Search results

New product development (NPD) projects are strategically important for firms’ operations but suffer from high failure rates. Leadership is a key factor for project success. However, in contrast to positive project leadership, project managers’ knowledge hiding has received little attention. Drawing on the input-mediator-output (IMO) framework and model of work team resilience, we explored the effect of project managers’ destructive knowledge hiding (i.e. evasive hiding and playing dumb) on project team performance (i.e. efficiency and effectiveness) and the serial indirect effect through team psychological safety and transactive memory systems.

We conducted a time-lagged multiple-sourcing investigation of Chinese high-tech firms and tested the hypotheses using data collected from 105 NPD project teams.

Our findings demonstrated that project managers’ knowledge hiding negatively affects NPD project team performance and indirectly negatively affects transactive memory systems through team psychological safety. Moreover, project managers’ knowledge hiding exerts a negative indirect effect on team performance through team psychological safety and transactive memory systems in serial.

This study contributes to the literature on operations management (OM) by broadening our understanding of the connection between project managers' destructive knowledge hiding and the failure of NPD projects. In providing such insight, it also offers practical guidance for overcoming team-level obstacles arising from project managers' knowledge hiding.

This article aims to understand the challenges and key takeaways of implementing total quality management (TQM) in a virtual organisation.

An interventionist research (IVR) methodology combined with a qualitative critical event analysis was used to evaluate the challenges and concerns faced during the company’s adoption of TQM and understand the roles of the key players involved.

Standard process tools such as desktop procedures (DTP), focused teams, and service-level agreements (SLAs) were fundamental to implementing TQM in the company. These processes require the right leaders, but external agents may also be influential, acting as accelerators of change in adopting and using management practices in small companies. Indeed, the researcher acted as a problem solver, bringing innovative solutions to the firm using a hands-on iterative approach.

This research underscores the importance of critical success factors (CSF), such as employee engagement, training, and project management tools. These factors are not just important but crucial for the success of TQM in organisations seeking to adopt the industry’s best practices.

This study, conducted as a virtual IVR for TQM implementation, provides novel insights for practitioners and academics. It elucidates the pivotal role of some quality management tools in the journey towards TQM and the role of both internal and external critical players in the process, particularly in small virtual organisations based on innovative business models.

The concept of the “resilient organisation” has gained popularity as a concept that might aid organizations survive and thrive in difficult or volatile economic times. Knowing which factors may contribute to building organizational and team resilience is one of the questions that still remain unsolved. The purpose of this paper is to examine and review different conceptualisations of this emergent topic in the management literature, taking into account the common features of resilience capacity in organizations and teams.

To examine the literature on resilience, the authors will focus on team resilience. The authors depart from the psychological-behavioral approach to study resilience and instead take a multilevel perspective (i.e. taking into account organizational and team factors).

From a psychological-behavioral point of view the authors posit that there is a lack of research on which factors build team resilience. This review clarifies and relates independent and isolated studies on resilience taking into account the resources both at team and organizational level (i.e. collective efficacy, transformational leadership, teamwork, organizational practices) that build team resilience capacity.

Taking into account this review, future studies should analyze empirically the relationship between these factors that build up team resilience.

With this review the authors try to provide guidance as to which aspects of the organization both research and practitioners should focus on.

In sum, this literature review examines organizational and team factors that may build team resilience from a psychological-behavioral perspective, taking into account the multilevel view.

Over the past two decades, the study of team resilience has evolved from focusing primarily on team performance to recognizing its importance in various aspects of team functioning, including psychological health, teamwork, and overall Well-Being. This evolution underscores the need for a broader, more inclusive understanding of team resilience, advocating for a shift from a narrow performance-centric view to a holistic perspective that encompasses the multifaceted impact of resilience on teams.

In advocating for this holistic perspective, this chapter reviews the extant literature, highlighting that resilience is not merely about sustaining performance but also about fostering a supportive, adaptive, and psychologically safe environment for team members. Significant areas for further exploration, including the nuanced nature of adversities teams face, the processes underpinning resilient behaviors, and the broad spectrum of outcomes resilience can influence beyond task performance are also discussed.

The chapter serves as a call to action for a more inclusive examination of how resilience manifests and benefits teams in organizational settings. The proposed shift in perspective aims to deepen understanding of team resilience, promoting strategies for building resilient teams that thrive not only in performance but in all aspects of their functioning.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Resilience is the ability to snap back after experiencing trauma, and is increasingly important for leaders in today’s complex, global world. Resilience can be learned, which is a great news for leaders wanting to sustain through tough times. When adversity arises, resilience becomes the tool to help us grow stronger. Unfortunately, most organizations do not purposefully design themselves to foster a resilient workplace, leaving leaders to do this work on their own. By not investing in building resilience in employees, organizations are missing an important way to differentiate themselves from the competition. Workplaces that build resilience into their practices, culture, and development benefit from employees who sustain, even thrive, through complex change and market shifts.

This chapter explores how the habit of “stealing time” can build stronger, more resilient leaders, in adverse times. We will also discuss how reshaping our own mindset makes us stronger and ready to tackle daily challenges. Then we focus on spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental components of resilience. By increasing our resilience, we also gain a sense of cognitive freedom – a sense of empowered problem-solving and creativity – that can be a positive and contagious force throughout our teams and organizations. Finally, we focus on the organizational “streams” of resilience, which allow organizations to build greater resilience capacities at all levels. By using classic organizational design principles, we begin to see how we can help everyone live and work more fully and with more vigor.

The contemporary organizational environment calls for work team members to be more resilient in the face of likely setbacks, which are routinely experienced at the workplace. In two separate studies of work teams, we examine the impact of team sensemaking on team bricolage and subsequently, on team resilience. These studies further investigate whether task interdependence moderates the mediation of team bricolage for the relationship between team sensemaking and team resilience. In brief, these two studies conceptualize and test the relevance of team sensemaking, team bricolage and task interdependence for team resilience.

A sample of 213 team members participated in the self-administered survey for Study 1. For Study 2, a second sample collected from 81 teams, elicited team-level data by consensus among team members.

Findings show that team sensemaking as an antecedent has a significant and positive impact on team resilience. The results also show how and when the relationship between team sensemaking and team resilience is facilitated through an underlying mechanism of team bricolage in the presence of task interdependence among team members. This research improves the understanding about the relationship between team sensemaking and team resilience by examining the underlying mechanism and boundary condition under which the relationship is the strongest.

These findings have important implications for human resource managers. In face of adverse events, team sensemaking plays a pivotal role as it can enable team members to have better situational awareness, communication and reflection. Team sensemaking can be further facilitated for improved team resilience by embedding bricolage and task interdependence components in the employee orientation, job description and training of potential and current employees.

These findings demonstrate that in the wake of adverse events, team sensemaking can play a pivotal role as it enables team members to have better situational awareness, communication and reflection. For team resilience, the findings imply that team sensemaking can be further facilitated by team bricolage in the presence of task interdependence in work teams. Thus, managers of modern work teams and organizations can sensitize team members about these aspects through employee orientation, job description and on and off job training activities.

The practical need for understanding and improving team resilience has increased, and more research is needed to provide an evidence-base for guiding organizational practices and policies. In this chapter, the authors highlight what we see as critical challenges and opportunities for advancing the science of team resilience. We focus on conceptual and methodological challenges involved in conducting field-based research on team resilience, as the authors believe field-based research is a particularly critical approach for advancing the science of team resilience. The authors first provide a brief review of recent theoretical work in defining team resilience. Then the authors describe key challenges that must be managed in field studies seeking to refine and capitalize on this critical area of research to provide solutions capable of supporting individual, team, and organizational outcomes. These challenges include defining trajectories of resilient team performance, understanding the consequences of repeated episodes of team resilience, formal specifications of events precipitating resilient team performance, measuring the event appraisal and communication process, and adopting measurement methods with high temporal resolution. Finally, the authors provide directions for future research to address these gaps.

We are living in turbulent and uncertain times and organizations need to struggle with these circumstances in order to achieve their goals. More than ever, resilience capacity is an added value that organizations need to build to respond to obstacles in these challenging times. Resilience is a capacity of individuals, teams, organizations, communities, even society, that make them to overcome setbacks (such crises, changes, or turbulences) in a way that they not only survive but emerge even stronger. Previous research on resilience at different range of settings and groups show that resilience is a capacity that can be trained or build up. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to review the main lines of action available to organizations that want to foster resilience at work. The chapter will review theoretical research on workplace resilience, and empirical research that links Human Resources Management and workplace resilience. Aspects covered include the role that corporate social responsibility toward employees, career development or work–family balance have in developing resilience. The chapter closes with a discussion of some practical guidelines for HR managers and practitioners.

This research tested the crossover effects of a leader’s resilience on followers’ outcomes via followers’ resilience.

Survey data from 87 leaders with 309 followers, collected in two waves in China, were used to test the multilevel mediation hypotheses.

The results indicated that (1) resilience could transfer from the leader to followers, and (2) leader’s resilience could further contribute to alleviating followers’ job burnout, and prompt citizenship behaviors by enhancing followers’ resilience.

This study adopted a top-down perspective to test the crossover effects of resilience, thus expanding the resilience literature illustrating its distinct influential mechanism through a vertically interpersonal perspective.