I found a definition in EASA operational documentation, but now have mislaid the location.
This is no great loss after considering the wider academic and practical views of Resilience, which indicate (my interpretation) that the introduction of resilience development within CRM is misplaced, misapplied.
Whilst many aspects of resilience can be viewed as an extension of CRM (resilience development), CRM for management, its application fails to appreciate resilience’s basis of a systems view.
Resilience involves a new way of thinking about safety.
CRM - team safety management; Resilience - ‘system’ safety management.
Resilience is a concept, which like ‘safety’ can be considered as something to have, or something which is done. Whereas safety is more often viewed as either-or (SMS vs CRM), resilience requires the combination of both views, especially activities (thinking, adapting); and critically within a system of man-machine-environment.
The activities should be founded on Safety-II (in combination with Safety-I), with systems thinking - having a holistic viewpoint.
Resilience does not require a definition. The need is to explain the Concept of Resilience as a necessary evolution of safety management in ever increasing complex operations; as a new way of thinking, managing uncertainty.
CRM would benefit from using a Safety-II viewpoint, with emphasis on awareness and understanding, which with systems thinking could aid safety management in complex, uncertain operations.
First, a change in mindset, a new way of thinking about safety; safety management. Thence acceptance that everything is uncertain, judgements opposed to decisions, guidance opposed to regulation.
It is very difficult to impose (change) behaviour, thinking, on individuals, teams, or the overall system.
Concepts cannot be regulated, they have to be understood and embraced.