brown et al. (2018) to assess the resilience of hotel companies, which led us to our second finding.

This second conclusion is that the level of resilience in individual dimensions of capital also does not show the primacy of family businesses. The results obtained confirm that non-family businesses in the T&H industry we studied may demonstrate no less resilience thanks to more diversified resource portfolios and more formalized crisis management systems, which confirms the arguments of Engeset (2020) and Gutierrez-Broncano et al. (2024). However, we challenge these authors' assertion that non-family businesses face primary constraints in accessing external resources or adapting to volatile conditions. On the contrary, our findings indicate that non-family businesses may have similar or even greater access to certain types of resources, which translates into their level of resilience. These results reflect concerns previously raised by Kallmuenzera and López-Chávez (2024) regarding structural limitations on resource availability in family businesses.

Although non-family businesses outperformed family businesses in almost all dimensions of resilience (except for economic capital), no statistically significant differences were found in individual forms of capital, which makes it impossible to draw complete conclusions. Nevertheless, this may suggest that non-family businesses can be just as resilient as family businesses and that resilience can be achieved in different ways, through different but equivalent configurations of capital and organizational practices. This applies in particular to social and human capital, which (alongside economic capital) are at the heart of the FCT debate. And so, in the case of family businesses, most arguments indicate that they have different resource configurations, especially in terms of the capital mentioned above, which makes them well prepared to deal with external crises (Dyer, 2019, 2021a; Dyer et al., 2014). This result is noteworthy in light of prior literature, such as Altın et al. (2021) and Calabrò et al. (2021), which emphasizes the embeddedness of social capital, local tradition and employee loyalty in family-run firms. The advantages of family businesses also include the existence of a “family resilience logic” characterized by long-term commitment (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007), emotional involvement (Schulze and Bövers, 2022) and a shared organizational goal (Bloch et al., 2012). On the other hand, non-family businesses benefit from professionalization of structures, diversification of resources and institutional risk management as sources of stability and adaptability (Engeset, 2020; Gutierrez-Broncano et al., 2024). Non-family businesses often develop social capital not through family ties, but through partnership networks, industry collaboration and participation in local economic initiatives. In terms of human capital, professional management, training programs and diverse recruitment channels enable them to maintain a high level of adaptability (Gutierrez-Broncano et al., 2024).

We draw similar conclusions with regard to cultural capital, which is not so strongly emphasized in FCT. Our results show that the level of cultural capital in family-managed companies is not higher than in non-family companies, despite the fact that family companies often draw strength from tradition, narrative and regional roots (Zellweger et al., 2012; Berrone et al., 2012; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). Non-family businesses, on the other hand, can use cultural resources (i.e. elements of identity and tradition) very strategically, e.g. through brand positioning and customer experience design, thereby increasing their resilience to crisis situations (Zellweger et al., 2012).

The collected data leaves room for diverse interpretations. First and foremost, they indicate that resilience is not a property attributed to a form of ownership, but rather the result of interactions between capitals, which can take on different structures depending on the organizational context. This approach requires us to view organizational resilience not in terms of the superiority of one type of enterprise over another, but in terms of equivalent ways of achieving a similar effect, which supports the perspective of equifinality. This means that family and non-family businesses have different but equivalent advantages in terms of building resilience. The advantages of family businesses include long-term orientation, high levels of trust and local roots, emotional leadership, role flexibility, intergenerational knowledge transfer, loyalty, sustainability and a strong sense of organizational identity (Habbershon and Williams, 1999; Yilmaz et al., 2024; Calabrò et al., 2021; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Schulze and Bövers, 2022; Kuntz et al., 2016; Engeset, 2020; Kraus et al., 2020; von Ritter et al., 2025). These factors support the stability and internal cohesion of the organization in the face of uncertainty. In turn, non-family businesses are characterized by greater formalization of processes, including human resource management systems, more structured cooperation with external stakeholders, active participation in civic initiatives, better access to external financing, the use of diverse recruitment channels, the implementation of CSR strategies and the development of intercultural communication skills, thanks to which they more often achieve implementation consistency and rapid coordination on a larger scale (Filimonau et al., 2020; Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021; Amore et al., 2022; Calabrò et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2024; dos Santos et al., 2020). It can therefore be concluded that organizational resilience is the result of equivalent capital configurations in both types of companies analyzed. Family businesses, which base their operations on trust, commitment and identity, can more easily achieve resilience through relational and cultural resources (relational-identity logic), while non-family businesses can achieve it through formalization and structural and procedural organizational solutions (procedural-institutional logic). Both approaches can lead to similar results in terms of survival and organizational adaptation.

This study conducted a comparative assessment of the organizational resilience of family and non-family businesses in the T&H sector in the post-pandemic context in Poland. The starting point was a debate within the FCT, which often emphasizes the advantage of family businesses in building organizational resilience (Dyer, 2019; Dyer et al., 2014). Our analyses, anchored in a capital-based approach (Brown et al., 2018), allowed us to test individual components of resilience. The results clearly indicate that ownership structure does not differentiate resilience levels. Family businesses did not demonstrate a higher level of overall resilience than non-family businesses, both in terms of overall resilience and when broken down into individual dimensions of capital. Furthermore, non-family-owned hotels demonstrated higher overall resilience compared to family-managed hotels. Differences in favor of non-family-owned companies (although not statistically significant) were also evident in individual dimensions of resilience, including social, human and cultural capital. These results challenge the prevailing assumption in the literature that family businesses inherently possess higher resilience due to their unique management structures and socio-emotional engagement. Our research shows that family businesses do not necessarily have to be more resilient. In the analyzed T&H sector, we propose to consider two equivalent paths to building resilience: relational-identity-based, used by family businesses and procedural-institutional, which is the domain of non-family businesses. The final level of resilience in both types of companies depends not on the type of ownership but on the alignment and consistent mobilization of capital to changing environmental conditions. The adopted perspective of equivalence allows for a better understanding of the diverse but equivalent paths to organizational adaptability.

This study makes an important contribution to the literature on organizational resilience, particularly to FCT (Dyer, 2019; Dyer et al., 2014). Our findings challenge the dominant narrative that family businesses are inherently more resilient, showing that non-family businesses can achieve comparable or even higher levels of resilience. The study thus contributes to resolving theoretical tensions regarding the role of family ownership as a factor promoting resilience.

Additionally, by applying a capital-based model (Brown et al., 2018), the study reinforces the conceptual approach that views resilience as a multidimensional construct. The empirical use of six dimensions of capital (economic, social, human, physical, natural and cultural) confirms the usefulness of this approach in analyzing the T&H sector and enables a detailed comparison of family and non-family businesses. The FCT literature offers conflicting and often ambiguous conclusions regarding the relative resilience of family businesses compared to non-family businesses. While family-managed companies are often considered inherently more resilient due to their social-emotional richness and strong relational ties, our findings challenge this perspective, showing that these companies do not exhibit higher resilience relative to non-family companies. Our findings indicate that resilience does not stem directly from ownership structure and in particular is not a simple function of the family nature of the company, but is rather a configurational outcome of various forms of capital. This means that both family and non-family businesses can build resilience equally effectively if they are able to integrate and reconfigure resources in response to changes in their environment. The contribution of our study is therefore to challenge the unambiguous belief in the greater resilience of family businesses and to extend FCT theory with the perspective of equifinality. This opens the way for further analysis of the role of capital in shaping resilience in different sectoral and institutional contexts.

Additionally, this research addresses an important gap by expanding the geographical and contextual scope of resilience studies. Despite a growing body of literature, studies examining resilience in the T&H industry within Central and Eastern European contexts, especially through quantitative methods, remain limited. Our research thus contributes to this literature by demonstrating the complexity and context-specific nature of resilience, highlighting the necessity for comprehensive, multidimensional analyses.

In terms of addressing existing theoretical gaps, this study responds directly to calls for more integrated and empirically rigorous approaches to studying organizational resilience. Previous resilience research has often focused on isolated capital dimensions rather than adopting a holistic view. By utilizing the comprehensive capital resource-based framework, this study provides an empirically robust and comparative perspective, offering a deeper understanding of how diverse forms of capital collectively shape resilience across different ownership structures. Furthermore, the quantitative approach adopted here allowed for precise measurement and statistical validation of differences between family and non-family hotels, thereby enabling generalizations and more definitive theoretical assertions.

This study offers valuable practical implications for hotel owners, managers and decision-makers operating in diverse regional contexts. By identifying specific capital configurations and determining which forms of capital are most strongly correlated with resilience in family-managed and non-family-managed hotels, the study provides practical insights that can help prioritize resources and support strategic resilience-building initiatives.

The study highlights the importance of the mutual “importability” of mechanisms for shaping and utilizing various forms of capital. Family businesses can strengthen their resilience by consciously combining unique assets, such as family involvement, employee loyalty and community roots, with activities that strengthen social, human and cultural capital. These include employee skills development, active stakeholder relationship management, diversified recruitment strategies, CSR initiatives and readiness for external financing. For family businesses, it is also important to apply governance mechanisms that allow them to maintain a balance between tradition and the need for adaptation, which in turn can determine their ability to survive (Hurtado-González and Herrero-Chacón, 2025; Hurtado and Herrero, 2024). This applies primarily to regulating family members' access to management and board positions, succession planning, remuneration rules and dividend payments. Excessive rigidity can limit adaptability, while too much flexibility can lead to a loss of cohesion and family identity. Non-family businesses, on the other hand, can draw on family experiences by integrating bonds and values with structured management practices.

Furthermore, the results can serve as guidance for policymakers designing policies to support the T&H sector. Identifying key forms of capital, in particular social, human and cultural capital, allows for a more targeted allocation of resources and the adaptation of support tools to the real needs of businesses. For managers, this means the ability to develop and implement precise, proactive resilience management measures that increase adaptability and competitiveness in a dynamic environment. Ultimately, the study points to the need to build resilience in a thoughtful way, based on the integration of different forms of capital and strengthening links with the environment. This approach not only promotes long-term sustainability but also allows hotels to respond more effectively to disruptions and maintain a competitive advantage in the T&H sector.

Our findings also have social implications. They show that building resilience in the T&H sector has a direct impact on employment stability, the well-being of local communities and the quality of tourism services. Strengthening social and cultural capital in hotels fosters trust, local identity and a sense of community, which translates not only into business results but also into broader aspects of quality of life and social cohesion.

Despite its significant contributions, this study has several limitations that suggest avenues for future research. First, the absence of comprehensive empirical data from the broader T&H literature limits the direct comparability of our findings with previous studies. Second, the capital resource-based framework employed by Brown et al. (2018) treats all dimensions of capital as equally measurable and independent. This approach potentially overlooks the interdependencies or substitutability among different capital forms, thus omitting other resilience dimensions prevalent in existing literature that warrant further exploration. Third, our study adopts a cross-sectional design, capturing resilience at a single point in time. This is a notable limitation, given that resilience is increasingly conceptualized as a dynamic capability evolving across different stages of organizational adaptation. Fourth, the findings are derived from a representative but geographically limited sample of hotels in Poland, which may constrain the generalizability of the results. Finally, the analysis exclusively reflects the perspectives of hotel owners or managers, neglecting the viewpoints of employees, which could provide additional insights into organizational resilience.

To address these limitations and enrich the current understanding of resilience differences between family-owned and non-family-owned firms in the T&H industry, future research should employ longitudinal designs. Such studies could track resilience dynamics across multiple periods, ideally comparing performance during stable periods with that during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, replicating the research in various geographical contexts would enable a deeper exploration of how cultural and institutional settings influence resilience. Additionally, incorporating both managerial and employee perspectives could offer more nuanced, comprehensive insights into resilience dynamics, enhancing both the robustness and applicability of future findings.

Future research should also consider additional factors that differentiate T&H companies and may influence their resilience. In addition to the distinction between family-owned and non-family-owned companies, it may be important to differentiate based on the size and age of the organization, the level of integration with hotel chains and franchises and the degree of seasonality of the business. Variables related to organizational culture, management style and the level of digitization and innovation can also significantly shape resilience. Such an approach would allow for a more nuanced analysis and, consequently, a better understanding of the mechanisms of building resilience in diverse institutional and organizational contexts.

Moreover, our study was limited to relatively basic control variables (firm age, number of employees, number of beds and location). While these ensured comparability between family and non-family hotels, they do not capture the deeper heterogeneity of family firms. In particular, our dataset did not include family-specific constructs (e.g. family governance mechanisms, FCs, founder involvement, family social capital) that could provide richer insights into resilience dynamics. Including such variables in future research would not only allow for a more nuanced understanding of family firm behavior but also enable testing potential moderation effects to clarify the boundary conditions under which family capital translates into greater resilience. For example, factors such as family CEO status, ownership percentage, the content of FCs or the level of family social capital (Hurtado-González and Herrero-Chacón, 2025; Hurtado and Herrero, 2024) could serve as both additional controls and moderators in subsequent studies.