Article C

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjrl20

The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied

ISSN: 0022-3980 (Print) 1940-1019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Bouncing Back from Setbacks: On the Mediating Role of Team Resilience in the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Team Effectiveness

Isabel Dórdio Dimas, Teresa Rebelo, Paulo Renato Lourenço & Carina Isabel Pereira Pessoa

To cite this article: Isabel Dórdio Dimas, Teresa Rebelo, Paulo Renato Lourenço & Carina Isabel Pereira Pessoa (2018) Bouncing Back from Setbacks: On the Mediating Role of Team Resilience in the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Team Effectiveness, The Journal of Psychology, 152:6, 358-372, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2018.1465022

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1465022

Published online: 08 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 398

View Crossmark data

Bouncing Back from Setbacks: On the Mediating Role of Team Resilience in the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Team Effectiveness

Isabel D�ordio Dimas a, Teresa Rebelo b, Paulo Renato Lourenço b, and Carina Isabel Pereira Pessoa b

aUniversity of Aveiro; bUniversity of Coimbra

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 31 July 2017 Accepted 9 April 2018

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to clarify the role of team resilience on different facets of effectiveness (team viability and quality of the group experience). Moreover, given the importance of team resilience for the organizational context, it was also our aim to contribute to the study of the conditions that promote team resilience, analyzing the role of transformational leadership. Finally, we examined whether the relationship between transformational leadership and team resilience stimulates positive team outcomes. Ninety teams (445 employees from 40 companies) were surveyed and path analysis was used in the test of the hypotheses. The results showed a positive direct effect of team resilience on both team viability and the quality of the group experience. Moreover, a positive relationship was also identified between transformational leadership and team resilience. Finally, support was found for the mediated effect of team resilience on the relationship between transformational leadership and the dimensions of team effectiveness considered. The findings of this study highlight the role of team resilience as an intervening process between transformational leadership and team effectiveness. Supervisors should promote team resilience, adopting transformational leadership behaviors, in order to contribute to increase team viability and the quality of the group experience.

KEYWORDS Team effectiveness; team resilience; transformational leadership

Organizations worldwide in a complex and ever-changing environment have to continually face a range of risks, challenges and setbacks that threaten their functioning and viability (Powley, 2009). In this context, the capacity of employees and organizations to generate a specific response to crises has become particularly relevant, emerging as a competitive asset. As a result, in recent years, significant attention has been paid to individual resilience. In a general sense, resilience is the ability to bounce back from challenges and stressful experien- ces (Alliger, Cerasoli, Tannenbaum, & Vessey, 2015). Previous studies highlighted that resil- ient employees are better prepared to overcome difficulties and stressful events and are able to find a positive meaning in negative circumstances, becoming more adaptive and success- ful over time (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).

CONTACT Isabel D�ordio Dimas [email protected] School of Technology and Management of �Agueda, University of Aveiro, Apartado 473 3754 – 909, �Agueda, Portugal. © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 2018, VOL. 152, NO. 6, 358–372 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1465022

Although much of the research on resilience has been conducted at the individual level of analysis (Carmeli, Friedman, & Tishler, 2013; Meneghel, Salanova, & Mart�ınez, 2016a), with the widespread use of teams in the organizational setting (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Dons- bach, & Alliger, 2014), understanding the way teams face challenges and difficulties in order to be effective emerges as a fundamental topic of study. Since bringing together a set of resil- ient employees will not necessarily generate a resilient team, it is important to explore resil- ience as a team construct (Alliger et al., 2015; Meneghel et al., 2016a). Team resilience is the ability of a team to withstand and recover from challenges, stressful events or any other threat to well-being (Alliger et al., 2015; West, Patera, & Carsten, 2009). It is a process of adaptation in the face of difficulties that enable the team to better manage uncertainty and pressure without threatening cohesion and performance (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

Despite the importance of team resilience, little research has been conducted in this area. Specifically, further research is needed on the effects of this process for team and organiza- tional outcomes (Carmeli et al., 2013). The few studies developed on team resilience have already highlighted the relevance of this variable for team performance (e.g., Meneghel et al., 2016a; Meneghel, Mart�ınez, & Salanova, 2016b). However, because team effectiveness is more than performance (Aub�e & Rousseau, 2005) it is important to expand on previous studies considering the role of team resilience in other team outcomes. Accordingly, in the present research, two different criteria of team effectiveness will be considered, which are in line with two of the dimensions of Hackman’s effectiveness approach (1987, 2012): team via- bility, which can be conceived as the extent to which team members are able to continue to work together in the future (Hackman, 1987; Rousseau & Aub�e, 2010) and the quality of the group experience, which relates to the quality of the social climate within the team (Aub�e & Rousseau, 2005; McGrath, 1991).

Moreover, given the relevance that team resilience has in the organizational context, it is also extremely important to study the variables that contribute to building this team capacity (Carmeli et al., 2013). Due to the crucial influence that the leader has on the functioning and dynamics of a team (Rousseau, Aub�e, & Tremblay, 2013), leadership behaviors become a central variable to be studied. Hence, in the present research, it is also our aim to contribute to the study of the conditions that promote team resilience, analyzing the role of leadership, specifically, transformational leadership behaviors, on the development of team resilience. Transformational leadership is a leadership style that is characterized by giving support to individuals, helping them to overcome their limitations and difficulties, transcending, in this way, what they originally expected (Bass, 1999). By guiding team members, inspiring them and being supportive, transformational leaders can influence the team’s ability to face chal- lenging situations.

Finally, we examine whether the relationship between transformational leadership and team resilience stimulates positive team outcomes. Specifically, the present study aims to understand how transformational leadership behaviors drive positive psychological resour- ces (i.e., resilience) among teams, in order to achieve higher levels of team effectiveness.

The present study expands on previous research in different ways. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies that considers the role of team leader behaviors, namely transformational behaviors, in promoting resilience within the team. Due to the characteristics of the transformational leadership style and also the centrality of the leader in the team context, studying how those behaviors promote the capacity of the team to face challenges is an important path to pursue. Second, effectiveness is conceptualized as a

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 359

multidimensional construct and the impact of both transformational leadership and resil- ience on different dimensions is considered, covering a broader spectrum of team-level out- comes. Third, effectiveness ratings are obtained both by team members and supervisors, thus leading to a more accurate assessment of team effectiveness and, at the same time, con- tributing to reducing the impact of method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010).

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership and Team Resilience

Among the various leadership theories, the transformational leadership theory has been the most widely studied over the last three decades (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leadership can be defined as an adaptable and flexible leadership style that mobilizes individ- uals to go beyond their individual interests in order to achieve a common goal (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). A transformational leader ener- gizes followers to perform beyond expectations, broadening and changing their interests and leading to conscientiousness and acceptance of the group’s purposes (Bass, 1999).

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), through a literature review about transformational leadership, concluded that the concept can be summarized in six funda- mental behaviors: identifying and articulating a vision; providing an appropriate model; pro- moting the acceptance of group goals; developing high performance expectations; giving individual support; and providing intellectual stimulation to staff. Inspired by this model, Carless, Wearing, and Mann (2000), described transformational leaders as those who exhibit the following seven behaviors: they (1) communicate a vision (developing an image of the future of the organization and communicating it); (2) develop staff (diagnosing the needs and capacities of each employee and expressing an individual interest in each one); (3) pro- vide support for them to work towards their objectives through coordinated teamwork; (4) empower staff, giving them authority to implement policies and supporting their decisions); (5) are innovative, using non-conventional strategies to achieve their goals; (6) lead by exam- ple (adopting behaviors that are congruent with the attitudes and values they support); (7) are charismatic (inspiring employees to transcend their personal interests and limitations, developing an awareness of the collective interests and guiding them to achieve extraordi- nary goals).

The leader has a central role in the team context, influencing team functioning in a decisive way (Dimas, Rebelo, & Lourenço, 2016; Volmer, 2012). The team leader can set the tone for his or her team, stimulating or hindering the development of resilient behaviors among team members (Alliger et al., 2015). A transformational leadership style contributes to increased self-efficacy by empowerment and positive feedback in such a way that when facing setbacks, team members are more likely to persist (Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2009; Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2011). Moreover, transformational leaders provide support to team members and in a support- ive environment, followers are more likely to overcome difficulties (Bandura, 1986; Michaelis et al., 2009). Besides, transformational leaders contribute to establishing posi- tive relationships among team members and to building up a positive energy and climate (Cameron, Mora, Leutscher, & Calarco, 2011; L�opez, Alonso, Morales, & Le�on, 2015), which might facilitate information sharing and the development of adaptive

360 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.

solutions to problems, promoting resilience (Carmeli et al., 2013; Stephens, Heaphy, Carmeli, Spreitzer, & Dutton, 2013). We therefore expect that:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership will be positively related to team resilience.

Resilience and Team Effectiveness

Resilience is considered as the process of persevering and responding positively in the face of challenges. There are numerous challenges that can impact team functioning which can be broadly distinguished as chronic and acute: chronic challenges are ongoing or long-lasting and even if they are not particularly intense, they are damaging because their impact accu- mulates over time (e.g., ambiguous team roles; lack of clarity about roles played by each one of the team members); acute challenges are short-lived but generally more intense than chronic challenges (e.g., radical loss of resources; sudden increase in workload) (Alliger et al., 2015). Resilience helps teams to be better prepared to deal with the stressor, no matter its type. A resilient team has the ability to absorb, preserve and improve functioning while encountering adversities and complexities, in such a way that it might even become stronger after overcoming the setback (Carmeli et al., 2013; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

Previous evidence revealed that team resilience is positively related to team cohesion, cooperation and coordination (West et al., 2009) as well as to team performance (Meneghel et al., 2016a; Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, & Mart�ınez, 2012). Since resilient teams tend to be cre- ative and adaptive to change and adversity, they are more prepared to deal with challenges and difficulties, which might translate into higher levels of performance (Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Meneghel et al., 2016b). Moreover, team resilience is a process of adaptation and adjustment to changing conditions (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Being embed- ded in an organizational context, organizational teams continually have to cope with stress- ful events along their lifetime, such as changing conditions in terms of membership, technology and operating conditions (Argote & McGrath, 1993). A high level of team resil- ience means that the team has the capacity to withstand, overcome and bounce back from stressful events, which might lead to an increase in its ability to persist over time, that is, its on-going viability (Alliger et al., 2015; Carmeli et al., 2013). Thus, we expect a positive rela- tionship between team resilience and team viability. Moreover, we argue that team resilience will have a positive relationship with the quality of the group experience. Previous research found that positive organizational behavior capacities (such as team resilience) drive the within-team experience, promoting favorable reactions among team members (Luthans, 2002; West et al., 2009). The ability of resilient teams to succeed in face of adversity may increase the sense of belonging and the social ties between team members, influencing the emergence of a better social climate. Therefore, we predict that:

Hypothesis 2: Team resilience will have a positive relationship with team viability (2a) and the quality of the group experience (2b).

Finally, building on the functional perspective of leadership (e.g., Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010), we examine team resilience as an intervening variable through which trans- formational leadership may exercise a positive effect on team effectiveness. Although there is little research that directly assesses the mediational processes through which team leadership affects team outcomes, an increasing number of studies suggest that a large part of the influ- ence that transformational leadership can generate is tangible but indirect (e.g., Boies &

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 361

Howell, 2009; Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2012; Weng, Huang, Chen, & Chang, 2015). More than acting directly on team results, leaders can promote the conditions for success by shaping key mediating variables. Hence, transformational leaders may contribute to higher levels of team effectiveness through their influence on the team capacity to persist in the face of adversity and threats. Therefore, we predict that:

Hypothesis 3: Team resilience will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and team viability (3a) and the quality of the group experience (3b).

Method

Sample and Procedure

In order to collect the data, we previously contacted the key stakeholders in each organiza- tion (CEOs or human resources managers) to explain the purpose and requirements of the study. When the organization agreed to participate in our study, the selection of teams to survey was based in the following criteria (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Schein, 1980): teams must be composed of at least three members (1), perceived by themselves and others as a team (2), that interact regularly, in an interdependent way, to accomplish a common goal (3), and who have a formal supervisor who is responsible for the actions of the team (4).

Data was collected following two strategies. In the majority of the organizations, the ques- tionnaires were administered by a member of the research team or by a person with author- ity at the organization and with a strategic relationship with the employees (and who had been previously instructed by a research team member). However, when it was not possible to implement this strategy, the questionnaires were filled in online via an electronic platform, with the link being provided to the participants. In both cases, the participation in the study was voluntary and it was clarified on the front page of the survey that only aggregated data would be reported and that all identifying information would be removed.

After eliminating from the sample the questionnaires where at least 10% of the answers were missing (Bryman & Cramer, 2005) and also the teams with a team member response rate below 60%, the remaining sample had a total of 445 employees nested in 90 teams from 40 Portuguese companies (18.5%, were large, 47% were medium, 34.5% were small). The most representative organizational sector was the services sector (34.2%), followed by indus- try (17.1%). The teams’ size ranged from 3 to 27 employees, with an average of 6.66 (SD D 5.16). Of the team members (N D 445), 52.9% were female, 36.2% had completed secondary education and 37.3% had a higher education background. The mean age was approximately 35 years (SD D 10.03). The average job tenure in the organization was approximately 9 years (SD D 8.46) and in the team approximately 5 years (SD D 5.71). Regarding team leaders (N D 90), 66.3% were male, the mean age was about 40 years (SD D 9.91) and 48.8% had completed secondary education whereas 45.2% had a higher education background. Leaders had, on average, about 14 years of experience in the organization (SD D 7.76) and about 8 years of experience in the function (SD D 6.96).

Measures

To reduce common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we collected data from two sources, namely the team members and their supervisors. Team

362 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.

members were surveyed about transformational leadership, team resilience and quality of group experience, whereas team leaders provided data concerning the viability of the team.

All variables were measured with previously validated scales that were adapted to the Por- tuguese language following the procedure proposed by DeVellis (2003). The measures were answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) almost doesn’t apply to (5) almost totally applies (with the exception of the quality of group experience, which was also measured on a 5-point Likert scale but ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree). Team mem- bers were asked to refer to the team in which they work and team leaders to the team that they supervise while completing the questionnaire. In order to avoid errors concerning the level of analysis, each item explicitly referred to the team.

Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership was measured with the Global Transformational Leadership scale developed by Carless et al. (2000). This scale is composed of seven items based on the seven behaviors of transformational leadership defined by the authors. A sample item is “My team leader gives encouragement and recognition to staff”.

Team Resilience Team resilience was measured with the 3-item scale developed by Stephens et al. (2013). A sample item is “This team knows how to cope with challenges.”

Quality of Group Experience The quality of group experience was measured through the scale developed by Aub�e and Rousseau (2005). This scale integrates three items concerning the quality of intrateam social climate. A sample item is “In our team, relationships are harmonious.”

Team Viability Team viability was assessed using the scale developed by Aub�e and Rousseau (2005). This scale contains four items that measure the team’s capability to adapt to a changing environ- ment, to solve problems, to integrate new members and to keep working as a whole in the future. A sample item is “The members of this team could work a long time together.”

Control Variables Because various studies have shown that team size has an influence on the functioning and outputs of teams (e.g., Brewer & Kramer, 1986), we included it as a control variable. Team size was obtained by asking team leaders about the number of members of their team.

Validity of the Measures

Since transformational leadership, team resilience and quality of group experience were obtained from team members, convergent and discriminant validity of these constructs were tested through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood estima- tion method (covariance matrix as input) with AMOS. Concerning team viability, since it was obtained from team leaders, a separate CFA was run. To evaluate the level of adjustment of the models, the following indicators were considered: x2 Goodness-of-Fit Statistic, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI).

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 363

Values below .08 for RMSEA indicate a good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). For CFI, values greater than .90 indicate a good fit, whereas values greater than .95 indicate superior fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Concerning the team members’ constructs (N D 445), the goodness of fit of the expected three-factor model presented good values (x2 (62) D 176.64, p < .000, CFI D .98, RMSEA D .06, 90% confidence interval .05–.07, p D .016), substantially better than the fit of a one-factor solution, where all items loaded in the same factor (x2 (65) D 1802.87, p < .000, CFI D .71, RMSEA D .25, 90% confidence interval .24–.25, p <.000). All the indicator loadings were above .85, indicating convergent validity, and the correlations between factors were not excessively high (between .57 and .58), indi- cating discriminant validity (Kline, 2005).

Concerning team viability, assessed by team leaders (N D 90), the results of the one-factor solution were: x2 (2) D 3.472, p D .176; CFI D .98; RMSEA D .09, 90% confidence interval of .00–.25, p D .24. Although the RMSEA value exceed the .08 cut-off value generally accepted, Hu and Bentler (1999) found that small samples tend to produce larger RMSEA values, rejecting too often the true model. Moreover, all other indexes indicate a good fit of the model, any model modification was suggested by the analyses, and all the indicators loaded acceptably on the factor (above .58). So, all in all, the results support an acceptable fit of this expected one-factor solution to the data.

Results

In this study, the unit of analysis was the group rather than the individual and as a result, members’ responses were aggregated to the team level. To justify aggregation, we computed the average deviation index (ADM Index) developed by Burke, Finkel- stein, and Dusig (1999). Following the authors’ recommendations, we used the criterion ADM � 0.83 to aggregate individual responses to the team level with confidence. The average ADM values obtained for transformational leadership (M D 0.50, SD D 0.28), team resilience (M D 0.41, SD D 0.22) and the quality of the group experience (M D 0.40, SD D 0.27) were below the upper-limit criterion of 0.83, revealing that the level of within-team agreement was sufficient to aggregate team members’ scores. Addition- ally, to check whether aggregation was justified, we also computed the intraclass coeffi- cients ICC(1) and ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000). The ICC(1) values for transformational leadership, team resilience and quality of the group experience were .33, .19 and .22, respectively. The ICC(2) values obtained for the same variables were, .71, .54 and .58, respectively. Overall, the values gave support to the aggregation of data to the team level (Bliese, 2000; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).

To evaluate the model of relationships proposed we used structural equation modelling (SEM). We had to keep the model under test parsimonious due to the size of the sample. Thus, we chose to run a path analysis, a technique for analyzing structural models with observed variables (Kline, 2005). Thus, in this model, the indicators (or observed variables) are the score of the items of each variable. As the distributions of the variables were approxi- mately normal, we chose the ML (Maximum Likelihood) estimation method. Finally, in order to test the mediation effect, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendations were fol- lowed. According to Kenny (2016), bootstrapping was used for testing the statistical signifi- cance of the indirect effects.

364 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, the intercorrelations between the variables, and the scale reliabilities. The pattern of correlations supported the hypothesized relationships. Team size is significantly correlated with team resilience and quality of group experience, which justify its inclusion as control variable in the path model under study. Moreover, team size is significantly correlated with transformational leadership so this correlation will be also estimated in the path analysis. According to Kline (2005) the estimation of the corre- lation between the independent variables considered in a path analysis is a frequent procedure.

In line with Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendations for testing a mediation effect, the direct effect should be estimated along with the indirect effects in the same model. Thus, although not stated as hypotheses, this model also estimates the direct effects of transforma- tional leadership on team viability and on quality of group experience (cf. Figure 1). The path analysis results showed a good adjustment between the model and the data (x2 (2) D 1.31, p D .519; CFI D 1.00; RMSEA D .00, 90% confidence interval of .00–.19, p D .590).

When examining the coefficients between variables, transformational leadership is posi- tively related to team resilience, supporting the first hypothesis, and team resilience has a positive relationship with team viability and the quality of the group experience, supporting the second hypothesis. The third hypothesis, which states a mediation effect of team resil- ience on the relationship between transformational leadership and team viability and quality of the group experience, is also supported. Actually, a full mediation effect of team resilience occurs on the relationship between transformational leadership and team viability, whereas a partial mediation effect emerges on the relationship with quality of group experience (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

For testing the statistical significance of the indirect effect of transformational leadership on team viability and quality of group experience via team resilience, the bootstrapping

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Intercorrelations among Indicator Variables and Scale Reliabilities.

M SD 1 2 3 4

1.Transformational leadership 3.94 0.66 (.98) 2. Team resilience 3.98 0.50 .62*** (.93) 3. Quality of group experience 4.06 0.56 .61*** .67*** (.96) 4. Team viability 4.05 0.57 .35** .37*** .35** (.75) 5. Team size 6.46 5.00 ¡.34** ¡.23* ¡.32** ¡.08

�p < .05, ��p < .01, ���p < .001; Scale reliabilities are presented in the diagonal.

.19

.25*

.47*** .28**

.61***

-.02 -.11

-.34**

Transformational Leadership Team Resilience

Quality of Group Experience

Team Viability

Team size

Figure 1. A path analysis of the mediation effect of team resilience on the relationship of transformational leadership with quality of group experience and team viability. �p < .05, ��p < .01, ���p < .001.

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 365

method was used. By means of a bootstrap approximation obtained by constructing a two- side, bias-corrected 90% confidence interval with 2000 samples, a statistically significant standardized indirect (mediated) effect of transformational leadership on team viability and on quality of group experience was estimated (p D .03 and p < .001, respectively).

Discussion

Teams embedded in the organizational setting have to face constant challenges and difficul- ties that may jeopardize the ability to accomplish goals. In consequence, almost any business team can benefit from greater resilience (Alliger et al., 2015). With the present study, we intended to contribute to the study of team resilience, analyzing the direct and indirect rela- tionships between transformational leadership, team resilience and team outcomes.

The first hypothesis predicted that transformational leadership behaviors would contrib- ute to develop the levels of resilience of the team. Results gave support to this expected posi- tive relationship. Hence, a transformational leadership style is characterized by giving feedback and support to team members, behaviors that contribute to fostering the levels of confidence of the team, leading to a greater ability to face situations of adversity. Further, transformational leaders positively influence the quality of the relationships between team members and positive relationships are crucial to the development of resilience (Gittel, Cameron, Lim, & Rivas, 2006).

Moreover, transformational leaders lead by example, acting in consonance with what they preach. In this way, they boost the levels of team resilience not only through the way they communicate with the team, but also through their own behaviors. In fact, since individuals learn by observing salient others and tend to reproduce behaviors that have positive results (Bandura, 1977), team members will witness the way the leader overcomes difficulties and setbacks and will reproduce those kinds of behaviors.

Our study gave also support to the importance of team resilience for team effectiveness. Our results extend the findings from previous studies that stressed the importance of team resilience for team performance (e.g., Meneghel et al., 2016a), and highlighted that team resilience is also relevant for other two, and no less important, criteria of effectiveness: viabil- ity and quality of the group experience (Hackman, 1987, 2012). To the extent that resilient teams have the ability to overcome difficulties and setbacks, they are better prepared to face the challenges of today’s business setting, namely the need to adapt to changes, enhancing, in consequence, their ability to persist over time. Moreover, the shared belief that together team members are able to overcome challenges induces a “we are in it together” attitude within the team (Aub�e & Rousseau, 2005). This sense of belonging incites team members to build and maintain positive relationships within the team, promoting, in consequence, the quality of the group experience.

Finally, this study reveals that the relationship between transformational leadership and team viability is indirect since team resilience completely mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and team viability. These results suggest that transformational leadership behaviors promote the levels of team resilience, which in turn may increase the levels of team viability. Concerning the quality of the group experience, a partial mediation of team resilience was identified. This means that transformational leadership presents both a direct and an indirect relationship with the quality of the group experience. Therefore, if the actions of the leader per se contribute directly to increasing the social climate and the

366 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.

sense of well-being in the team, he/she also contributes to increasing the levels of the quality of the team experience through its influence on team resilience.

Final Conclusions, Limitations and Further Research

The present study contributes to the literature in many different ways. First, our study contrib- utes to the emerging field of research that focuses on resilience as a team level variable (e.g., Meneghel et al., 2016a; Salanova et al., 2012; West et al., 2009). Nowadays, organizations have to face continuous challenges and difficulties that may undermine the achievement of organi- zational aims and objectives. To survive in this competitive context, organizations, and in con- sequence their teams, have to face these difficulties, overcoming barriers and setbacks. Our study extends previous studies (e.g., Meneghel et al., 2016a; Salanova et al., 2012) and high- lights that the impact of team resilience on team results goes beyond performance, also influ- encing the quality of the group experience and the viability of the group.

Second, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to empirically examine the role of leadership in promoting team resilience. Clarifying the antecedents of team resilience is a fundamental path to pursue in order to better prepare teams to respond to challenges and setbacks. Our findings reveal that the adoption of transformational leadership behaviors by the leader could promote the ability of the team to recover from difficulties.

Finally, our study contributes not only to research on team resilience but also to the body of knowledge of transformational leadership by examining one of the team processes (i.e., team resilience) underlying the relationships between transformational leadership and team outcomes. Hence, our results contribute to clarifying the importance of leadership behaviors in shaping the way the team interacts and reacts to situations, which in turn leads to team effectiveness. If we focus our attention only on the direct effects of transfor- mational leadership on team results, this may lead us to underestimate its relative impor- tance in affecting other factors that influence team outcomes (Moynihan et al., 2012). These results are in line with previous studies that highlight the indirect relationships of leadership behaviors with team outcomes (e.g., Dimas et al., 2016; Moynihan et al., 2012), revealing team resilience as an intervening mechanism in this relationship.

In addition to the above-mentioned theoretical contributions, the results of this study also have significant implications for practice. By clearly highlighting the importance of transfor- mational leadership behaviors in developing the capacity of teams to face crises and chal- lenges, our findings suggest a promising direction for interventions. Accordingly, in order to increase team resilience and improve effectiveness in the team context, organizations should implement training programs focused on developing transformational leadership behaviors. Transformational leaders motivate, give support and guidance to their teams, promoting a positive social environment, enhancing the quality of the relationships between team mem- bers and developing team adaptive competencies. In this kind of context, team members learn to look at challenges and risks as opportunities to learn and grow, instead of avoiding them. In the complex environment that characterizes modern organizations, training in transformational leadership behaviors emerges as a fundamental strategy to be implemented in order to better prepare individuals and teams to respond to changes, increasing the sus- tainability of the team and the organization in the future. Indeed, the literature shows that resilient teams are better prepared to deal with unsuccessful and/or stressful experiences as a collective unit (West et al., 2009). In addition, organizations may also implement strategies

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 367

to promote the development of problem-solving behaviors in the work setting, such as devel- oping training sessions on this topic, creating focus groups or implementing suggestion schemes. When problem-solving behaviors are part of everyday organizational life, employ- ees are better prepared to respond to setbacks and crises when they happen.

While it is hoped that our research findings contribute both to the literature and to the practice in several ways, it is worth noting the particular limitations that our research design entails. One of the limitations of the present study is its cross-sectional design, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about the causality of relationships. In fact, although the direction of the relationships hypothesized is well supported in the literature, the reverse direction might also be possible. Therefore, the present findings need to be tested, in the future, by other studies, namely with a longitudinal design (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Another shortcoming of our research is the fact that the relationships between transformational lead- ership, team resilience and the quality of the group experience may be affected by common source bias, because these constructs were rated by the same source, i.e., team members (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012; Spector, 2006). Yet, it is important to note that these variables were aggregated to the team level, a strategy that can contribute to diminishing the effects of that threat (Conway & Lance, 2010). Besides, team viability was assessed by another source, i.e., the leader, and the results went in the same direction as the quality of the group experience, which may suggest that the findings were not affected by this problem. Moreover, as stated by Spector (2006), the use of a common method to measure variables does not necessarily affect results or conclusions. A final limita- tion of the present research is the convenience nature of the sample that hinders the general- ization of the results. Future research should replicate the present study in different and broader settings. Moreover, in the future, it would be interesting to expand the results of the present research, analyzing the effect of transformational leadership and team resilience on other outcomes, such as team innovation. Because team resilience is a process of adaptation and adjustment to changing conditions (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003), resilient teams may be more aware of opportunities and more competent in applying problem-solving strategies in order to improve team processes and outcomes. Since team resilience concerns the ability of the team to face adverse situations, future research should explore the impact of the level of adversity on the development of resilience. Finally, team resilience has been presented as one of the four positive psychological capital characteristics, the other three being hope, opti- mism and efficacy (Luthans, 2002). In the future, it would be interesting to study the four characteristics together since the effect of team resilience on team outcomes might be influ- enced by the presence of the other capacities.

Author Notes

Isabel D�ordio Dimas is an assistant professor of Organizational Behavior and Social Sciences at the University of Aveiro and a researcher at GOVCOPP – Research Unit in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies. She is also a collaborator at the University of Coimbra. She earned her Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology and her degree in Psychology from the University of Coimbra. Her current research interests include team effectiveness, group dynamics, intragroup conflict, leadership, and emotions in the group.

Teresa Rebelo, PhD in Work and Organizational Psychology, is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra. She began her career as a consultant and

368 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.

after 10 years in this activity she joined the university teaching career. She is a researcher member of the Institute of Cognitive Psychology, Human and Social Development (IPCDHS) and member of the teaching staff of the european Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology. Her current research interests are focused on organizational culture, organiza- tional and team learning, nonlinear dynamical system theory and team dynamics.

Paulo Renato Lourenço has a Ph.D in Organizational Psychology from University of Coimbra (Portu- gal). He is an Assistant Professor of Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology (WOP-P) at the University of Coimbra and researcher at the Institute of Cognitive Psychology, Human and Social Development (IPCDHS). He is also member of the teaching staff of the european Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in WOP-P. His research interests are in work teams functioning, including topics such as team trust, team cohesion, team effectiveness and leadership.

Carina Pessoa is a psychologist, specialized in the area of human resources and organizations, by the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Coimbra. Currently, works in recruitment and selection of engineering candidates. Her research interests are related to people man- agement and attraction, leadership and its importance in the motivation and performance of employees.

ORCID

Isabel D�ordio Dimas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4481-2644 Teresa Rebelo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3380-0840 Paulo Renato Lourenço http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1405-3835 Carina Isabel Pereira Pessoa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6789-733X

References

Alliger, G. M., Cerasoli, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.003

Argote, L., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 333–389). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Aub�e, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189–204. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho- logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press Collier Macmillan.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Euro- pean. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. doi:10.1080/135943299398410

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (3rd ed.). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 369

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2009). Leading military teams to think and feel: Exploring the relations between leadership, soldiers’ cognitive and affective processes, and team effectiveness. Military Psy- chology, 21(2), 216–232. doi:10.1080/08995600902768743

Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Social identity and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society, 18(4), 443–470. doi:10.1177/1043463106066381

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for Social Scientists. East Sussex, UK: Routledge.

Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49–68. doi:10.1177/ 109442819921004

Cameron, K., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011). Effects of positive practices on organizational effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 266–308. doi:10.1177/0021886310395514

Carmeli, A., Friedman, Y., & Tishler, A. (2013). Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. Safety Science, 51 (1), 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.002

Carless, S., Wearing, L., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405. doi:10.2307/25077344

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. doi:10.1177/ 014920639702300303

Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Dimas, I. D., Rebelo, T. R., & Lourenço, P. R. (2016). Team coaching: One more clue for fostering

team effectiveness. European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 233–242. doi:10.1016/j. erap.2016.05.003

Gittel, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationship, layoff, and organizational resil- ience. Airline industry responses to September 11. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300–329. doi:10.1177/0021886306286466

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.

Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, 33, 428–444. doi:10.1002/job.1774

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven- tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/ 10705519909540118

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza- tions: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kenny, D. (2016). Mediation. Retrieved January, 2017, from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

The Guilford Press. L�opez, C. G., Alonso, F. M., Morales, M. M., & Le�on, J. A. M. L. (2015). Authentic leadership, group

cohesion and group identification in security and emergency teams. Psicothema, 27(1), 59–64. doi:10.7334/psicothema2014.161

Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72. doi:10.5465/AME.2002.6640181

370 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization Review, 1 (2), 247–269. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00011.x

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and Integration of team composition models moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Manage- ment, 40(1), 130–160. doi:10.1177/0149206313503014

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psycho- logical Methods, 12(1), 23–44. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.12.1.23

McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147–174. doi:10.1177/1046496491222001

Meneghel, I., Salanova, M., & Mart�ınez, I. M. (2016a). Feeling good makes Us stronger: How team resilience mediates the effect of positive emotions on team performance. Journal of Happiness Stud- ies, 17(1), 239–255. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9592-6

Meneghel, I., Mart�ınez, I. M., & Salanova, M. (2016b). Job-related antecedents of team resilience and improved team performance. Personnel Review, 45(3), 505–522. doi:10.1108/PR-04-2014-0094

Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees’ trust in top manage- ment. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399–417. doi:10.1080/14697010903360608

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. doi:10.1177/0149206309347376

Moynihan, D. P., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2012). Setting the table: How transformational leader- ship fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 143–164. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur024

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, S., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y, & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

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

Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of cri- sis. Human Relations, 6, 1289–1326. doi:10.1177/0018726709334881

Rousseau, V., & Aub�e, C. (2010). Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderat- ing effect of task routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35(6), 751–781. doi:10.1177/ 1059601110390835

Rousseau, V., Aub�e, C., & Tremblay, S. (2013). Team coaching and innovation in work teams: An examination of the motivational and behavioral intervening mechanisms". Leadership & Organiza- tion Development Journal, 34, 344–364. doi:10.1108/LODJ-08-2011-0073

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). “Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!” on gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(2), 255–285. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., & Mart�ınez, I. M. (2012). We need a hero! Toward a validation of the Healthy and Resilient Organization (HERO) model. Group and Organization Management, 37 (6), 785–822. doi:10.1177/1059601112470405

Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organiza-

tional Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955 Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., Carmeli, A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2013). Relationship qual-

ity and virtuousness: Emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 13–41. doi:10.1177/0021886312471193

THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 371

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 94–121). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320

Volmer, J. (2012). Catching leaders’ mood: Contagion effects in teams. Administrative Sciences, 2(3), 203–220. doi:10.3390/admsci2030203

Weng, R. H., Huang, C. Y., Chen, L. M., & Chang, L. Y. (2015). Exploring the impact of transforma- tional leadership on nurse innovation behaviour: A cross�sectional study. Journal of nursing man- agement, 23(4), 427–439. doi:10.1111/jonm.12149

West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & Carsten, M. K. (2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive psycho- logical capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 249–267. doi:10.1002/job.593

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The Impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800. doi:10.1177/0149206307305562

372 I. D. DIMAS ET AL.