Abstract
In today’s complex and turbulent business environment, it is increasingly important to understand how teams can build the ability to cope with and recover from adverse situations. Drawing on social identity theory and the self-enhancement prospect perspective, we propose that team resilience can be developed through exposure to team work stressors and the resulting identity-based mechanisms. Our model also examines the role of charismatic leadership in this process. Using a time-lagged, multisource survey of 167 teams in China, we found that team challenge stressors enhance team resilience capacity by fostering collective team identification, whereas team hindrance stressors undermine team resilience capacity by weakening this identification. Additionally, charismatic leadership strengthens the positive effects of challenge stressors on collective team identification and alleviates the detrimental impact of team hindrance stressors, ultimately enhancing team resilience capacity. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.
Keywords
In today’s globalized, fiercely competitive, and dynamic environment, organizations and their members face frequent challenges, including high complexity, constant changes, ongoing uncertainty, and major crises that can cause significant damage (Stoverink et al., 2020). As fundamental units within modern organizations, teams often bear the brunt of various adverse events (King et al., 2016; Rauter et al., 2018), such as frequent operational failures, intense business competition, and unexpected pandemics, all of which pose major challenges to their functioning, viability, and development (Stoverink et al., 2020). Since adversities and setbacks are inevitable across most, if not all, modern occupational settings, it is both theoretically and practically important to investigate how and when teams can develop the resilience to withstand and recover from adverse events (Gucciardi et al., 2018). However, recent reviews suggest that the theorization of team resilience capacity is still in its infancy (Hartmann et al., 2020; Hartwig et al., 2020; Raetze et al., 2022).
In this context, our primary goal is to identify factors that enhance team resilience and clarify the mechanisms (i.e., why) and boundaries (i.e., when) of team resilience effectiveness. Despite the lack of a precise definition, team resilience capacity is increasingly conceptualized as an emergent state that varies with context, inputs, and processes (Gucciardi et al., 2018). On this basis, scholars have explored various contextual factors, such as joy culture, voice climate, and leadership (e.g., Brykman & King, 2021; Hartmann et al., 2020, 2021), which foster environments that encourage teams to continuously invest current resources and increase their resource pool, thus preparing them for future adversity. Surprisingly, to our knowledge, no research has associated team-level resilience with stressful contexts where coping resources are insufficient. However, this association is possible. Recent reviews and experimental evidence indicate that regular exposure to certain types and levels of stressful events promotes future adjustment and adaptation at the individual, organizational, and community levels (e.g., Crane & Searle, 2016; Raetze et al., 2022; Schilbach et al., 2021). We extend this possibility to the team level to supplement the current resilience literature and provide new insights for practitioners into building resilient teams through job design.
One approach to studying the stress process in a more nuanced and realistic manner is to consider stressor types. To this end, we draw on the challenge–hindrance framework of Cavanaugh et al. (2000), which distinguishes two stressors on the basis of their opposite prospects for personal growth and rewards (LePine et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2023). Although this framework has been extended to the team level, scholars are beginning to explore the microfoundational mechanisms that mediate the effects of different stressors (Feng et al., 2024; Pearsall et al., 2009; Razinskas & Hoegl, 2020). We integrate this approach with social identity theory (SIT; Hogg & Terry, 2000) to develop an identification-based model to link team stressors with resilience results. According to SIT, team members’ shared identification with their social context (i.e., collective team identification) stems from whether they perceive positive utility and prospects in being part of the group (Ashforth et al., 2008, 2016; Haslam et al., 2009; Razinskas et al., 2022). Therefore, demands that do not present the potential for rewards and prevent team members from leveraging their full potential (i.e., team hindrance stressors) and those that present the possibility of growth and reward (i.e., team challenge stressors) differentially affect team members' social identification, which can bring team members together and galvanize them to pursue common goals and persevere through adversity.
Furthermore, we aim to identify contextual factors that can influence team members’ perceptions of prospects amid stressful environments and the resulting social identification. Given the complexity of team dynamics, investigating the conditions under which stressors are more (or less) effective also has practical importance for managing team stress (Feng et al., 2024; Maruping et al., 2015). In this study, we focus on charismatic leaders who offer inspirational vision, encourage enthusiasm and optimism, and serve as role models in pursuing lofty goals (Shamir et al., 1998; Sharma & Pearsall, 2016). Charismatic leaders are considered the most effective leader type in stressful contexts (Halverson et al., 2004; LePine et al., 2016; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), as they can shift followers’ perceptions of prospects for challenge stressors from “gains” to “more gains” and, in the case of hindrance stressors, from “pains” to “fewer pains” (Erez et al., 2008; LePine et al., 2016). Extending these findings to teams, we suggest that charismatic leaders enable team members to maintain the positive utility of being part of their team by foregrounding the prospect of potential rewards in confronting challenge stressors while easing the threatening feelings triggered by hindrance stressors. Consequently, team members can establish solid ties with their collective entities, laying the foundation for coping with crises. Our theoretical model is presented in Figure 1. Theoretical model.
We contribute to the literature in three significant ways. First, we expand the team resilience literature by elaborating on its mechanisms and boundary conditions. Existing research has highlighted the role of abundant resources (e.g., Brykman & King, 2021; Hartmann et al., 2021). We extend this view by investigating the role of exposure to resource scarcity contexts, specifically daily work stressors. Second, we advance the academic discourse concerning the team stress process. Most studies in this field have extended the influence of two stressors from the individual analysis level to the team level (e.g., Feng et al., 2024; Pearsall et al., 2009). We propose a social mechanism specific to the team level and confirm that team-level effects of certain contingent factors (e.g., leadership) may share limited similarities with their individual-level counterparts. These insights supplement the multilevel theory of stress. Finally, we enrich the understanding of how leadership affects team-level stress. The current understanding of how leaders influence the team stress process remains limited (Maruping et al., 2015; Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). Our exploration, which focuses on charismatic leadership, compensates for this deficiency. While recent research has suggested that charismatic leadership is ineffective in hindering stressful situations (e.g., LePine et al., 2016; Xie & Feng, 2024), our findings demonstrate that it can alleviate the detrimental effects of hindrance stressors on team identification processes. This result underscores the importance of considering the level of analysis when evaluating leadership effectiveness, as it reveals that charismatic leadership may function differently at the team level than at the individual level.
Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development
In positive psychology, resilience is defined as the ability of a system (e.g., an individual or community) to resist or recover from challenges that threaten its stability, survival, or development (Schilbach et al., 2021). At the team level, resilience refers to the “capacity of a team to successfully cope with adverse situations, adapt and grow” (Hartmann et al., 2021, p. 315). Before examining the antecedents of resilience, it is essential to understand the role of adversity, which encompasses events and situations of sufficient intensity and duration to impair team processes, coordination, and goal achievement (Stoverink et al., 2020). Although some stable features and characteristics (e.g., prior adaptation experience) can buffer the impact of adversity, team members must adopt context-specific strategies depending on the nature of the event (Gucciardi et al., 2018). Thus, while resilience capacity may exist independently of adversity, a team must experience adversity to demonstrate its actual resilience (Brykman & King, 2021; Gucciardi et al., 2018; Stoverink et al., 2020). In this context, when scholars and practitioners assert that a team possesses resilience capacity, they typically adopt an ex post perspective, suggesting that the team has effectively navigated recent adverse events (Hartmann et al., 2021; Stoverink et al., 2020).
Although empirical research on team resilience remains limited, scholars have shown that resource endowments can enhance team resilience. For example, Hartmann et al. (2021) suggested that an emotional culture of joy predicts team resilience through social and cognitive mechanisms (e.g., mutuality and reflexivity). Brykman and King (2021) identified a voice climate that promotes open discussion as a critical resource for helping teams manage and overcome adversity. Sommer et al. (2016) suggested that transformational leadership contributes to team resilience by providing emotional resources. These studies share a common approach by drawing on resource-related theories (Chen et al., 2015; Hobfoll et al., 2018) to identify fertile ground for creating resource caravans. In resource-rich environments, teams are better equipped to manage adversity and bounce back effectively (Chen et al., 2015; Stoverink et al., 2020).
However, less attention has been given to understanding the role of job characteristics, team job demands, or work stressors (Demerouti et al., 2001) in influencing team resilience. Unlike adversities, which involve sudden, severe events with lasting consequences (e.g., mergers, layoffs, Gucciardi et al., 2018), stressors refer to specific, recurring aspects of tasks or work environments with more predictable outcomes (e.g., interpersonal conflicts and workload). Research at the individual level suggests that exposure to daily work stressors can influence future resilience capacity (Meneghel, Martínez, & Salanova, 2016). For example, Crane and Searle (2016) and Schilbach et al. (2021) argued that growth-oriented stressors can prompt proactive responses, allowing individuals to acquire knowledge, confidence, and control for addressing future challenges. Conversely, failure to manage stressors can lead to avoidance behaviors, emotional distress, and diminished capacity for future adversity management due to a lack of learning and experience. At the team level, Meneghel, Martínez, and Salanova (2016) explored the link between stressors and resilience capacity but reported no significant relationship. They speculated that only stressors perceived as opportunities for growth, implementation, and rewards are likely to foster team resilience.
In the following sections, we review the theory of team stress and propose a social mechanism linking stressors to resilience, grounded in self-enhancement prospects inherent to different stressor types. We then examine the role of leaders as critical moderators, who can influence team members’ perceptions of prospects caused by stressors and, in turn, shape the development of team resilience capacity.
The Challenge–Hindrance Framework
In the job characteristics literature, work stressors are defined as the “physical, social, organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Stress is described as “a process set into motion when demands in the environment tax or exceed an individual’s resource” (LePine et al., 2016, p. 1037). To gain a nuanced understanding of stress processes, researchers often adopt Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) challenge–hindrance stressor framework, which categorizes stressors based on their effects on individuals’ outcomes. Challenge stressors, such as workload and time pressure, are associated with personal growth and rewards, often leading to positive physiological, psychological, and behavioral outcomes (LePine et al., 2016). In contrast, hindrance stressors, such as role ambiguity and interpersonal conflict, do not provide growth opportunities and may thwart progress, resulting in negative outcomes (LePine et al., 2016). This dichotomy has been applied at the team level, as team members are typically exposed to similar stressors, resulting in convergent cognition, shared emotions through emotional contagion, and collective behaviors via shared coping mechanisms (Pearsall et al., 2009; Razinskas & Hoegl, 2020; Sacramento et al., 2013).
Previous research has confirmed the opposing effects of these stressors on employees’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors (Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019; O’Brien & Beehr, 2019). Challenge stressors are linked to future resource investment and personal growth and often enhance motivation and foster problem-solving efforts due to their potential for returns (LePine et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2023). Conversely, hindrance stressors are barriers that obstruct goal achievement and growth, leading to avoidant coping strategies and resource depletion (LePine et al., 2016; O’Brien & Beehr, 2019). Crane and Searle (2016) and Schilbach et al. (2021) suggested that effectively addressing demands amid challenge stressors builds resources, thereby fostering resilience to face future adversities. However, failure to manage these demands amid hindrance stressors diminishes feelings of control and impedes learning, ultimately eroding the capacity to cope with future challenges.
The Identity-Based Mechanism Underlying the Team Stress Process
On the basis of the individual stressor‒resilience linkage, we suggest that similar effects can be observed at the team level. We draw on social identity theory (SIT) to establish theoretical underpinnings. SIT highlights how individuals identify with and commit to their social context, essentially illustrating how members emotionally and behaviorally attach to or detach from their teams (Ashforth et al., 2016; Haslam et al., 2009). Following previous studies, we use collective team identification—members’ shared emotional attachment to the team—to capture the results of the social identification process (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2011; Razinskas et al., 2022; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). SIT posits that collective team identification arises from members’ self-enhancement needs (Davies et al., 2011; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). When members perceive positive utility in being part of the group, they are more likely to bond with their social environment (i.e., team), show strong commitment to the team, and exert continuous efforts (Loi et al., 2014; Razinskas et al., 2022). Integrating these insights with stress research, we propose that the self-enhancement potential of team-level stressors determines team members’ inclination to bond with their team.
Hindrance stressors, which do not offer growth opportunities and deplete resources, can signal to members that the team does not prioritize their well-being, thereby eroding their pride in team membership and undermining shared values and goals (Razinskas et al., 2022). Consequently, team members may avoid their responsibilities or eventually contemplate detachment from the team. Considering the interdependent nature of teams, continuous internal monitoring enables team members to detect breakdowns in team interaction and mutual commitment (Pearsall et al., 2009). This perception is further intensified by negative emotional contagion, as frustration arises from the inability to overcome obstacles and a perceived lack of support from team members. Negative emotions, which are more easily transmitted and have broader effects than positive emotions, amplify collective negative appraisals of a situation and promote avoidant-oriented responses to hindrance stressors (Pearsall et al., 2009). Such environments stifle team members’ potential, leaving their self-enhancement needs unmet.
In contrast, team challenge stressors can satisfy members’ self-enhancement needs by offering opportunities for growth, development, and well-being at both the individual and team levels. Addressing these stressors successfully signals to members that their efforts are valuable, whether by taking on greater responsibilities or managing increased workloads. This signaling not only benefits individual members but also contributes to the team’s overall success (Razinskas et al., 2022). Hence, team members gain trust and recognition in their abilities, which in turn reinforces their self-concept and fosters greater alignment with the team’s collective goals. Additionally, the positive emotions elicited by team challenge stressors enhance interpersonal trust, social attraction, and mutual recognition (e.g., Lin et al., 2017; Meneghel, Salanova, & Martínez, 2016). Teams with a strong positive emotional tone are better equipped to socialize effectively, promoting cohesion and a shared sense of identity (Lin et al., 2017). Thus, team challenge stressors enable individuals to recognize their constructive contributions, thereby strengthening their identification with the team.
Team challenge stressors are positively associated with collective team identification.
Team hindrance stressors are negatively associated with collective team identification.
Collective team identification reflects the shared drive among team members to connect and engage with one another (Razinskas et al., 2022; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). This shared identification encourages team members to place greater value on collective attributes, such as goals, missions, and norms (Litchfield et al., 2018; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2018), increasing their willingness to invest substantial effort in the team’s success. Scholars have demonstrated that the social identity process motivates collective action and strengthens interpersonal relationships through its motivational and bonding effects (Ashforth et al., 2008, 2016; Davies et al., 2011; Keem et al., 2022; Luan et al., 2016), thus laying a strong foundation for team resilience.
First, collective team identification alleviates the loss of individual motivation during crises by emphasizing shared goals and prioritizing collective interests over personal concerns (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Litchfield et al., 2018). During adversity, individuals often shift their focus from collective to personal interests (Stoverink et al., 2020, p. 401). However, collective team identification shifts the narrative from “I” to “us”, reinforcing the importance of each member’s contributions. This cognitive shift allows the team to maintain its direction, slowing further resource losses (Stoverink et al., 2020). Additionally, when members perceive their teammates’ contributions as valuable, they reciprocate with greater efforts, creating a virtuous cycle of mutual support (Razinskas et al., 2022). This psychological integration with the team fosters increased motivation to confront adversities through coordinated individual and collective efforts. Overall, when team members achieve psychological integration with the team, their motivation to overcome adversities through individual and joint efforts is enhanced.
Second, team identification leads team members to internalize group values and norms (Rathbone et al., 2023; Zhang, Chen, et al., 2014), which aligns their behaviors, thoughts, and emotions with the team’s objectives in high-stress environments (Keem et al., 2022; Zhang, Chen, et al., 2014). Identified team members share positive emotions and vitality, promoting trust, cohesion, and cooperative behaviors in times of adversity (Luan et al., 2016). A strong emotional attachment to the team creates a safe psychological climate, which enables open communication, shared perspectives, and the construction of a collective reality (Keem et al., 2022; Stoverink et al., 2020). Such an environment helps members better understand their roles and responsibilities within the team, thereby facilitating adaptive responses to adverse situations through open discussions, scenario planning, and proactive decision-making (Davies et al., 2011; Stoverink et al., 2020). Thus, we propose the following:
Collective team identification is positively associated with team resilience capacity.
Based on the above reasoning, we propose a mediating model. In hindering contexts, resource stagnation and loss prospects diminish team members’ opportunities to fulfill self-enhancement motives, which reduces collective team identification and, in turn, weakens teams’ resilience capacity. In contrast, successfully completing challenging yet rewarding tasks fosters a sense of commitment and recognition among team members. This shared sense of accomplishment enables the coordination of efforts and supports strong interpersonal relationships, which collectively enhance the team’s ability to withstand and recover from adverse conditions.
Team challenge stressors are positively associated with team resilience capacity via collective team identification.
Team hindrance stressors are negatively associated with team resilience capacity via collective team identification.
The Effect of Charismatic Leadership on the Stress Process
At the highest level of the full-range leadership model, charismatic leadership, often operationalized with transformational leadership dimensions (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994), plays a pivotal role in shaping team dynamics under stress. Charismatic leadership comprises idealized influence, where leaders articulate core values, a collective mission, a sense of purpose, and inspirational motivation, which emphasize optimism, enthusiasm, and high yet attainable performance expectations (LePine et al., 2016; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Through these behaviors, charismatic leaders foster trust, value recognition, and a shared commitment within teams, forming the foundation for collective efforts toward goal achievement (Antonakis et al., 2022; Balkundi et al., 2011; Meslec et al., 2020).
Charismatic leaders are particularly effective in stressful contexts (Halverson et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). By approaching challenges with optimism and setting high standards, these leaders encourage team members to view demands as opportunities for growth and achievement (Shamir et al., 1998; Sharma & Pearsall, 2016). For example, leaders’ inspirational motivation has been shown to enhance team members’ belief in achieving shared goals (Hirst et al., 2009) and to build collective resources through positive emotional contagion and mimicry (Erez et al., 2008). Moreover, charismatic leaders help reframe stressors, thus fostering positive appraisals of challenge stressors while mitigating negative reactions to hindrance stressors (LePine et al., 2016). This dual capacity to shape followers’ perceptions and responses strengthens team identification, which is crucial for collective resilience.
Although empirical evidence on the role of charismatic leadership in team stress management is limited, the above findings suggest that charismatic leaders can reshape team members’ perceptions of the prospects of stressors. By framing stressors as opportunities and emphasizing shared goals, charismatic leaders may bolster collective team identification, thereby enhancing resilience in the face of adversity.
The Moderating Role of Charismatic Leadership in the Linkage Between Stressors and Social Identification
First, charismatic leaders convey an optimistic vision of the future, which reshapes team members’ perceptions of stressors. Specifically, they cultivate a stress-is-enhancing mindset in teams by emphasizing the intrinsic self-enhancement potential of challenging tasks (LePine et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1998), thus encouraging team members to align with collective goals and sustain team-oriented efforts (Courtright et al., 2014; LePine et al., 2016; Meslec et al., 2020). Additionally, by strategically assigning tasks and minimizing overlaps, charismatic leaders ensure effective skill allocation, further satisfying members’ self-enhancement needs and enhancing their identification with the workgroup (Conger et al., 2000; Keem et al., 2022; Razinskas et al., 2022). On the other hand, charismatic leaders help reduce the stress-is-debilitating mindset. By modeling purpose-driven behavior and confidence in overcoming obstacles, they can guide teams can approach hindrance stressors with composure, focusing on resource reallocation and stressor mitigation (Le Blanc et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2019). This approach can reduce the adverse impact of hindrance stressors on team members’ self-enhancement and identification with the team.
Second, charismatic leaders provide emotional resources that regulate team members’ responses to stressors (LePine et al., 2016). They model optimism, enthusiasm, and confidence, which positively influence members’ affective states and broaden their cognitive and behavioral responses (Erez et al., 2008; Hartmann et al., 2021). Therefore, team members are more likely to view situations as opportunities and actively engage in problem-solving processes. In addition, these positive emotional resources allow team members to recover from psychological and physical impairments. Charismatic leaders also foster an expectancy belief that the team can overcome obstacles and achieve the desired results through collective efforts (LePine et al., 2016; Shamir et al., 1993). This belief enhances collective motivation, reduces negative emotional contagion, and mitigates consequent resource depletion. Hence, members are less likely to become mentally distant from the team and its shared interests. Therefore, we propose the following:
Charismatic leaders moderate the positive association between team challenge stressors and collective team identification such that this association is more positive for teams whose leaders are more charismatic.
Charismatic leaders moderate the negative association between team hindrance stressors and collective team identification such that this association is less negative for teams whose leaders are more charismatic.
We further propose a moderated mediation model. Team challenge and hindrance stressors present different opportunities for self-enhancement. These differences influence the likelihood of members forming emotional bonds with their social environment, which we designate as collective team identification. Furthermore, through the motivation and bonding effects of team identification, the whole team can develop the capacity to recover from various adversities, that is, resilience. Charismatic leaders moderate the process of social identity formation in response to stressful events, enhancing both emotional and cognitive benefits and ultimately accelerating the emergence of team resilience. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Charismatic leaders moderate the indirect effect of team challenge stressors on team resilience capacity via collective team identification such that this effect is more positive for teams whose leaders are more charismatic.
Charismatic leaders moderate the indirect effect of team hindrance stressors on team resilience capacity via collective team identification such that this effect is less negative for teams whose leaders are more charismatic.
Method
Procedure and Participants
We collected data from several entrepreneurial parks in China. The sample was particularly relevant to our topic, as start-up teams are subject to high levels of uncertainty and failure and therefore provide an ideal context to investigate the emergence of resilience. Each enterprise studied has operated for at least 4 years and thus approximates the typical organizational setting in many respects. The research was conducted with permission and support from the managers, and the human resource departments provided employee directories. We gathered data from either entire small departments or multiple project teams within larger departments. At the beginning of the survey, we clarified the associations between leaders and teams, as well as team membership, to ensure that the participants understood the context of the questionnaire (Brykman & King, 2021). We excluded participants who were still in the probationary period (fewer than 3 months) to ensure that all the subjects were familiar with their work content and had established stable relationships with teammates and leaders (e.g., Kim et al., 2009; Wilkin et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). After balancing the length of the study with potential attrition, we set the interval between each survey round to 1 month, and data were collected from numerous sources to alleviate common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
A total of 1744 eligible employees (N team member = 1453, N team leader = 167, N supervisor of leader = 124) agreed to participate in our study. Before we administered the formal survey, all participants were informed of the anonymity and confidentiality of the data. Our data were collected via paper questionnaires, with demographic information provided by human resource departments. Subjects who were on business trips or leave provided data through an electronic questionnaire. In the first round of the survey (T1), 1453 members assessed team stressors, and 1309 questionnaires were obtained, representing a 90.09% response rate. In the second round (T2), members who finished the first-round survey evaluated their identification, whereas 124 superior leaders assessed how charismatic their subordinates (i.e., 167 team leaders) were. We obtained 1180 team member questionnaires and 167 team leader questionnaires. The response rates for team members and the superiors of team leaders were 90.15% and 100%, respectively. In the final round (T3), 167 team leaders were asked to evaluate team resilience capacity, as they have comprehensive knowledge of overall functioning in adverse contexts (Razinskas et al., 2022). Additionally, meta-analytic evidence suggests that leader ratings have greater interrater and intrarater reliability than self-ratings of socially desirable behaviors do (Espedido et al., 2020). The response rate for this round was 100%. We further screened for valid samples from the collected datasets (N team member = 1180, N team leader = 167). Following the recommendations of previous research (e.g., Curran, 2016; Newman, 2014), we excluded certain samples from the subsequent analysis. Specifically, 13 team members did not provide any responses, 98 members exhibited obvious response patterns in their questionnaires (e.g., sequential patterns such as 123456), and 32 members requested to withdraw from the survey before completion. Importantly, there were no significant demographic differences between the employee samples excluded from the analysis and those included in the final dataset, thus affirming the robustness of our results.
Our final sample included 167 team leaders and 1037 team members. The team sizes ranged from 3 to 12, with an average of 6.21 people per team (SD = 1.17). The ratio of males to females was similar (49.30% vs. 50.70%). The mean age of the participants was 32.64 ± 7.40 years. Most team members held a bachelor’s degree or above (91.05%), with a tenure in their current department or team of 15.39 ± 6.31 months. The average age of the team leaders was 37.13 ± 6.56 years, and they were mainly male (64.07%). The proportion of team members with a master’s degree or above was 46.10%, and their tenure in their department or team was 32.11 ± 4.57 months.
Measures
All the scales were back-translated, and their reliability and validity have been confirmed in previous research (Brislin, 1980). Unless otherwise specified, we scored all the measures on 6-point Likert scales (1 = totally disagree, 6 = totally agree). To remind the subjects to answer according to the actual team situation, we used the language “in our team/department…” at the beginning of each scale. For the responses from team members, we calculated the interrater agreement coefficient (r wg ), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1 and ICC2), and significance of the F test for between-group differences to evaluate the levels of within-team agreement. The results indicate the high suitability of aggregating team members’ responses at the team level.
Team Work Stressors (Rated by Team Members)
Team stressors were measured by the 8-item composite stressor scale compiled by Rodell and Judge (2009). Sample items include “My work requires me to work very hard (challenge stressors)” and “To finish my work, I have to go through a lot of red tape (hindrance stressors)”. All the items were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = never to 6 = always). The two scales showed good reliability and aggregation statistics (hindrance stressors: Cronbach’s α = 0.83, r wg = 0.86, ICC1 = 0.35, ICC2 = 0.77, F = 4.40, p < .001; challenge stressors: Cronbach’s α = 0.85, r wg = 0.92, ICC1 = 0.27, ICC2 = 0.69, F = 3.02, p < .001).
Collective Team Identification (Rated by Team Members)
Following prior research (e.g., Razinskas et al., 2022; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), we operationalized collective team identification by assessing the team commitment of team members on a 4-item scale compiled by Van Der Vegt et al. (2000). A sample item is “I feel proud to belong to this team”. This scale showed excellent reliability and acceptable aggregation statistics (Cronbach’s α = 0.85, r wg = 0.76, ICC1 = 0.22, ICC2 = 0.62, F = 2.60, p < .001).
Team Resilience Capacity (Rated by Team Leader)
A 10-item scale developed and validated by Hartmann et al. (2021) was utilized to assess team resilience capacity. Consistent with our conceptualization, this scale captures a team’s demonstrated ability to successfully navigate and recover from adverse events, as observed and evaluated by their leaders (e.g., Espedido et al., 2020; Han et al., 2023; Meneghel, Martínez, & Salanova, 2016). Sample items include “My team can achieve its goals despite obstacles” and “My team is able to adapt to change” (Cronbach’s α = 0.89).
Charismatic Leadership (Rated by Superior Leader)
We employed two subscales (idealized influence and inspirational motivation, each with 4 items) by Avolio and Bass (2004) to measure charismatic leadership. Sample items include “...the importance of having a collective sense of mission” (idealized influence) and “… articulates a compelling vision of the future (inspirational motivation)”. This combination assesses the actual leader behaviors observed by both superiors and subordinates (LePine et al., 2016; Mayer et al., 2012; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). The scale ranges from 1 for “never” to 6 for “always” and has good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.94).
Control Variables
Some variables theoretically related to our hypotheses were controlled to reduce potential confounding effects. First, we added the logarithms of team size (the total number of team members, excluding leaders) and team duration (the total number of months since the team was established) into our model. It is important to measure both metrics because it takes time for members to identify with their team (Razinskas et al., 2022; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), and team size is related to difficulties in communication and skill coordination during adversity (Weiss & Hoegl, 2016).
Second, we controlled for demographic diversity within the team. Previous evidence suggests that team demographic diversity, including gender, education, age, and organizational membership (tenure), affects team member interactions and their capacity under stress (Bell et al., 2011; Feng et al., 2024, 2025; Razinskas et al., 2022). For instance, Bell et al. (2011) indicated that variations in team members’ educational backgrounds can influence team dynamics, information sharing, and decision-making processes. Diversity factors may also influence social categorization processes, as teams with greater diversity more easily form subgroups, resulting in greater resistance to coordination and more interpersonal conflicts during adversity (Ni et al., 2022; Razinskas et al., 2022; Van Dijk et al., 2017). Following prior recommendations (Barrick et al., 2007; Biemann & Kearney, 2010; Feng et al., 2024, 2025; Ni et al., 2022), for categorical data (i.e., categorical variables, gender), we calculated the Blau N index that has been corrected for differences in team size. For ratio data (i.e., continuous variables, education, age, and tenure), we calculated the unbiased analysis of the standard deviation to capture diversity.
Third, we controlled for team reflexivity, which refers to the extent to which teams reflect upon and adapt their functioning (Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2011). In reflexive teams, members actively update and share situational awareness, allowing them to identify when adjustments to their behaviors are needed and to devise effective action plans for managing adverse events (Hartmann et al., 2021; Leblanc et al., 2022; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2011). Given its potential to influence team resilience by fostering adaptability and coordinated responses, controlling for team reflexivity ensured that our findings captured the effects of the variables of interest on team resilience. Team leaders rated team reflexivity via the 5-item scale developed by De Jong and Elfring (2010). A sample item is “In the team, we often discuss the feasibility of our goals” (Cronbach’s α = 0.86).
Validity Test
Comparison of Measurement Models.
Note. N = 167 teams.
CS = team challenge stressors, HS = team hindrance stressors, TR = team resilience capacity, CI = collective team identification, CL = charismatic leadership.
Analytic Strategy
We tested hypotheses via regressions in SPSS and modeling analysis in Mplus. Following Razinskas et al. (2022) and Rodell and Judge (2009), when we estimated the models, we added both types of team stressors to avoid confounding our results. We applied bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 resamples to test for mediation to obtain a 95% confidence interval (CI) for indirect effects. We estimated the simple slope for the effect of team challenge-hindrance stressors under high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of charismatic leadership (Preacher et al., 2007). Finally, we tested the moderated mediation model by calculating the effect value and 95% CI of the indirect effects under different levels of charismatic leadership. Following Hayes’s (2015) suggestion, we used the moderated mediation index as a more accurate criterion. We grand-mean centered the predictors and control variables to achieve nondimensionalization and improve estimation accuracy (Echambadi & Hess, 2007; Iacobucci et al., 2016).
Results
Preliminary Testing
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
Note. n = 167 teams. The team size and duration were logarithmically processed.
*p < .05.
**p < .01 (two-tailed tests).
Hypothesis Testing
Summary of Regressions.
Note. N = 167 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
*p < .05.
**p < .01 (two-tailed tests).
Direct Effects
According to Model 1, team challenge stressors were positively associated with collective team identification (β = 0.20, p < .01), whereas team hindrance stressors were negatively associated with collective team identification (β = −0.20, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed. As indicated by Model 3, collective team identification had a positive effect on team resilience capacity (β = 0.53, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Mediation Effects
The bootstrap results demonstrated that collective team identification mediated the positive influence of team challenge stressors on team resilience capacity (b = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.056, 0.179]) and the negative influence of hindrance stressors (b = −0.12, 95% CI = [−0.169, −0.078]). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Moderating Effects
As illustrated in Model 2, charismatic leadership positively moderated the effect of team challenge stressors on collective team identification (β = 0.17, p < .01) and the negative effect of team hindrance stressors (β = 0.10, p < .01). The simple slope depicted in Figure 2 confirmed that the influence of team challenge stressors on collective team identification was more positive for teams whose leaders were more charismatic (γ = 0.48, t = 4.38, p < .001) than for teams whose leaders were less charismatic (γ = 0.31, t = 6.93, p < .001). Additionally, the simple slope test in Figure 3 indicated that for teams under the supervision of a lower-charismatic leader, team hindrance stressors were negatively related to collective team identification (γ = −0.18, t = −4.03, p < .001); however, this relationship became insignificant for teams with more charismatic leaders (γ = −0.08, t = −0.73, p = .46). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Interaction between team challenge stressors and charismatic leadership in predicting collective team identification. Interaction between team hindrance stressors and charismatic leadership in predicting collective team Identification.
Moderated Mediation Effects
We again used the bootstrap approach to test the moderated mediating effect. For team challenge stressors, when charismatic leadership was low, its indirect effect on team resilience capacity via collective team identification was nonsignificant (ρ = 0.04, p = .28), whereas under high charismatic leadership, the effect became significant (ρ = 0.29, p < .001). The difference (ρ = 0.25, p < .001) and the moderated mediation index were significant (k = 0.086, p < .001). These findings support Hypothesis 5a. For team hindrance stressors, their negative indirect effect on team resilience capacity through collective team identification was significant when high charismatic leadership was low (ρ = −0.20, p < .001) but became insignificant when charismatic leadership was high (ρ = −0.03, p = .05). The difference was significant (ρ = 0.16, p < .01), as was the moderated mediation index (k = 0.057, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 5b was supported.
Supplementary Analyses
We performed a series of supplemental tests to check the robustness of our results. First, we compared the pattern, direction, or size of the models with and without control variables and confirmed that the existence of extra variables did not change our results. We also reran the model by adding further control variables, such as the demographic characteristics of leaders (age, education, and tenure in the current team) and the active time in the market of enterprises (more than or less than 5 years) (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). These extra variables did not significantly improve the original model. Moreover, although our samples come from start-up parks, the enterprises belong to different industries; thus, the team structure may differ (Brykman & King, 2021). The ANOVA revealed no significant difference in our focus variables across different industries.
Moreover, in reality, teams rarely face isolated environmental stimuli, and various types of stressors coexist and interact with one another; thus, we sought to control for the confounding effect caused by the combination of two stressors. At present, there is mixed evidence regarding the consequences of combined effects, which may depend on the dominant type of stressor combination (see Pearsall et al., 2009), and further discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, we added the interaction term to the model and found that the positive effect of team challenge stressors on collective team identification remained significant (β = 0.22, p < .001), as did the negative effect of team hindrance stressors (β = −0.22, p < .001). Additionally, the moderating effect of charismatic leadership on the challenge and hindrance stress processes was significant (β = 0.15, p < .001; β = 0.16, p < .05, respectively). Surprisingly, charismatic leadership did not significantly affect the impact of the stressor interaction (β = −0.03, n.s.). We provide explanations for this finding in the Discussion section.
Discussion
We developed a theoretical model to illustrate how and when team resilience capacity can be cultivated through exposure to work stressors. Our findings indicate that collective team identification mediates the opposite influence of team challenge and hindrance stressors on team resilience capacity. Additionally, charismatic leadership strengthens the positive effect of challenge stressors on collective team identification and weakens the harmful effect of hindrance stressors, making a team more likely to increase its resilience capacity.
Theoretical Implications
Our study makes three significant contributions. First, given that team resilience research has gained momentum only in the last decade, our in-depth exploration of the mechanisms and boundaries of team resilience expands the nomological networks of the research. Previous explorations have relied mainly on resource theory, which proposes that resilience stems from the key resources needed to overcome adversity (e.g., Stoverink et al., 2020). However, this work has overlooked that resilience can also emerge from resource scarcity, for example, in the presence of stressors. Although Meneghel, Martínez, and Salanova (2016) touched on this idea, they did not differentiate between the attributes of stressors. Our research addresses this gap by providing empirical evidence at the team level, supporting the notion that challenging stressors can enhance resilience, whereas hindrance stressors tend to impair it (Crane & Searle, 2016; Schilbach et al., 2021). This perspective encourages scholars to shift their focus to situations with relatively insufficient resources. Furthermore, we advance the understanding of the organizational factors influencing team resilience. Previous research has focused on bidirectional or multidirectional interactions among members, such as voice climates or positive emotions, as nurturing grounds for resource growth (e.g., Brykman & King, 2021; Hartmann et al., 2021). However, one-way processes, such as members’ identification with the team and attitudes toward it, have been largely ignored. We propose that the personal growth and reward prospects embedded in stressors explain the different effects of challenge and hindrance stressors. Satisfying members’ self-enhancement needs and fostering shared commitment contribute to team resilience. These findings provide new insights into the antecedents and processes of team resilience.
Second, our findings advance the understanding of the stress process, especially its multilevel theorizing. Although the challenge–hindrance framework is well established in individual-level research, the mechanisms through which different types of team stressors influence outcomes are largely understudied (Maruping et al., 2015; Pearsall et al., 2009). Existing studies often assume that team-level stressors work through the same mechanisms as individual-level stressors do and thus overlook mechanisms unique to the team’s social context (Li & Cropanzano, 2009; Pearsall et al., 2009; Razinskas et al., 2022). Drawing on SIT, we provide empirical support for the view that the effects of team stressors depend on socialized relationships and identity-based mechanisms (Razinskas et al., 2022; Razinskas & Hoegl, 2020). Moreover, our research advances the discussion of the stress management role of leaders (e.g., Zhang, LePine, et al., 2014). Our findings indicate that even the same contextual factors (i.e., charismatic leadership) have different effects at different levels of analysis (individual vs. team). While prior studies have suggested that charismatic leadership may not influence individual responses to hindrance stressors (e.g., LePine et al., 2016), our study demonstrates its potential to alleviate the impact of such stressors at the team level. Thus, the means and boundaries by which stressors shape results at the individual level may not fully apply to team-level contexts, highlighting the need for further investigation into how close interactions and interdependencies among members can drive these differences.
Finally, we extend the literature on the role of leadership in team processes. While previous studies have extensively documented how leaders influence individuals’ interpretations of job characteristics (Carmeli et al., 2011; Collins et al., 2023; Lord et al., 2017; Morgeson et al., 2010), few studies have explored their role in managing team stress or providing cognitive, emotional, and motivational resources to help team members navigate stressful events (Ekmekcioglu et al., 2018; Gebert et al., 2016). Notably, the indirect mechanisms through which leaders affect the team stress process remain underexplored (Maruping et al., 2015; Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). We contribute to this literature by investigating the contingent role of charismatic leadership in shaping teams’ identity-based responses to stressful demands. This study underscores the importance of socialized relationships as nuanced pathways through which charismatic leadership impacts teams. In contrast to recent individual-level studies (e.g., LePine et al., 2016; Xie & Feng, 2024) suggesting that charismatic leadership is ineffective in hindrance stress environments and that its effectiveness depends on the type of stressor, our findings reveal that charismatic leadership supports teams in coping with stressful situations. We provide empirical support for the importance of considering analysis levels when assessing charismatic leadership effectiveness. Additionally, this study offers new evidence at the team level for the widely held belief that charismatic leaders are particularly adept at guiding organizations through adversities (Antonakis et al., 2016, 2022; Collins et al., 2023; Halverson et al., 2004).
Practical Implications
We also offer useful insights for group and organization practice. First, recognizing that challenge and hindrance stressors affect members’ identification and team resilience differently, leaders should carefully assess the nature of current stressors and redesign work accordingly. For example, hindrance elements in the workplace, such as red tape and administrative hassles, should be eliminated. Additionally, managers can purposely add challenging components to tasks, such as autonomy and work responsibility, to help team members cohere and alleviate the negative influence of hindrance stressors.
Second, as members’ shared commitment and identification with the team are crucial for addressing future adversities, leaders and organizations should implement interventions to monitor and strengthen these factors. For example, it is advisable to provide opportunities for professional growth and development and recognize members for their substantial effort through regular feedback, which can strengthen individuals’ awareness of how to contribute to the team and ensure that they feel valued and respected for their contributions. Moreover, organizations can engage in activities such as team outings, social events, or informal gatherings to consolidate team members’ connections.
Finally, we encourage organizations to explicitly identify managing stress as the responsibility of leaders. A leader should realize that they can influence team members’ perceptions of whether they can play a positive role in a stressful environment and establish ties with the team. For example, articulating an attractive vision can help increase subordinates’ perceptions of potential rewards, whereas maintaining an optimistic and passionate demeanor can improve their confidence in overcoming obstacles. Moreover, many characteristics of charismatic leadership, such as the expression of vision or the communication of optimism, can be cultivated through training (Lord et al., 2017; Watts et al., 2019). Hence, organizations can implement charismatic leadership training programs and use these traits as the key criteria for leader promotions and appointments.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The following limitations should be acknowledged. First, although our design sought to mitigate common method variation (Podsakoff et al., 2012), we relied on self-reported data and cannot rule out reverse causality. In addition, while we implemented several control measures (e.g., using charts and prompts to guide participants in reflecting on team-specific experiences), aggregating individual responses to represent team-level constructs may not fully capture the complexity of these dynamics. To address these issues, future research should develop and incorporate more objective measures to better assess team dynamics and stressor effects. These measures could include longitudinal designs or observational methods to track stressor changes over time and their influence on team outcomes.
Second, some team-level constructs in this study have dynamic properties, but the current design could not capture their changes over time by measuring them at one time point (Brykman & King, 2021), nor could it illustrate how short-term temporal changes in individuals’ stress response (e.g., daily resilience or daily stressors, Yang, 2020) are associated with team outcomes (Klasmeier & Rowold, 2022). Future studies should break new ground by combining objective data with experimental or time-separated designs, such as the diary method. For example, employing latent change score modeling or Bayesian multilevel modeling to segregate within-unit changes from between-unit differences enables scholars to move from building simple linkages to explaining team dynamic processes (see Hartmann et al., 2021; Selig & Preacher, 2009) and reduces possible endogeneity bias for within-team relationships due to between-team differences (Klasmeier & Rowold, 2022).
Third, we consider only one possible mechanism, and future researchers can explore the effects of other types of leadership or team properties. For example, research can explore how team mindfulness, which encourages team members to pay attention to tasks without being immersed in negative experiences, enhances mutual trust and reduces interpersonal conflict (Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018) and the effects of mindful leaders, who direct team members to establish a wise and reasonable explanation to cope with adverse events (Feng, 2022; Ni et al., 2022). In addition, a recent review and empirical study revealed that the different effects of team stressors may also depend on information-based mechanisms (Razinskas et al., 2022; Razinskas & Hoegl, 2020). Hence, scholars could explore contextual factors that impact the amount and depth of information team members process to cope with stressors.
Fourth, our research focused on teams operating in traditional workplace settings, where leaders influence their followers through close and continuous interactions. However, the growing integration of advanced information technology and dispersed work arrangements is reshaping traditional teamwork patterns (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016). These changes alter how team members socialize and emphasize the importance of charismatic leadership (Ernst et al., 2022). For example, in remote work environments lacking face-to-face interactions, charismatic leaders may “replace” the psychological markers of team membership by fostering a shared sense of identity and directing members’ attitudes toward the team (Joshi et al., 2009). Additionally, group members can amplify the charisma of leaders in long-distance settings through surrogate behaviors, such as modeling followership (Galvin et al., 2010). This evolving context presents an exciting avenue for future research on teams working remotely. Investigating the dynamics of charismatic leadership in such settings could yield novel insights into team management and leadership effectiveness.
Fifth, we used a sample from China to respond to the call to test leadership theories in non-Western cultures (Maruping et al., 2015; Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). The collection of data from a variety of enterprises and departments may allow our conclusions to be extended to other similar contexts. Nevertheless, the generalizability of the current conclusions may be limited by the cultural context. For example, as mainland China has a culture characterized by high power distance and collectivism, prioritizing team interests may accelerate the formation of collective team identification (Ni et al., 2022), and the obedience of instructions from leaders may enhance the positive effect of charismatic leaders. Additionally, compared with previous team resilience studies (e.g., Brykman & King, 2021), our sample has a higher level of education, a longer tenure in the current team, and a greater number of male leaders. Therefore, constructive replications and further investigation in other settings are needed.
Finally, we relied on the widely utilized challenge-hindrance stressor framework to develop our theory. However, recent meta-analyses, reviews, and empirical studies have raised questions regarding its explanatory power (e.g., Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019; O'Brien & Beehr, 2019; Podsakoff et al., 2023). A significant concern is that this framework oversimplifies the classification of stressors into only two categories, neglecting the diversity among individuals or teams (e.g., their subjective appraisals; LePine et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2011). In addition, this framework believes that the attributes of stressors are stable, but research shows that even “good stressors” can yield adverse effects and vice versa (e.g., Feng et al., 2024; LePine, 2022; Xie & Feng, 2024). Although we still lack a more practical and intuitive stressor framework (O'Brien & Beehr, 2019), scholars should remain attentive to the latest advancements in stress research to refine our proposed model.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Associate Editor Dr Hendrik van de Brake and two anonymous reviewers for their professional and detailed comments for improving our work.
Author Contributions
The first author is the initiator of this study, proposing theories and constructing models, monitoring research progress, conducting data collection and analysis, writing initial drafts and revisions. The other two authors provided funding and data. All three authors participated in revising and proofreading the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Monash PhD Global Mobility program (receiver: the first author). This research was funded by supported by the general project of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (72271196, 71671137, receiver: the third author).
