Resilience is a topic of growing interest in the literature focused on organizations. There is an extensive research on resilience but it is embedded in a variety of disconnected literatures that have developed in different research fields, involving varying levels of analysis and different subconstructs. This has resulted in a general confusion surrounding the concept of resilience and its relationship to similar constructs. In this paper, we synthesize this fragmented literature to better understand organization-related resilience and set the stage for future work in this area. First, based on a bibliographic coupling analysis of 1,667 articles, we identify 10 historical clusters that have shaped this domain and highlight how these clusters have developed over time. Second, drawing on recommendations for how research can develop high-quality concept definitions, we analyze subconstructs, conceptual definitions, and measures applied in this domain. Third, we distinguish resilience from related constructs. Overall, our synthesis revealed that resilience is an important and distinct concept in organization-related research. In spite of this, the field has suffered from the presence of a jinglejangle fallacy, which means that existing conceptualizations of resilience assign different meanings to this label, while at the same time various subconstructs exist. Thus, fourth, we develop a framework integrating the broad literature of organization-related resilience into three distinct themes of research that offer different insights into how entities across levels deal with adversity. In an attempt to provide guidance for research that builds upon this review, we conclude with an agenda for future investigations.