Fostering Team Resilience Through Stressor Exposure: An Identity-Based Model and the Role of Charismatic Leadership

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

team resilience challenge-hindrance stressors collective team identification charismatic leadership team dynamics

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.

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.

Hypothesis 1a

Team challenge stressors are positively associated with collective team identification.

Hypothesis 1b

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:

Hypothesis 2

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.

Hypothesis 3a

Team challenge stressors are positively associated with team resilience capacity via collective team identification.

Hypothesis 3b

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:

Hypothesis 4a

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.

Hypothesis 4b

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:

Hypothesis 5a

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.

Hypothesis 5b

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

We implemented confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Mplus 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) to test team-level construct validity. As the ratio of the number of samples to the total number of items affects the overall model fit, we parceled our construct items to improve the estimation accuracy (Wilkinson, 2007). Charismatic leaders were parceled into two items according to their dimensions, and we employed Little et al.’s (2002) random algorithm to parcel the remaining constructs into two items. As shown in Table 1, our hypothesized five-factor model displayed a satisfactory fit to the data (χ²[110] = 216.77, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.08), as did other alternative models, such as the single-factor model where all variables loaded on a single factor (χ²[120] = 1156.86, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.23, CFI = 0.44, TLI = 0.36, SRMR = 0.18). Besides, we confirmed that team challenge and hindrance stressors are separate constructs, as the unrestricted two-factor model (χ²[14] = 18.14, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97) fits the data better than the model with all items in the same factor (χ[12] = 564.82, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.64, TLI = 0.64).

Table 1.

Comparison of Measurement Models.

Models	χ ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
1. Single-factor model (CS+HS+TR+CI+CL)	1156.86	120	9.64	0.23	0.44	0.36	0.18
2. Two-factor model (CS, HS+CI+TR+CL)	701.61	119	5.90	0.17	0.68	0.64	0.15
3. Three-factor model (CS, HS, CI+TR+CL)	340.45	117	2.91	0.11	0.88	0.86	0.12
4. Four-factor model (CS, HS, CI, TR+CL)	323.65	114	2.84	0.11	0.89	0.86	0.12
5. Five-factor model (CS, HS, CI, TR, CL)	216.77	110	1.97	0.07	0.94	0.93	0.08

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

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations of the variables and provides support for the associations among the variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Team size	1.81	0.20	-
2. Team duration	1.74	0.37	−0.01	-
3. Gender diversity	1.40	0.03	0.77**	−0.09	-
4. Age diversity	1.06	0.51	0.01	0.06	0.09	-
5. Education diversity	0.55	0.48	0.04	0.03	0.02	−0.01	-
6. Tenure diversity	3.76	2.34	0.10	0.12	0.08	−0.01	0.19*	-
7. Team reflexivity	3.23	1.00	−0.02	0.05	0.10	−0.08	−0.03	−0.01	-
8. Team challenge stressors	4.14	0.66	−0.03	0.02	0.06	−0.04	−0.16*	−0.12	0.25**	-
9. Team hindrance stressors	2.87	0.92	−0.01	0.03	0.03	0.30**	−0.02	0.01	−0.18*	−0.17*	-
10. Collective team identification	4.62	0.50	−0.10	−0.07	−0.04	−0.30**	−0.17*	−0.01	0.13	0.33**	−0.45**	-
11. Team resilience capacity	4.06	0.46	−0.18*	−0.16*	−0.10	−0.17*	−0.12	−0.05	0.23**	0.34**	−0.41**	0.66**	-
12. Charismatic leadership	4.03	1.43	0.07	0.14	0.14	−0.01	−0.29**	−0.05	0.01	0.40**	0.12	0.19*	0.11	-

Note. n = 167 teams. The team size and duration were logarithmically processed.

*p < .05.

**p < .01 (two-tailed tests).

Hypothesis Testing

The results of the regression analyses are summarized in Table 3. In Model 1, we simultaneously tested the direct influence of both types of team stressors on collective team identification. In Model 2, we allowed these effects to be moderated by charismatic leadership. Model 3 examined the direct effect of collective team identification on team resilience capacity.

Table 3.

Summary of Regressions.

Predictors	Endogenous variables
	Collective team identification		Team resilience capacity
	(Model 1)	(Model 2)	(Model 3)
Control variables
Team size	−0.28	−0.25	−0.16
Team duration	−0.10	0.05	0.16*
Gender diversity	0.22	0.62	−0.72
Age diversity	−0.19**	−0.19**	0.06
Education diversity	−0.15*	−0.11	0.01
Tenure diversity	0.01	0.02	−0.01
Team reflexivity	−0.01	0.01	0.06*
Direct effect
Team challenge stressor	−0.20**	0.31**	−0.06
Team hindrance stressor	0.20**	−0.18**	0.06
Mediating effect
Collective team identification			0.53**
Moderating effect
Charismatic leadership (CL)		0.01
Team challenge stressor × CL		0.17**
Team hindrance stressor × CL		0.10**
R²	0.33	0.46	0.52
F	8.82	10.70	16.55

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.

Figure 2.

Interaction between team challenge stressors and charismatic leadership in predicting collective team identification.

Figure 3.

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).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Xingyu Feng

Tianyi Long

Author Biographies

Xingyu Feng is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University. His research interests include team dynamics, leadership and positive psychology. His work has appeared in Journal of Business and Psychology, Applied Psychology, and Journal of Business Research, among others.

Tianyi Long is a Lecturer in human resource management at the University of Western Australia Business School. He received his PhD in management from Monash University. His research interests include well-being and resilience at both individual and team levels AI-HRM interactions, HR innovation and sustainability issues in HRM. His work has appeared in Human Resource Management Journal, Human Resource Management Review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Construction and Engineering Management, among others.

Ping Han is Professor of management in the School of Management, Xian Jiaotong University. She received her PhD in management from the same university. Her research focuses on work engagement, well-being, leadership, and trust.

References

Antonakis

Bastardoz

Jacquart

Shamir

(2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305

Antonakis

D’Adda

Weber

R. A.

Zehnder

(2022). “Just words? Just speeches?” On the economic value of charismatic leadership. Management Science, 68(9), 6355–6381. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4219

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059

Ashforth

B. E.

Schinoff

B. S.

Rogers

K. M.

(2016). “I Identify with her,” “I identify with him”: Unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0033

Avolio

B. J.

Bass

B. M.

(2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (TM). Mind Garden.

Balkundi

Kilduff

Harrison

D. A.

(2011). Centrality and charisma: Comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024890

Barrick

M. R.

Bradley

B. H.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Colbert

A. E.

(2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525781

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. Free Press.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.

10.

Bell

S. T.

Villado

A. J.

Lukasik

M. A.

Belau

Briggs

A. L.

(2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001

11.

Biemann

Kearney

(2010). Size does matter: How varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109338875

12.

Brislin

(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-culture psychology: Methodology (pp. 389–444). Allyn & Bacon.

13.

Brykman

K. M.

King

D. D.

(2021). A resource model of team resilience capacity and learning. Group & Organization Management, 46(4), 737–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211018008

14.

Carmeli

Schaubroeck

Tishler

(2011). How CEO empowering leadership shapes top management team processes: Implications for firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.013

15.

Cascio

W. F.

Montealegre

(2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352

16.

Cavanaugh

M. A.

Boswell

W. R.

Roehling

M. V.

Boudreau

J. W.

(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.1.65

17.

Chen

Kanfer

(2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 223–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(06)27006-0

18.

Chen

Westman

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2015). The commerce and crossover of resources: Resource conservation in the service of resilience. Stress and Health, 31(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2574

19.

Collins

M. D.

Dasborough

M. T.

Gregg

H. R.

Midel Deen

Restubog

S. L. D.

(2023). Traversing the storm: An interdisciplinary review of crisis leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), Article 101661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101661

20.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

Menon

S. T.

(2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21:7<747::aid-job46>3.3.co;2-a

21.

Courtright

S. H.

Colbert

A. E.

Choi

(2014). Fired up or burned out? How developmental challenge differentially impacts leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 681–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035790

22.

Crane

M. F.

Searle

B. J.

(2016). Building resilience through exposure to stressors: The effects of challenges versus hindrances. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040064

23.

Curran

P. G.

(2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006

24.

Davies

Tropp

L. R.

Aron

Pettigrew

T. F.

Wright

S. C.

(2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

25.

De Jong

B. A.

Elfring

(2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468649

26.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499

27.

Echambadi

Hess

J. D.

(2007). Mean-centering does not alleviate collinearity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science, 26(3), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0263

28.

Ekmekcioglu

E. B.

Aydintan

Celebi

(2018). The effect of charismatic leadership on coordinated teamwork: A study in Turkey. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(8), 1051–1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2017-0193

29.

Erez

Misangyi

V. F.

Johnson

D. E.

LePine

M. A.

Halverson

K. C.

(2008). Stirring the hearts of followers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal of affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.602

30.

Ernst

B. A.

Banks

G. C.

Loignon

A. C.

Frear

K. A.

Williams

C. E.

Arciniega

L. M.

Gupta

R. K.

Kodydek

Subramanian

(2022). Virtual charismatic leadership and signaling theory: A prospective meta-analysis in five countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(5), Article 101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101541

31.

Espedido

Searle

B. J.

Griffin

(2020). Peers, proactivity, and problem-solving: A multilevel study of team impacts on stress appraisals of problem-solving demands. Work & Stress, 34(3), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1579767

32.

Feng

(2022). Calm down and enjoy it: Influence of leader-employee mindfulness on flow experience. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 839–854. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S360880

33.

Feng

Han

Long

(2024). Teams’ stressors and flow experience: An energy-based perspective and the role of team mindfulness. Journal of Business Research, 183(2), Article 114860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114860

34.

Feng

Long

Han

(2025). How and when team mindfulness enables us to navigate adversity: Survey and field experimental evidence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-10004-5

35.

Galvin

B. M.

Balkundi

Waldman

D. A.

(2010). Spreading the word: The role of surrogates in charismatic leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.3.zok477

36.

Gebert

Heinitz

Buengeler

(2016). Leaders' charismatic leadership and followers' commitment — The moderating dynamics of value erosion at the societal level. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.006

37.

Gucciardi

D. F.

Crane

Ntoumanis

Parker

S. K.

Thøgersen‐Ntoumani

Ducker

K. J.

Peeling

Chapman

M. T.

Quested

Temby

(2018). The emergence of team resilience: A multilevel conceptual model of facilitating factors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 729–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12237

38.

Halverson

S. K.

Murphy

S. E.

Riggio

R. E.

(2004). Charismatic leadership in crisis situations: A laboratory investigation of stress and crisis. Small Group Research, 35(5), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404264178

39.

Han

Tang

X. M.

Yang

G. S. R.

Yang

(2023). Research on the relationship between informational team faultline and team resilience—team leader member exchange and team member exchange as mechanism. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 16, 3585–3597. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S436618

40.

Hartmann

Weiss

Hoegl

Carmeli

(2021). How does an emotional culture of joy cultivate team resilience? A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2496

41.

Hartmann

Weiss

Newman

Hoegl

(2020). Resilience in the workplace: A multilevel review and synthesis. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 913–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12191

42.

Hartwig

Clarke

Johnson

Willis

(2020). Workplace team resilience: A systematic review and conceptual development. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3-4), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620919476

43.

Haslam

S. A.

Jetten

Postmes

Haslam

(2009). Social identity, health and well‐being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x

44.

Hayes

A. F.

(2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683

45.

Hirst

Van Dick

Van Knippenberg

(2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 963–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.600

46.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

47.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. I.

(2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791606

48.

Iacobucci

Schneider

M. J.

Popovich

D. L.

Bakamitsos

G. A.

(2016). Mean centering helps alleviate “micro” but not “macro” multicollinearity. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1308–1317. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0624-x

49.

Joshi

Lazarova

M. B.

Liao

(2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20(1), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0383

50.

Keem

Koseoglu

Jeong

Shalley

C. E.

(2022). How does ethical leadership relate to team creativity? The role of collective team identification and need for cognitive closure. Group & Organization Management, 48(6), 1507–1543. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211072951

51.

Kim

T. Y.

Hon

A. H. Y.

Crant

J. M.

(2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9094-4

52.

King

D. D.

Newman

Luthans

(2016). Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 782–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2063

53.

Klasmeier

K. N.

Rowold

(2022). A diary study on shared leadership, team work engagement, and goal attainment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12371

54.

Le Blanc

P. M.

González-Romá

Wang

(2021). Charismatic leadership and work team innovative behavior: The role of team task interdependence and team potency. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(2), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09663-6

55.

Leblanc

P. M.

Rousseau

Harvey

J. F.

(2022). Leader humility and team innovation: The role of team reflexivity and team proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(8), 1396–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2648

56.

LePine

M. A.

(2022). The challenge-hindrance stressor framework: An integrative conceptual review and path forward. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 223–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221079970

57.

LePine

M. A.

Zhang

Crawford

E. R.

Rich

B. L.

(2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036–1059. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778

58.

Cropanzano

(2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management, 35(3), 564–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330557

59.

Lin

C. P.

Baruch

Ashforth

B. E.

(2017). The effect of team affective tone on team performance: The roles of team identification and team cooperation. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21810

60.

Litchfield

R. C.

Karakitapoğlu‐Aygün

Gumusluoglu

Carter

Hirst

(2018). When team identity helps innovation and when it hurts: Team identity and its relationship to team and cross‐team innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12410

61.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1

62.

Loi

Chan

K. W.

Lam

L. W.

(2014). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12028

63.

Lord

R. G.

Day

D. V.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Avolio

B. J.

Eagly

A. H.

(2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089

64.

Luan

Rico

Xie

X. Y.

Zhang

(2016). Collective team identification and external learning. Small Group Research, 47(4), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416653664

65.

Maruping

L. M.

Venkatesh

Thatcher

S. M. B.

Patel

P. C.

(2015). Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1313–1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0468

66.

Mayer

D. M.

Aquino

Greenbaum

R. L.

Kuenzi

(2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0276

67.

Mazzola

J. J.

Disselhorst

(2019). Should we be “challenging” employees? A critical review and meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412

68.

Meneghel

Martínez

I. M.

Salanova

(2016). Job-related antecedents of team resilience and improved team performance. Personnel Review, 45(3), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-04-2014-0094

69.

Meneghel

Salanova

Martínez

I. M.

(2016). Feeling good makes us stronger: How team resilience mediates the effect of positive emotions on team performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9592-6

70.

Meslec

Curseu

P. L.

Fodor

O. C.

Kenda

(2020). Effects of charismatic leadership and rewards on individual performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(6), Article 101423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101423

71.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Asencio

Seely

P. W.

DeChurch

L. A.

(2018). How organizational identity affects team functioning: The identity instrumentality hypothesis. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1530–1550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315614370

72.

Mohammed

Nadkarni

(2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967991

73.

Morgeson

F. P.

DeRue

D. S.

Karam

E. P.

(2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

74.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.

75.

Nederveen Pieterse

Van Knippenberg

Van Ginkel

W. P.

(2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.003

76.

Newman

D. A.

(2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 372–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114548590

77.

Zheng

Liang

L. H.

(2022). Rethinking the role of team mindfulness in team relationship conflict: A conflict management perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(5), 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2588

78.

Nielsen

Firth

Crawford

(2023). For better and worse: How proactive personality alters the strain responses to challenge and hindrance stressors. Organization Science, 34(2), 589–612. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1587

79.

O'Brien

K. E.

Beehr

T. A.

(2019). So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 962–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2405

80.

Pearsall

M. J.

Ellis

A. P. J.

Stein

J. H.

(2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002

81.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Freiburger

K. J.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Rosen

C. C.

(2023). Laying the foundation for the challenge–hindrance stressor framework 2.0. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 165–199. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-080422-052147

82.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

83.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

84.

Raetze

Duchek

Maynard

M. T.

Wohlgemuth

(2022). Resilience in organization-related research: An integrative conceptual review across disciplines and levels of analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(6), 867–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000952

85.

Rathbone

J. A.

Cruwys

Stevens

Ferris

L. J.

Reynolds

K. J.

(2023). The reciprocal relationship between social identity and adherence to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(3), 1346–1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12635

86.

Rauter

Weiss

Hoegl

(2018). Team learning from setbacks: A study in the context of start‐up teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2278

87.

Razinskas

Hoegl

(2020). A multilevel review of stressor research in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2420

88.

Razinskas

Weiss

Hoegl

Baer

(2022). Illuminating opposing performance effects of stressors in innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12622

89.

Rodell

J. B.

Judge

T. A.

(2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438–1451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016752

90.

Sacramento

C. A.

Fay

West

M. A.

(2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008

91.

Schilbach

Baethge

Rigotti

(2021). Do challenge and hindrance job demands prepare employees to demonstrate resilience? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(3), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000282

92.

Selig

J. P.

Preacher

K. J.

(2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human Development, 6(2-3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600902911247

93.

Shamir

House

R. J.

Arthur

M. B.

(1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577

94.

Shamir

Zakay

Breinin

Popper

(1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.5465/257080

95.

Sharma

P. N.

Pearsall

M. J.

(2016). Leading under adversity: Interactive effects of acute stressors and upper-level supportive leadership climate on lower-level supportive leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.003

96.

Sommer

S. A.

Howell

J. M.

Hadley

C. N.

(2016). Keeping positive and building strength: The role of affect and team leadership in developing resilience during an organizational crisis. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 172–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115578027

97.

Stoverink

A. C.

Kirkman

B. L.

Mistry

Rosen

(2020). Bouncing back together: Toward a theoretical model of work team resilience. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0005

98.

Van Der Vegt

Emans

Van De Vliert

(2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600403

99.

Van Der Vegt

G. S.

Bunderson

J. S.

(2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407918

100.

Van Dijk

Meyer

Van Engen

Loyd

D. L.

(2017). Microdynamics in diverse teams: A review and integration of the diversity and stereotyping literatures. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 517–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0046

101.

Van Knippenberg

Sitkin

S. B.

(2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.759433

102.

Watts

L. L.

Steele

L. M.

Mumford

M. D.

(2019). Making sense of pragmatic and charismatic leadership stories: Effects on vision formation. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.003

103.

Webster

J. R.

Beehr

T. A.

Love

(2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001

104.

Weiss

Hoegl

(2016). Effects of relative team size on teams with innovative tasks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(4), 324–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615620837

105.

Wilkin

C. L.

De Jong

J. P.

Rubino

(2018). Teaming up with temps: The impact of temporary workers on team social networks and effectiveness. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 27(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2017.1418329

106.

Wilkinson

W. W.

(2007). The structure of the Levenson locus of control scale in young adults: Comparing item and parcel indicator models. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1416–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.018

107.

Xie

Feng

(2024). Feeling stressed but in full flow? Leader mindfulness shapes subordinates’ perseverative cognition and reaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 39(3), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-03-2022-0140

108.

Yang

(2020). Daily stressor, daily resilience, and daily somatization: The role of trait aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 165(1), Article 110141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110141

109.

Zellmer-Bruhn

(2018). Introducing team mindfulness and considering its safeguard role against conflict transformation and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 324–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0094

110.

Zhang

Chen

X. P.

Liu

Johnson

M. D.

(2014). Relational versus collective identification within workgroups. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1700–1731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439421

111.

Zhang

LePine

J. A.

Buckman

B. R.

Wei

(2014). It's not fair … or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.1110

112.

Zhang

T. W. H.

Lam

S. S. K.

(2019). Promotion- and prevention-focused coping: A meta-analytic examination of regulatory strategies in the work stress process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1296–1323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000404

113.

Zhang

Yao

Yuan

Deng

Guo

(2021). Big five personality influences trajectories of information seeking behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 173(1), Article 110631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110631