A Resource Model of Team Resilience Capacity and Learning

Purpose Maintaining user-focused integrated team working in complex care is one of the demands made of UK health and social care (H&SC) organisations who need employees that are resilient, resilience being the ability to persevere and thrive in the face of exposure to adverse situations (Rogerson and Ermes, 2008, p. 1). Grant and Kinman (2012) write that resilience is a complex and multi-dimensional construct that is underexplored in social care team work. The purpose of this paper is to capture the views of managers in H&SC to explore the making of resilient teams, identify factors that influence team performance and inform organisational workforce development strategy. Design/methodology/approach A general inductive approach (Silverman, 2011) was applied. Five focus groups were facilitated (n=40) each with eight participants all of whom were leaders and managers of teams in H&SC, working in the integrated care context in the UK. Findings Findings indicate that further investment in strategies and resources to sustain and educate employees who work in teams and further research into how organisational systems can facilitate this learning positively may contribute to resilient teams and performance improvement. The authors note specifically that H&SC organisations make a distinction between the two most prevalent team types and structures of multi-disciplinary and inter-professional and plan more targeted workforce development for individual and team learning for resiliency within these team structures. In doing so organisations may gain further advantages such as improved team performance in problematic care situations. Research limitations/implications Data captured are self-reported perceptions of H&SC managers. Participant responses in the focus group situation may have been those expected rather than those actually modelled in the realities of team work practice (Tanggaard, 2008). Further, in the sample all participants were engaged in a higher education programme and it is possible participants may have been more engaged with their practice and thinking more critically about the research questions than those not currently undertaking postgraduate study (Ng et al., 2014). Nor were the researchers able to observe the participants in team work practice over time or during critical care delivery incidents. Practical implications The preliminary link made here between multi-disciplinary and inter-professional team type, and their different stress points and subsequent workforce intervention, contributes to the theory of resilient teams. This provides organisations with a foundation for the focus of workplace learning and training around resilience. H&SC practitioner views presented offer a greater understanding of team work processes, together with a target for planning workforce development strategy to sustain resilience in team working. Originality/value This preliminary research found that participants in H&SC valued the team as a very important vehicle for building and sustaining resilience when dealing with complex H&SC situations. The capitalisation on the distinction in team type and individual working practices between those of interprofessional and multidisciplinary teams and the model of team learning, may have important consequences for building resilience in H&SC teams. These findings may be significant for workforce educators seeking to develop and build effective practice tools to sustain team working.

A 10‐week experience sampling study evaluated the temporal dynamics of employee voice and silence. Drawing on Conservation of Resources theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018), emotional exhaustion and psychological climate for voice were treated as energy and social resources, respectively, that dynamically shape voice and silence behaviour from week to week ( T = 10). Participants responded weekly ( N = 193; total sample NT = 1479). Dynamic structural equation modelling supported a positive reciprocal relationship for voice and voice climate, whereby each increased the other across weeks. Voice climate also mitigated silence across weeks. There were no lagged effects between exhaustion and silence. Within occasions, silence and exhaustion were positively correlated.

SummaryMultinational teams face numerous challenges arising from pressures in the global business environment and complexities posed by national diversity within teams. Team resilience capacity has been identified as an important capability for successful performance in challenging work environments, yet little is known about which factors contribute to it in a multinational context. Given that teams are inherently situated within a specific context and shaped by team leaders and the organizational environment, enhancing our understanding of contexts involving multinational teams is crucial for fostering team resilience and performance. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, we investigate the influence of leader inclusiveness on the resilience capacity of multinational teams and explore how the organizational diversity climate shapes this relationship. Findings from our quantitative, multi‐informant study based on data collected from 111 multinational teams reveal that leader inclusiveness enhances team resilience capacity and that such an effect is stronger when the organizational diversity climate is high. We also highlight that leader inclusiveness improves team performance indirectly via its effect on team resilience capacity, contingent on the organizational diversity climate.

Resilience is of great importance for teams working in complex and unstable environments. Team resilience is the ability of the teams/groups to bounce back and sustain in the facade of adverse conditions. Research reveals that resilient teams are more likely to be productive, agile and innovative during the turbulent times. However, despite the growing importance of the concept, there is lack of reliable and valid scale to measure team resilience in the literature. Keeping this gap in mind the study aims to design and develop a reliable and valid measure to assess the resilience capacity of the teams. Findings of the study reveal that team resilience is a hierarchical and multidimensional scale comprising of four primary dimensions along with 10 sub-dimensions. Psychometric evaluation and validation has been done using 160 responses from 12 IT companies located in India. The instrument may be used as a diagnostic tool for identifying team resilience capacity and thereby acts as a starting point for increasing team resilience. Moreover, identifying teams with lower resilience scores may assist organizations in tailoring strategies that might improve the teams’ effectiveness.

BackgroundThis study aims to investigate how a team can be resilient in the face of crisis and adversity.MethodsThis empirical study adopted a quantitative research method. The data were collected by questionnaire survey, and the stats analysis package in R language and AMOS 23 were used for empirical analysis of 98 teams. Based on complex adaptive system theory and conservation of resources theory, this study was constructed the theoretical framework of “environmental influence — team exchange — team resilience” with informational team faultline (ITF) as independent variable, team leader member exchange (TLMX) and team member exchange (TMX) as mediating and moderating variables, and team resilience as dependent variable in the context of Chinese culture.ResultsWe found that the ITF had a significant negative effect on the team resilience. TLMX and TMX played partial mediating role between ITF and team resilience. In addition, TLMX and TMX played moderating role between ITF and team resilience, that is, weakening the negative influence of ITF on team resilience.ConclusionThis study contributes to clarify the mechanism of the influence of ITF on team resilience, and provide reference for team leaders to improve team resilience in the face of adversity.

One of the most fundamental questions in team creativity research is the relationship between individual member creativity and team creativity. The two answers that team creativity research has advanced–teams are more creative when their average member creativity is higher (the additive model) and teams are more creative when their most creative member is more creative (the disjunctive model) are straightforward. Surprising, however, is that neither the additive model nor the disjunctive model is consistently supported, begging the question of what moderates the predictive power of these models. We address this question by integrating individual-to-team creativity models with team process research. We propose that team information elaboration is a key moderating variable, such that average member creativity is more positively related to team creativity with higher information elaboration, and the highest member creativity is more positively related to team creativity with lower information elaboration. A multi-source study of 60 sales teams (483 employees) in a Chinese bakery chain supported these hypotheses. In addition, the study did not support the prediction that the most creative member’s outgoing advice ties (as a conduit for the dissemination of ideas) would further moderate the joint effect of the highest individual creativity and team information elaboration on team creativity.

This team learning and team entre-preneurship model of education has been deployed at the Bachelor’s level in the degree programmes of IT and Business Administration (BA). In BA studies the students who take part in team learning have specialized in marketing since 2009 at the Saimaa University of Applied Sciences (SUAS). The model called ICT entrepreneurship study path (ICT-ESP) has been developed for IT education. The ICT-ESP has been built on the theory of experien-tal learning and theories of knowledge creation and knowledge management. The students study and complete their degree as team entrepreneurs. The model has been further developed in the Business Administration Degree Programme with students who specialize in marketing. The Degree Programme in IT at the Bachelor’s level was terminated in 2011 by Finnish Min-istry of Education and Culture. Cur-rently, there are severe discussions on bringing it back – not as an IT but as an ICT Degree Programme.
 
 This article makes a cross-section of what has already been explored with the team learning and team entrepreneurship model and what the next steps will be. It makes a comparison of two originally sep-arately developed models and dis-cusses their best practices. The arti-cle also argues whether the upcom-ing ICT education should be orga-nized in a conventional way – as curriculum of courses, or as expan-sion of the current team learning and team entrepreneurship model. The data consists of field notes, meeting memos, and dozens of un-official discussions with colleagues and company representatives. Liter-ature studies made during the ongo-ing research, development, and in-novation (RDI) projects offered an extra view of how the business con-text is changing and what should be done to make benefit out of the change.
 
 The results suggest that the up-coming ICT Degree Programme at SUAS should be integrated into the existing deployment of team learning and team entrepreneurship learning environment. This would foster col-laboration between different disci-plines, e.g. marketing and ICT. Fur-thermore, the emerging ideation, ser-vice design and experimentation eco-system which we are developing in ongoing RDI projects, would be strengthened by adding more students focused on ICT competencies into it. 
 
 The article was later extended to include interview data from 12 theme-based specialist interviews where the thoughts of original article were tested among administration of our campus, RDI funder, experienced and former team entrepreneurs, and local entre-preneurs.
 
 The results validated the author’s previous suggestions of how future ICT education should be organized and also provided some new targets for development. The essential find-ings were: The future ICT education should be deployed in a way that it a) develops students’ entrepreneurial mindset b) offers versatile coopera-tion possibilities with existing market-ing team entrepreneurs and other en-terprises, and c) the current ecosystem should be internationalized.

ABSTRACTFor teams developing products or services to meet customer needs, customer adoption of team deliverables is core to their success. When such teams focus on complex, tailored deliverables, customer adoption can be expected to benefit from team information elaboration—the exchange, discussion, and integration of team members' knowledge and perspectives—to develop solutions for customer needs. We aim to shed light on how teams can focus on the customer's perspective within the elaboration process to drive customer adoption. We propose that whereas engaging with the customer's perspective is key to customer adoption, teams may only do this to a modest degree unless they are stimulated to put the customer perspective center‐stage. Extending information elaboration theory by drawing on the attention‐based view, we propose that customer‐oriented boundary spanning—engaging with the customer to champion the customer's perspective within the team—strengthens the shared objective of serving the customer to guide information elaboration and increase the quality of knowledge work. We argue that this effect is moderated by team functional background diversity: increased attention to the customer's perspective guides teams to better use their informational resources and this benefit is stronger with greater functional background diversity. These predictions were supported in a field experiment with a customer‐oriented boundary spanning intervention (N = 144 teams). Shared objectives and information elaboration sequentially mediated the effect of customer‐oriented boundary spanning and the indirect effect from customer‐oriented boundary spanning to customer adoption was stronger with greater functional diversity.

PurposeThis study aims to explore team learning activities in nursing teams and to test the effect of team composition on team learning to extend conceptually an initial model of team learning and to examine empirically a new model of ambidextrous team learning in nursing.Design/methodology/approachQuantitative research utilising exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and correlation and multiple regression analyses, were used for empirical validation.FindingsPrincipal component analyses of the team learning activities scale revealed a five‐factor model, explaining 78 per cent of the variance on the team‐learning scale. Being a nursing team in a community hospital, having high team longevity, and having a high percentage of female nurses explained 33 per cent of team learning.Research limitations/implicationsData aggregation in a cross‐sectional design can be criticised for potential biases. However, statistical assumptions for aggregation were met, and the concepts used in this study were clearly formulated at team level. Thus, a valuable instrument is provided for further quantitative research on team learning in nursing.Practical implicationsThe team learning activities in nursing teams reflected the ambidexterity of teams in modern nursing practice. The findings provide a rationale for managers to create infrastructures that support both productive, as well as developmental learning tasks in teams.Originality/valueThe study provides new insights regarding how team learning activities occur in ambidextrous teams in nursing. Contrary to prediction, the results show that team composition has little effect on team learning activities. This is valuable knowledge for researchers, trainers, teams and management in nursing.

We address the interrelatedness of resilience across levels by proposing a series of cross‐level effects between individual and team resilience. First, we present a homologous model of resilience including four core components that transcend levels of analysis: (1) the occurrence of adversity , (2) the capacity for resilience (3) the enactment of resilience, and (4) the demonstration of resilience. Second, building on a multilevel perspective and existing theory (e.g., conservation of resources and role theory), we present five foundational principles for understanding cross‐level resilience effects: (1) resilience components are interrelated across levels; (2) resilience capacity resources are finite and subject to depletion; (3) resources can be derived from and applied to individual or team levels; (4) effectively enacting resilience requires alignment between resources and situational demands; and (5) resilience processes can conflict across levels. Finally, we present a series of propositions that elucidate potential cross‐level effects between components of individual and team resilience, including those with positive, null, and negative consequences. This work advances the resilience literature by offering an integrated, cross‐level perspective concerning the ways in which individual and team resilience are likely interrelated.

As teams increasingly face dynamic and high-pressure work, understanding how they bounce back from adversity is critical. This study investigates how team resilience capacity develops and its implications for performance under adversity. We present findings from a 16-week longitudinal study of 171 graduate students in 38 consulting teams. Teams were surveyed every four weeks to assess team resilience capacity, cohesion, trust, and psychological safety; team performance was assessed between surveys via instructor evaluation. We used linear mixed-effects models to examine variance between and within teams over time. Results suggest high team resilience capacity buffers the association of higher adversity and lower performance. Teams with higher trust and psychological safety had higher resilience capacity. Within teams, higher resilience capacity occurred at times when cohesion, trust, and psychological safety were higher. Altogether, results suggest that team resilience capacity emerges in contexts that enable teams to recognize, access, and integrate their resources to address adversity. We conclude that team resilience capacity is critical for teams who regularly encounter high adversity to avoid performance decrements. We contribute a novel model on the emergence and impact of team resilience capacity, as well as a list of directions for future research to continue advancing the science of team resilience.

We investigate the relationship between personal and professional familiarly, team effectiveness, and viability, and how these relationships are mediated by information elaboration in global virtual teams. We further assess whether virtuality moderates the relationships between both types of familiarity and information elaboration. Based on data collected from 63 global virtual supply chain teams, our results suggest that professional familiarity is positively associated with team information elaboration, which in turn relates positively to both manager-rated team effectiveness and team leader–rated viability. Furthermore, team virtuality enhances the influence of personal familiarity on information elaboration, but dampens the relationship between professional familiarity and information elaboration. Our results suggest that professional familiarity is a more salient antecedent of information elaboration in global virtual teams. We discuss the implications of our results for both theory and practice.

The knowledge integration perspective on team innovation holds that information elaboration – the exchange, discussion, and integration of task‐relevant information and perspectives – is the core team process driving team innovation. Factors reflecting the informational resources the team can draw on through information elaboration therefore are important influences on team innovation. In this respect, team innovation research points to team functional diversity and to team boundary spanning scouting to acquire information from outside the team. Team innovation research also makes clear that informational resources (as reflected in functional diversity and boundary spanning scouting) do not guarantee team information elaboration, and that identifying moderation in this relationship is particularly valuable. Building on this state of the science, we focus on the moderating role of the team diversity mindset – members' shared understanding of the importance of information elaboration for team performance – in the relationships of team functional diversity and boundary spanning scouting with information elaboration and team innovation. A multi‐wave and multi‐source survey of N = 215 teams involved in knowledge work in various Chinese organizations supported our research model for team boundary spanning scouting but not for team functional diversity.

PurposeHow is strategic consensus formed in top management team (TMT)? Prior literature provides inadequate evidence. A few scholars explore its antecedents from some perspectives (e.g. organizational or team structure) to address this gap but yield confusing results. This study aims to clarify the mechanism to reach TMT strategic consensus and explore both the effect of collective team identification and information elaboration.Design/methodology/approachStepwise regression analysis is applied to explore the formation process of strategic consensus by using data collected from 126 TMTs of Chinese firms.FindingsResults show that collective team identification has a positive effect on TMT strategic consensus, whereas information elaboration has a U-shaped effect. Further, the U-shaped relationship between information elaboration and TMT strategic consensus is strengthened by collective team identification.Originality/valueThis study provides a nuanced explanation of the antecedents of strategic consensus in TMT by exploring the effects of collective team identification and information elaboration. Particularly, this study proposes a U-shaped relationship between information elaboration and strategic consensus, which enriches TMT decision-making literature and consensus research. Moreover, by examining the moderating effect of collective team identification, this study articulates why TMT members fail to achieve strategic consensus even when they have sufficiently discussed the task-relevant information.

Drawing from the crossover model of conservation of resources theory (COR), we introduce leader personal brand equity (PBE) as the leader resource crossover endorsing mechanism to explore its function on team resilience, which is especially important team emergent-like capacity for teams to confront the inevitably adversities in today’s turbulent business environment. Further, we take leader bottom-line mentality as the resource crossover inhibiting mechanism that negative moderate the relationship between leader PBE and team resilience, and the indirect effect of team resilience between leader PBE and employee performance. We conduct three sequential multi-wave survey studies to explore this research. In Study 1, a two-wave survey (319 employees and 58 teams), we find leader PBE is positively related with team resilience via crossover leader personal resource to team members; In the study two, which is a three-wave studies with 591 employees in 120 teams, we find the indirect effect of team resilience between leader PBE and employee task performance. Study 3, consists of 470 employees in 81 teams, replicates the previous findings and further shows that leader bottom-line mentality negatively moderates the indirect effect as the resource inhibiting mechanism. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.