The 6-factor organisational resilience tool (6FORT): A self-report tool for assessing organisational resilience

Glazer-Bear, Shaham; Aharonson-Daniel, Limor; Lahad, Mooli

The 6-factor organisational resilience tool (6FORT): A self-report tool for assessing organisational resilience

Journal of Military Studies

AHEAD OF PRINT

By: Shaham Glazer-Bear, Limor Aharonson-Daniel and Mooli Lahad

Open Access

|Oct 2025

Figures & Tables

Multilevel framework of OR. OR, organisational resilience.

Scree test plot for EFA of the initial pilot 6FORT questionnaire. 6FORT, 6-factor organisational resilience tool; EFA, exploratory factor analysis.

Standardised parameter estimates for the factor structure of 6FORT. 6FORT, 6-factor organisational resilience tool.

6FORT list of factors and their attributes

Factors and definitions	Item	M	SD	Cronbach’s α
Leadership:	11	4.29	0.64	0.93
Leadership evaluation of the squadron commander’s abilities.
Professionalism:	7	4.07	0.50	0.80
Skills and capabilities of squadron members referring to individuals, formation leaders and flight teams (including cockpit CRM).
Task readiness:	4	3.81	0.63	0.80
Squadron’s level of preparedness for its primary task in an emergency, collective efficacy regarding adversity and combat. Includes the evaluation of resources to achieve operational continuity in the squadron.
Open communication:	5	4.10	0.76	0.91
Regarded as a leadership practice and a cultural attribute, referring to squadron communication style, the ability to create trusting and open conversations between members and with squadron leaders.
Connectedness:	8	4.29	0.54	0.88
Group dynamics, cohesion and social trust, sense of belonging and identification, role clarity in critical times.
Organisational learning:	8	3.9	0.61	0.87
Squadron’s ability to develop and accumulate knowledge, enhance competencies and increase the capacity to perform better through a learning culture and processes.
Total	43	4.11	0.49	0.96

Performance scale	5	4.20	0.54	0.81

j_jms-2025-0005_tab_007

OR level	Item added
Individual	‘It is clear to me what my role in combat is’.
	‘I can identify with organizational goals and values’.
	‘I feel significant to the squadron’.
Group	‘There is good teamwork between squadron leaders’.
	‘Formation leaders’ flight level is high’.
	‘Our overall experience affects the squadron’s ability to deal with challenging situations’.
	‘I believe in squadron personnel’s ability to deal with emergencies’.
	‘In the squadron, we learn from our mistakes and improve the way we do things’.
Leadership	‘Squadron commander displays leadership in times of crisis and emergency’.
Leadership	‘I feel comfortable expressing my opinions, even when they differ from those of my CO’s’.
Eco-system	‘The squadron is updated regularly with IAF information relevant to its missions’.
	‘The squadron has adequate resources to prepare for and operate at war’.
	‘The squadron maintains strong working relationships with external partners’.

Fit indices of the CFA of 6FORT (N = 1097)

Goodness-of-fit indices	χ² (df)	p	CFI	NNFI	RMSEA	90%CI for RMSEA
CFA	2,988.36 (823)	<0.001	0.915	0.902	0.049	0.047, 0.051

j_jms-2025-0005_tab_006

Item content		Factor loadings*

		1	2	3	4	5	6
q36	Squadron commander is a role model to the squadron	0.714	−0.047	0.234	0.001	−0.022	−0.015
q37	Squadron commander cultivates unit morale	0.649	−0.038	0.094	0.027	−0.03	0.159
q39	Squadron commander motivates to achieve the goals	0.749	0.005	0.137	0.008	−0.067	0.056
q46	Squadron commander is a professional authority	0.592	0.103	0.052	−0.073	0.119	−0.021
q47	Squadron commander defines and presents a clear policy	0.787	0.025	−0.047	−0.017	0.036	−0.024
q48	Squadron commander demonstrates power and confidence in achieving the goals	0.832	0.047	−0.023	0.049	0.014	−0.051
q49	Squadron commander determines priorities according to need	0.744	−0.046	0.069	−0.015	0.024	0.059
q50	Squadron commander makes the decisions required for mission task performance	0.822	−0.033	0.059	−0.043	−0.014	0.06
q51	Squadron commander demands high level performance	0.751	0.059	−0.123	0.111	0.005	−0.027
q52	Squadron commander holds a wide organisational perspective	0.65	0.042	0.08	0.042	0.05	−0.013
q53	Squadron commander displays leadership in times of crisis and emergency	0.758	−0.053	0.03	0.038	0.063	0.088
q2	Squadron officers possess the professional knowledge and skills required to perform their duties	0.23	0.359	0.014	−0.034	−0.016	0.225
q29	Squadron teamwork (CRM, in the cockpit) is effective	0.055	0.538	0.018	0.198	0.091	−0.056
q30	Air crew’s proficiency level is high	0.034	0.804	−0.008	−0.02	0.003	−0.069
q31	Squadron members can operate newly integrated weapons and mission systems	−0.028	0.676	0.052	−0.033	−0.026	0.053
q32	The squadron has a good ability to fly in extreme weather conditions	0.089	0.477	0.134	−0.134	0.134	0.013
q33	Formation leaders’ flight level is high	−0.082	0.461	0.006	0.139	0.071	0.035
q34	The training programme prepares the squadron for its missions	−0.072	0.316	0.112	−0.003	0.128	0.325
q27	I feel comfortable expressing my opinions, even when they differ from those of my COs	0.043	0.117	0.526	0.267	−0.028	−0.041
q41	Squadron commander encourages his subordinates to express their opinions freely	0.033	0.02	0.784	0.094	0.033	0.017
q42	Squadron commander is open to criticism	0.086	0.064	0.79	−0.073	0.058	0.012
q44	Squadron commander backs up his subordinates	0.358	−0.004	0.428	0.062	0.028	0.039
q45	Squadron commander is familiar with his subordinates’ expectations and attitudes	0.468	0.079	0.339	−0.022	−0.058	0.149
q10	I feel significant to the squadron	−0.076	−0.043	0.164	0.713	−0.033	0.098
q12	I can identify with organisational goals and values	0.334	−0.059	0.085	0.361	0.094	0.054
q15	I believe in the squadron personnel’s ability to deal with emergencies	0.168	0.126	−0.002	0.399	0.268	−0.018
q21	Personally, I feel ready for combat	−0.04	0.12	0.026	0.445	0.262	−0.004
q24	It is clear to me what my role in combat is	0.097	0.029	0.059	0.515	0.149	−0.067
q7	There is strong group cohesion in the squadron	0.109	0.238	−0.061	0.325	−0.251	0.311
q8	I feel a strong sense of belonging to the squadron	0.181	0.123	−0.005	0.505	−0.12	0.096
q9	There is cooperation and mutual assistance in carrying out tasks in the squadron	0.203	0.231	0.021	0.335	−0.206	0.319
q19	The squadron has adequate resources to prepare for and operate during war	−0.012	0.052	0.094	0.045	0.524	0.13
q20	The squadron is ready for the tasks it is assigned in emergency	0.169	0.096	−0.095	0.148	0.47	0.16
q22	The squadron is ready for operational continuity during missile strike	0.072	0.04	0.061	−0.058	0.512	0.069
q23	The squadron is prepared for combat in the different arenas	0.032	0.151	−0.006	0.143	0.59	0.121
q4	Squadron officers insist on carrying out decision	0.349	0.092	−0.093	0.061	0.062	0.384
q5	The squadron is updated regularly with IAF information relevant to its missions	0.042	−0.042	0.016	−0.009	0.191	0.625
q6	The squadron holds strong working relationships with outside partners	0.066	−0.077	0.066	−0.022	0.073	0.672
q13	Our overall experience affects the squadron’s ability to deal with challenging situations	0.102	0.068	0.078	0.222	0.109	0.207
q25	Lessons are learned from all squadron activities	0.264	0.176	−0.057	0.069	0.106	0.393
q26	The squadron is innovative and creative	0.1	0.059	0.138	0.014	0.172	0.37
q35	The squadron holds a high level of debriefs	−0.059	0.171	−0.018	0.117	0.031	0.464
q1	There is good teamwork between squadron leaders	0.289	0.076	0.19	0.03	−0.093	0.326

6FORT factor correlations*

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Leadership	_
2. Professionalism	0.68
3. Task readiness	0.55	0.84
4. Open communication	0.90	0.62	0.43
5. Organisational learning	0.80	0.89	0.78	0.73
6. Connectedness	0.69	0.82	0.72	0.65	0.83	-

j_jms-2025-0005_tab_005

Phase	Key steps	Outcome
Contextualisation	- Conducted extensive literature review	- Enhanced understanding of the resilience phenomenon and strengthened content validity - Framework for contextualising OR in IAF squadrons
Item generation & scale development	Quantitative methods: - Analysed existing IAF database (2008–2019) with 17,181 participants	- 13 Factors related to OR identified through EFA
Item generation & scale development	Qualitative methods: - Conducted workshops and interviews with SMEs to explore definitions and items for measuring OR - Delphi method used with OR and IAF experts to sort and refine items	- OR framework was refined - 13 new items were phrased - 80 items narrowed into 55 items
Instrument validation	Pilot study (2021): - Sample: 493 participants from 10 operational squadrons	- Scale reduced to 43 items based on reliability assessment
Instrument validation	Validation study (2023): - Sample: 1,097 participants from 25 operational squadrons	- Instrument validated with confirmed reliability and external validity

Pearson’s correlations between 6FORT factors with performance evaluations and with a single-item measure of OR (N = 1097)

OR factors	Performance evaluation	Single-item measure of OR
Leadership	0.67	0.50
Professionalism	0.72	0.51
Task readiness	0.63	0.49
Open communication	0.58	0.40
Organisational learning	0.81	0.56
Connectedness	0.74	0.61

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2025-0005 | Journal eISSN: 1799-3350 | Journal ISSN: 2242-3524

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Submitted on: Jul 18, 2024

Accepted on: Jun 28, 2025

Published on: Oct 10, 2025

Published by: National Defense University

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

organisational resilience,

leadership,

resilience assessment,

crisis management,

military resilience

Related subjects:

History,

© 2025 Shaham Glazer-Bear, Limor Aharonson-Daniel, Mooli Lahad, published by National Defense University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

AHEAD OF PRINT

The 6-factor organisational resilience tool (6FORT): A self-report tool for assessing organisational resilience

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

6FORT list of factors and their attributes

j_jms-2025-0005_tab_007

Fit indices of the CFA of 6FORT (N = 1097)

j_jms-2025-0005_tab_006

6FORT factor correlations*

j_jms-2025-0005_tab_005

Qualitative methods:

Pilot study (2021):

Validation study (2023):

Pearson’s correlations between 6FORT factors with performance evaluations and with a single-item measure of OR (N = 1097)

Paradigm

My account