Organization resilience has two dimensions – planned and adaptive (Lee, Vargo, & Seville, 2013). Planned resilience occurs predisaster, whereas adaptive resilience typically emerges post-disaster and requires leadership, external linkages, internal collaboration, an ability to learn from past experiences, and staff well-being (Nilakant, Walker, Van Heugten, Baird, & De Vries, 2014). While previous studies suggest post-disaster recovery strategies have an impact on business performance (Corey & Deitch, 2011), the influence of organizational resilience on business performance has not been examined among tourism firms. Specifically, postdisaster financial performance is influenced by many factors, including the extent of pre-disaster planning, firm size, and sector of operation (Kachali et al., 2012; Nakanishi, Black, & Matsuo, 2014). Also, subjective measures of business performance are highly correlated with objective measures (Vij & Bedi, 2016). Hence, this research investigates: what is the relationship between planned and adaptive resilience and financial performance of tourism firms? Does firm size and sector of operation influence this relationship? Not having recovery plans can impede adaptive resilience (Alexander, 2013). Disaster planning can facilitate rebuilding the resilience of organizational infrastructure, thus contributing to planned resilience (Faulkner & Vikulov, 2001). However, research also indicates complexities in the relationship between planned and adaptive resilience. Somers (2009) found that disaster planning did not significantly affect organizational resilience. Dalziell and McManus (2004) suggest that planning only partly facilitates organizational recovery post-disaster. Organizations should, therefore, focus on building adaptive resilience rather than creating stepby- step plans (Somers, 2009)