Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T01:30:00.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending the Conversation: Employee Resilience at the Team Level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Deanna M. Kennedy ,
Lauren Blackwell Landon  and
M. Travis Maynard
Deanna M. Kennedy*
Affiliation:
School of Business, University of Washington Bothell
Lauren Blackwell Landon
Affiliation:
Wyle Science, Technology and Engineering Group, Houston, Texas
M. Travis Maynard
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Colorado State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deanna M. Kennedy, School of Business, University of Washington Bothell, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011. E-mail: deannak@uw.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the focal article, Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) are rightfully concerned that the topic of resilience may become a “quicksand” term that is used by different audiences in different manners. However, we are more optimistic than the authors of the focal article, as several researchers at the team level of analysis have outlined frameworks that have attempted to tease apart team resilience from related constructs such as adaptation. Likewise, such work has also provided a deeper understanding of the factors that serve as antecedents to team resilience and adaptation, as well as how both constructs can shape subsequent team outcomes. Accordingly, the “sand” is starting to congeal at the team level of analysis, and we bring in these insights to extend the conversation about resilience.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 466 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alliger, G. M., Cerasoli, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics, 44, 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.003Google Scholar
Baard, S. K., Rench, T. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Performance adaptation: A theoretical integration and review. Journal of Management, 40, 48–99. doi:10.1177/0149206313488210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 378–404.Google Scholar
Burrough, B. (1998). Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard the MIR. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Guzzo, R. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., Friedman, Y., & Tishler, A. (2013). Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. Safety Science, 51, 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.002Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226. doi:10.2307/20159573Google Scholar
Gomes, J. O., Borges, M. R. S., Huber, G. J., & Carvalho, P. V. R. (2014). Analysis of the resilience of team performance during a nuclear emergency response exercise. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 780–788. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.10.009Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7, 375–387.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922. doi:10.1002/job.226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26 (3), 356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 90–103.Google Scholar
Maynard, M. T., Kennedy, D. M., & Sommer, S. A. (2015). Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24 (5), 652–677. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2014.1001376Google Scholar
Maynard, M. T., Kennedy, D. M., Sommer, S. A., & Passos, A. M. (2015). Team cohesion: A theoretical consideration of its reciprocal relationships within the team adaptation nomological network. In Salas, E. (Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 17, pp. 83–111). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Morrell, M., & Chapparell, S. (2001). Shackleton's way: Leadership lesson. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
Parry, R. (2009). Trial by ice: The true story of murder and survival on the 1871 Polaris expedition. New York NY: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & Carsten, M. K. (2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 249–267. doi:10.1002/job.593Google Scholar