Multi-Perspective Approach to Building Team Resilience in Project Management—A Case Study in Indonesia

Abstract

Project management teams have to deal with risks and uncertainties from the project portfolio level to the individual level. Furthermore, project complexity adds to the challenges faced by the project management team. Moreover, projects are performed by project management teams comprising various individuals from different backgrounds. While they perform their project tasks, they have to face dynamics in the projects that lead to major challenges or stress and bounce back from negative experiences to be less likely to experience the detrimental effects of intimidating, uncertain situations. This study aims to show the influence of multi-perspective factors on team resilience and to confirm how team resilience influences team performance. A descriptive, quantitative study was conducted to test the six hypotheses of the study. Data collected through purposive sampling and snowball techniques were analyzed using a structural equation model with SmartPLS software version 3.2.9. The finding shows that individual resilience from the individual perspective, team resources, team interactions from the team perspective and organizational practice all have a positive and significant influence on team resilience, but transformational leadership does not. Team resilience has a positive, significant relationship with team performance. Team resilience appears to have had a strong and significant effect on team performance in multiple industries in Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research implications and suggestions for future research are also given.

1. Introduction

Businesses face various challenges such as globalization, economic recession, COVID-19, fast and frequent organization restructuring, increased competition, higher customer expectations and limited investment. This leads to an increase in work pressure on employees, which further leads to a high level of stress and anxiety [1]. To project management organizations, the impacts of adversities can be small impacts, such as project setbacks and increased absenteeism [1,2], or high impacts, such as accidents, emergencies and financial crises [2].

From a business organization point of view, changes in the business environment are understood as part of the domain of project portfolio management [3,4,5]. Furthermore, the aspects of risk and uncertainties in the project portfolio may also lead to changes not only in the project portfolio [6,7] but also in individual projects [8,9,10,11]. Relatively few studies have been performed in the Indonesian context that provide such complexity in relation to managing projects, especially from the perspective of project portfolio management [12,13]. Such conditions lead to challenges in the project organization, especially the project team. In addition to this, project complexity, such as institutional and stakeholder [14,15], socio-economic [16] and technology [17] complexity, also adds problems to projects, thus, leading to further pressure on the project teams.

Hartwig et al. (2020) [2] argued that workforce resilience is an essential asset for maintaining the performance and health of an organization when facing adversity. Resilience research has not only focused on the individual level and organization level but has also been introduced at a team level and has tried to understand how teams can process effectively in managing and adjusting well in the face of adversity. Team resilience plays a critical role in those contexts in which failure of effective teamwork can have serious consequences, such as in project management.

Resilient teams are more likely to be productive, agile and innovative during turbulent times [18]. The difference between a resilient team and one that is not resilient could be the difference between survival and breaking down when facing adversity [19]. Teams that demonstrate the ability to either emerge in the face of adversity, manage and adapt to major challenges or stress or bounce back from a negative experience are less likely to experience the detrimental effects of intimidating situations [18]. Regardless of the understanding of how critical team resilience is, the available studies on team resilience are considered inconsistent, mostly on a conceptual level [2] and at the early stage [1].

The conservation of resources (COR) theory by Hobfoll posits that psychological stress occurs in three instances: when there is a threat of a loss of resources, an actual net loss of resources and a lack of gained resources following the spending of resources. COR theory states that the loss of these types of resources drives individuals into certain levels of stress [20]. Therefore, to support the team in facing challenges, enough resources being available improves the team’s condition. Assets and resources are known to be critical factors in developing team resilience. Previous studies from [1,18,19] emphasized how resources on a team level and organization level have been conducted. While most of the studies were conceptual, Vera et al. (2017) [19] showed that organizational practices and team resources significantly influence team resilience. However, the studies still did not include the individual asset influence on team resilience, such as that mentioned by Hartwig et al. (2020) [2] and Sharma and Sharma (2016) [18].

How to develop team resilience is a question that every organization must answer [18,19]. However, team resilience itself is meaningless without proof of its impact on team performance [1]. Therefore, there is a need to study the antecedents of team resilience and how team resilience affects team performance.

There are some significant contributions and novelties that come from this study. The first significant contribution of this study is that this research aimed to expand the existing literature on how the three levels, i.e., individual, team and organizational levels, impact team resilience.

At the individual level, this study looks at how individual resilience affects team resilience and whether there is a mutual effect between team resilience and individual resilience. At the team level, this study follows the study from Vera et al. (2017) [19], which showed that team level resources such as transformational leadership and team resources influence team resilience. At the organization level, the support from the organization level, such as work–life balance, reward system and problem-solving support, was also reviewed.

The other significant contribution of this study is that it reveals whether the availability of teamwork interaction as a supportive effort develops team resilience. Finally, this research demonstrates how team resilience affects team performance.

Based on the existing research gap, the objective of this study is to learn how individual resilience and team characteristics (resources, interaction and transformational leadership), as well as organizational practices, affect team resilience, which, in turn, affects team performance.

The article is structured as follows. First, is the introduction on the background and the gap in the theory, followed by a literature review of related articles, which results in hypothesis development and framework. Afterwards, the result of the study is elaborated on and followed by a discussion. Then, conclusions are drawn and further research is recommended.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Role of the Team in Project Management

Recently, organizations have been dominantly team-based structures [1,2,18]. This has become prominent in project management. The project team, which has become more common, existing as a global project team, is becoming the norm. Teams inevitably offer benefits, such as increasing efficiency, team members who complement each other, creating innovation, increasing commitment to the organization and reducing employee turnover and absenteeism [21], facilitating organizational learning, out-performing individual performance, increasing productivity and improving problem solving [1].

Project work is structured in and around teams. The projects are structured by tasks to be performed that lead to final deliverables and fulfilment of certain objectives that require resources for their realization [11,22,23,24]. The main resources required to perform the tasks are human resources coordinated as a team [25,26,27]. A team is defined as an interdependent group of individuals that shares responsibility and is focused on a common goal [21].

Team structure, despite being effective, also faces difficulties internally, primarily related to role, interpersonal conflict and coordination [1]. Externally, teams face challenges such as globalization, increased competition and higher customer expectation, which, combined with internal difficulty, leads to an increase in workload, which impacts organization performance [21]. In project management, the team faces a tight deadline, high expectations from the client and stretched working hours. It causes a high level of stress among team members, which causes team members to lose focus on team tasks and interdependency. This risks team morale, team satisfaction, high attrition and conflict and risks project completion [18].

Due to the increasing number of challenges an organization faces on the employee level, team level and organization level, the organization turns to resilience as an important framework to help them ensure adaptability, performance and wellbeing within the overall organization [1]. Resilience is considered a critical factor in supporting an organization when facing uncertainty, changes, disruptions and any negative events.

2.2. Resilience

Resilience science emerged more than half a century ago when researchers from psychology, psychiatry and pediatrics investigated the reasons for the origin of some children showing good outcomes when faced with the risk of adversity and disadvantages [28,29]. The concept of resilience has been recognized as the foundation of positive psychology, which emphasizes understanding and facilitating positive development outcomes, especially in the context of adversity [29]. The concept of resilience has attracted applied researchers seeking to promote the positive strength of individuals, groups and societies at various levels.

Some refer to resilience as something intrinsic to the individual, while others refer to it in a more holistic sense. Some refer to resilience as the competencies or capacities of people, while others refer to it as positive functioning in the face of adversity. Masten (2014), quoted in [29], defined resilience as a dynamic system’s capacity to successfully adapt to adversity that threatens the function of a system or its viability or development. Rutter (2013), quoted in [28], defined resilience as “Some individuals have a relatively good outcome despite having experienced serious stresses or adversities—their outcome being better than that of other individuals who suffered the same experiences”. Another prominent researcher of resilience, Garmezy (1991a) [28], referred to resilience as “not necessarily impervious to stress. Rather, resilience is designed to reflect the capacity for recovery and maintained adaptive behavior that may follow initial retreat or incapacity upon initiating a stressful event”.

Werner (1982), quoted in [28], described resilience as the capacity of an individual to cope effectively with internal and external disturbance. Perry (2002), quoted in [30], defined resilience as the individual capacity to effectively face adversity without negative disruption to normal functioning. Resilience is the ability to bounce back from adversity, frustration and misfortune [30]. Resilience is the capacity to bounce back (and beyond) from setbacks and positively cope with and adapt to significant changes [18]. Researchers of resilience agreed that resilience is competency in adapting to adversity and recovering or maintaining normal functioning.

Rutter, Garmezy, Master and Ungar, quoted in [28], some of the key theorists of resilience, agreed that the ability to adapt to adversity is not a special quality inherited by some individuals. Resilience is not a trait. It is the result of an interaction between individuals and their environment. Despite the opinion that some personality traits, such as conscientiousness, might play a role, Ungar (2005), quoted in [28], however, stressed that “resilience is simultaneously a quality of the individual and the individual’s environment”. Therefore, the key approach to resilience should focus on the environment.

Three models of resilience, according to O’Leary (1998), quoted in [30], and Garmezy (1984), quoted in [28], are the compensatory model, the challenge model and the protective factor of immunity vs. vulnerability model. In the compensatory model, resilience is considered a factor that neutralizes the risk. The compensatory factors include optimism, empathy, self-esteem, direction or mission and determination. The challenge model acknowledges risk factors. The risk cannot be too low or too high. Sufficient levels of risk can foster individuals’ adaptation and prepare them for the next challenges. The protective model is the interaction between protective factors and risk factors which leads to the lowering of the probability of a negative outcome in the presence of risk. The protective factors identified included emotional management skills, intrapersonal reflective skills, academic and job skills, ability to restore self-esteem, planning skills, life skills and problem-solving skills, according to Ungar (2004), quoted in [30]. Most researchers agree that resilience can only be demonstrated in the presence of adversity and, subsequently, results in positive adaptation [2].

Olsson et al. (2015) [31] and Van Breda (2018) [32] argued that resilience is both a process and an outcome. Resilience as an outcome is notable as it is better than the expected outcomes. This concept is known as thriving, which refers to going beyond the original level of functioning and growing despite the situation [30]. Resilience is a process because it is about the capacity to bounce back from risks that threaten individuals. It involves the process of adjusting effectively to threatening adversity. The most important aspect of resilience is the process that enables positive outcomes.

The resilience concept covers antecedents, processes and outcomes [1]. Further, McEwen [1] explained that, specifically, they are: (1) a capacity—this is what makes effective adaption more likely. Other authors consider these as assets and resources; (2) the mechanism by which effective adaption is achieved. This can be a psychological, physiological, behavioral or social mechanism; (3) the positive indicator—this is the proof that positive adaption has occurred or the outcomes; and (4) the combination of the three other factors.

Resilience theory recognizes the positive contextual, social and individual variables, called the promotive factor. There are two types of promotive factor, which are assets and resources [33]. The use of promotive factors as the approach to facilitate the competence of resilience is recognized as a resources-focused technique. This approach uses good access to assets that promote competence and counteract or counterbalance risk. This includes access to information and support, direction and mentoring [29].

Research on resilience has been well expanded to not only the individual level but also families, schools, communities and society [29]. Recently, the concept of resilience has gained interest within the academic community. Understanding the potential, destructive implications of disruptions and learning how to build a resilient business organization yields an important avenue for future research [34]. In business, volatility in natural, economic and social systems is quickly increasing, and coping with this has become a challenge for many organizations. However, many organizations have been able to demonstrate an ability to either manage or bounce back from the adverse effects of system volatility [35].

Hartwig et al. (2010) [2] stated that workplace resilience is a critical asset for ensuring organization performance and positively bouncing back when facing significant adversity. Organizational resilience is defined as the organization’s capability to minimize the impact of severe disturbances or adversities on the organization’s objective and the ability to bounce back [36]. Organizational resilience develops the ability of the organization to create solutions and develop a tolerance for uncertainty (Greene et al. (2002), quoted in [30]. Parson (2010) [36] argued that organization resilience could help to improve market share and reputation, reduce government intervention and provide opportunities for organizations to move forward.

2.3. Team Resilience

Resilience research has not only focused on the individual level and organization level but has also introduced a team level, which tries to understand how teams can process effectively in managing and adjusting well in the face of adversity [2]. Team resilience is defined as “a team’s belief that it can absorb and cope with strain, as well as a team’s capacity to cope, recover, and adjust positively to difficulties” [37]. Alliger et al. (2015) [38] defined resilience as the team capacity that a team possesses in the presence of a challenge. Team resilience is defined as a capacity, process, behavior or outcome at a team level. Team resilience is a team-level capacity to respond and bounce back whenever a team faces adversity [2]. Team resilience is “the capacity of a group of employees within a team to manage the everyday pressure of work and remain healthy, to adapt to change, and to be proactive in positioning for future work challenges” [1]. Some definitions focus on team resilience as a process [37,38]. Some definitions focus on team resilience as a process and an outcome [1,2]. The authors define team resilience as the capacity, process and outcomes of a team that can bounce back with minimum impact, if not better, after experiencing adversity as a team. All definitions of team resilience include some level of “exposure to significant threat or adversity” as a necessity for team resilience [2]. Therefore, the component of adversity is key to developing a resilient team.

Team resilience is different from other team states, such as team efficacy or team potency. These states of the team describe how the team members share their beliefs on successful performance, but they do not explain the ability of the team to cope with negative events. A team can achieve successful performance without necessarily having team resilience. In the absence of significant disruptions or changes, a repeatedly successful team cannot claim they are resilient. Without evidence of the ability to maintain normal, or even better, functioning after experiencing difficulty, a team who has repeatedly faced adversities also cannot claim they are resilient either. As mentioned by Hartwig et al. (2020) [2], factors, adversity and good outcomes should all exist in team resilience. Therefore, in assessing team resilience, all factors should be made available.

In the past, team resilience has been seen as a static characteristic of organizations; however, current studies see team resilience as a dynamic process not a static state [2,19]. Team resilience does not come from isolation. It is a dynamic process where teams interact in the face of challenges, both internal and external. The status of team resilience is not static; it can change over time depending on how well the team copes with adversity [1,2]. It is identified that there are three key elements during the dynamic process, which are ‘positive adaption to adversity’, ‘dynamic nature of resilience’ and ‘sustainable team viability’ [2]. Positive adaption to adversity consists of the concept of the existence of adversity and the competency of a team to adapt to adversity. The dynamic nature of resilience can be explained as a dynamic construct that is influenced by team processes or external forces, such as leadership and organizational-level factors. The third component is sustainable team viability. Viability, performance and health after adversity are key characteristics of team resilience [1,2].

Team resilience is a different construct to individual resilience [2,18,19]. Mallak (1998) [39] concluded that individual worker resilience possesses seven basic principles, which are “(a) perceive experiences constructively, (b) perform positive adaptive behaviors, (c) ensure adequate external resources, (d) expand decision-making boundaries, (e) practice bricolage, (f) develop a tolerance for uncertainty, and (g) build virtual role systems”. Resilience theory recognizes assets and resources as factors of resilience. In team resilience, individual resilience is one of the assets owned by the team. Individuals who are more resilient are less likely to undergo physical and emotional difficulty while struggling with adversity [40]. However, a team where each member has individual resilience is not necessarily a resilient team. Lack of communication and support could result in poor team effectiveness [2]. However, studies argue that, from an individual perspective, individual resilience contributes to team resilience [1,2,18,19].

There may be a reversed, cross-level effect of team resilience on individual resilience. Iqbal and Piwowar-Sulej (2022) [41] studied sustainable leadership, environmental turbulence, resilience and employees’ wellbeing in SMEs. The result showed that employee resilience mediates the relationship between sustainable leadership and employee wellbeing. Team resilience can influence a team member’s resilience through a shared perception of team resilience, which may enhance individual self-efficacious beliefs about one’s capacity to cope well with adverse events (Bandura, 2000; Galli (2016), quoted in [2]). According to COR theory, support from group members can serve as an important social resource and may make team members more stress resistant [42]. A shared social identity may also be an important mechanism for the top-down effect of team resilience on personal resilience.

H1. 

Individual resilience positively influences team resilience. The greater the individual resilience of the team member, the greater the team resilience will be.

Project teams consist of relatively independent team members and are usually scattered. This structure is not a conducive environment. The project team is required to seek an optimal combination of time, cost and quality [43]. Therefore, the project team should continuously seek to avoid mistakes, improve work efficiency and reduce the risk of failure. Interaction among team members is critical [44]. During interaction, team members can enhance knowledge sharing [44], bring out unique knowledge and skills to achieve a better quality of solution [45], share resources and reduce errors [46].

From the team perspective, since team resilience is a dynamic process, resilience is built on how the team interacts. Team members must have a mutual understanding and trust each other [21]. To build mutual understanding and trust, a resilient team needs to undergo key processes. These include effective team communication, coordination and cooperation [2]. Team processes are the essential components of effective team interaction. Communication within organizations or internal communication has been established as playing a vital role in influencing organizational effectiveness [47]. Communication is critical in building relationships between organizations and employees [48]. Communication between team members is needed at any level of team development. During the preparation for challenges, for example, they require a plan for how to implement and coordinate their action [2]. The importance of coordination and cooperation is raised by McEwen and Boyd (2018) [1] and Hartwig et al. (2020) and [2]. Being cooperative and supportive and needing to seek alignment with other team members are components of team resilience [1].

H2. 

Effective team interaction is positively associated with team resilience. The more effective the team interaction, the more resilient the team will be.

Conservation of resources theory (COR) [20] argues that “those people or groups possessing sufficient resources (i.e., material, psychological, social) are able not just to maintain what they already have in challenging circumstances but also gain new resources by taking risks, in other words investing their present resources to gain new ones”. The organization providing resources at the team level is critical to building a resilient team. Adequate resources support the team to act effectively [19].

Assets and resources are known to be critical factors in developing team resilience. Previous studies [1,18,19], emphasized how resources at team level and organization levels have been conducted. Team resources are social support, feedback and the learning culture, as well as people, budget, IT support, delegation and authorization.

H3. 

Adequate team resources are positively associated with team resilience. The more adequate the team resources, the more resilient the team will be.

Leadership is known to have a critical role in team resilience. During a crisis or difficult time, leaders’ roles are providing guidance, creating stability and trust and engaging with the team to ensure the organization returns to productivity [2,49,50]. During a difficult time, leaders who have a sense of belonging to the team can increase the willingness of the team to contribute to group objectives, as well as social support among members, and have a leadership style which shows strong team identity and team support; this is transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership applies to leaders who work with the team to foster team identity, creating vision through inspiration and executing changes for the organization, and build team commitment. The transformational leadership style is charismatic, delegating, inspiring, communicating and encourages innovation [51]. Transformational leaders have four distinct factors: charisma (idealized influence), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation, known as the four Is of the transformational leader [52]. Based on previous studies, many characteristics are aligned with transformational leadership which influence leaders’ effectiveness during a difficult time. The characteristics include building team confidence and trust, creating hope and sharing the big picture, building team relationships and strengthening teamwork. A transformational leader articulates a group vision or encourages cooperation among team members to enhance their belief in their ability to overcome difficulties [2].

Xuecheng et al. (2022) [53] argued that transformational leadership has no moderating effect on the relationship between training and development, work environment and job satisfaction and employee retention. Transformational leadership’s role in developing resilience is providing challenges and support or resources. Fostering resilience at all levels requires exposure to enough risk/adversity. A too low or too high level of risk will not effectively develop resilience [28]. Transformational leadership is known to provide a challenge for the team. This challenge disturbs the normal status, which challenges the team to make some adjustments. One transformational leadership characteristic is providing the team with advice, direction, training and further resources to ensure normal functioning.

H4. 

Transformational leadership is positively associated with team resilience. The more transformational leadership there is, the more team resilience there will be.

At the organization level, positive organizational practices influence team resilience. Ref. [54] highlighted the applicability of COR theory [20], which argues that, in response to demanding and stressful environments, individuals seek psychological or material resources which protect them from the effects of such stressors. Field [55] advocated that organizations should provide interventions to build resources before any change initiative to reduce the strains experienced during organizational change and build commitment to changes. Research suggests that perceptions of a supportive team and perceived organizational support positively affect employee resilience [56]. Support from the organization is the most important contributor to employee resilience. Building an organizational culture that supports the resilience of its employees may benefit both the employees and the organization’s ability to adapt to the changing work environment. Friborg (2003), quoted in [54], stated that positive organization practices such as work–life balance, wellbeing, skill and career development and organization communication are protective resources that provide team members with positive and healthy practices to help them cope with challenges.

H5. 

Positive organizational practices are positively associated with team resilience. The more positive organizational practices there are, the more team resilience there will be.

Organizations turn to resilience as an important framework to help them ensure adaptability, performance and wellbeing within the overall organization [1]. Resilience is considered a critical factor in supporting an organization when facing uncertainty, changes, disruptions and negative events. Resilient teams are more likely to be productive, agile and innovative during turbulent times [18]. Teams that demonstrate the ability to either emerge in the face of adversity, manage and adapt to significant challenges or stress or bounce back from a negative experience are less likely to experience the detrimental effects of intimidating situations [18].

Resilience is the ability to cope with and bounce back from adversity and emerge from adversity with viability, performance and health [1,2]. It is expected that team resilience is able to ensure the team maintains normal functioning or even surfaces with better conditions after facing adversity.

H6. 

Team resilience is positively associated with team performance. The more team resilience there is, the greater team performance there will be.

The research framework is depicted in Figure 1.

Although assets and resources are considered critical factors to team resilience, previous studies have focused more on the resources at the team level and organization level [1,18,19]. This was identified as a gap in the literature, where the individual workforce has not yet been considered an essential asset for organizations to achieve and maintain their performance and health in facing adversity [2]. This study argues that, in studying influencing factors of team resilience, we should consider not only assets and resources at the organization and team level but also at the individual level (Figure 1).

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study was designed as a descriptive, quantitative study. Structured questionnaires were used as the instruments for an online survey, which was conducted in October–December 2021. Disclosure about the nature of the study, informed consent and the participants’ willingness to join the survey voluntarily were also included at the beginning of the questionnaire. Questionnaires without informed consent from participants were omitted from the analysis. A six-point Likert scale (from 1—strongly disagree to 6—strongly agree) was used for participants to rate their opinion. With a six-point Likert scale, the mid-point is omitted to avoid a social desirability bias [57]. Additional demographic information, such as age, gender, educational background, service years, work location, industry, position and size of the company, was also requested for descriptive analysis.

3.2. Participant

Target participants were project management team members. The population of a project management team is approximately 5000 members from various projects in Indonesia. Number of samples was calculated based on rule of thumb: 5–10 times number of indicators [58]. This study used 42 indicators, therefore, a minimum of 210 samples was needed. The questionnaire was distributed online to participants directly via various channels such as the WhatsApp application, which is one of the most popular communication applications in Indonesia, and also e-mails. Selection of the participants was performed using the purposive sampling and snowball method.

3.3. Common Bias Method (CBM)

The collected data in this study that were related to exogenous variables and endogenous variables were from a single source, which was the questionnaires. Therefore, there is a possibility that common method bias (CMB) may have existed, and it may have twisted the data. The researchers informed all respondents that their responses would remain confidential during the data collection. This research applied Harman’s single factor analysis for CMB, and, based on the result obtained using SPSS software, it was revealed that no single factor explained more than 42.54% of the total variance. Due to the fact that the result was below 50%, there was no issue with CMB in the collected data [59,60,61].

3.4. Measurement

All measurement scales used in this study used a framework from a previous study as reference. There were seven latent variables measured. From the individual perspective, the latent variable was Team Member Resilience. Team Member or Individual Resilience was measured by 9 items modified from Naswall et al. (2015) [56]. The items included “collaborative with other to handle challenges”, “Successfully manage high work load for a long time” and “effectively respond to feedback and critics”.

The team-level perspective had three latent variables to be measured, which were Team Interaction, Team Resources and Leadership. Team Interaction was measured by 5 items modified from Sharma and Sharma (2016) [18]. The items included “maintains close social relationship with each other” and “effectively communicate with each other”. Team Resources was measured by 4 items. The measurement items included “right size of team” and “special skills needed”. Latent variable Transformational Leadership was modified from Aragon-Correa et al. (2007) [62] and Chen et al. (2014) [63]. There were 6 items, which included “leader gives priority in finding new opportunity”, “leader always communicate clearly the short-term goals” and “Leader coordinates with his team in making decision”.

From the organizational perspective, the latent variable measured was Organizational Practices. There were 9 items measured modified from Tonkin (2016) [54] and Vera et al. (2017) [19]. The items included “help is available when there is problem”, “best job is rewarded” and “implement of work life balance”.

Team Resilience was measured by 7 items modified from Mallak (1998) [39]. Those items included “Even if the experience causes pain, find the positive angle and move forward”, “Ensure access to adequate resources to allow positive adaptive response to approach a wide variety of possible events” and “Develop the ability to create solutions on the spot using materials on hand”. Team Performance was measured by 3 items modified from Hartwig et al. (2020) [2] and Vera et al. (2017) [19]. The items included “work properly even when unexpected situation” and “have experience adversity with good outcome”.

4. Result and Analysis

Collected data were analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation model with the help of Software SmartPLS version 3.2.9. Hair et al. (2019) [64] and Sarstedt et al. (2020) [65] proposed a two-step analysis approach to be used. First, the measurement model analysis was employed to ensure that all the indicators or observed variables used were valid and reliable (especially in the reflective measurement model) using loadings, Cronbach’s alpha/composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE) and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of the correlations (HTMT). After the measurement model was confirmed to be valid and reliable, the next step in the two-step approach was to conduct a structural model analysis, which included structural model analysis to see the variance inflation factor (VIF) used to evaluate collinearity, explanatory power and the out-of-sample predictive power (indicated by R², Q² and PLSpredict), significance and relevance of the path coefficients.

The total number of returned questionnaires was 354. After screening for informed consent and missing data, there were 349 data eligible for further analysis.

Table 1. Demographic profiles of the samples (n = 349).

No.	Demographic Profile	n	(%)
1.	Gender
	Male	282	81%
	Female	67	19%
2.	Number of projects involved
	First project	22	6%
	Between 1 and 5 projects	81	23%
	Between 5 and 10 projects	75	22%
	More than 10 projects	171	49%
3.	Position
	C-Level/Business Owner	15	4%
	Manager/Senior Manager	181	52%
	Team Leader/Supervisor	59	17%
	Staffs	74	21%
	Others	20	6%
4.	Type of industries
	Construction	138	28%
	Information and Comm. Technology	102	41%
	Others	94	31%
5.	Location
	Jakarta	61	17%
	Outside Jakarta but in Java Island	210	60%
	Outside Java Island	78	22%

shows the demographic profiles of the taken samples.

From Table 1, it can be seen that the majority of the respondents were engaged with more than ten projects (49%). Furthermore, 52% of the respondents occupied manager or senior manager positions, and they were mostly located outside Jakarta but still in Java Island. The respondents were mostly involved in either construction or in information and communication technology projects.

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

Prior to the relationships analysis among variables using PLS SEM, it was essential to know and understand the constructs and related and measured items in the model, as shown in

Table 2. Research constructs and items.

Variable	No	Code	Items	Reference
Employee Resilience	1	EMRS01	I effectively collaborate with others to handle challenges at work	Näswall et al. (2013) quoted in [54]
	2	EMRS02	I successfully manage a high workload for long periods of time
	3	EMRS03	I resolve crises competently at work
	4	EMRS04	I re-evaluate my performance and continually improve the way I do my work
	5	EMRS05	I effectively respond to feedback at work, even criticism
	6	EMRS06	I seek assistance at work when I need specific resources
	7	EMRS07	I approach managers when I need their support
	8	EMRS08	I use change at work as an opportunity for growth
	9	EMRS09	I learn from mistakes at work and improve the way I do my job
Effective Team Interaction	1	TINT01	Team mates maintains close social relationships with each other	Sharma and Sharma, 2016 [18]
	2	TINT02	Team members effectively communicate with one another
	3	TINT03	Team members share necessary information with one another
	4	TINT04	Team Members try to use common terms for work
	5	TINT05	Members of my team agree about how members are expected to behave
Team Resources	1	TRES01	My team is just the right size to accomplish its purpose	Sharma and Sharma (2016) [18]
	2	TRES03	Everyone in my team has the special skills that are needed for teamwork
	3	TRES04	The organization provides us with what we need in doing the project	Vera et al. (2017) [19]
	4	TRES05	The team have enough sources for information and feedback
Transformational Leadership	1	TFRL01	Company leader gives priority in finding new opportunities for the company	Aragon-Correa et al. (2007) [62] and Chen et al. (2014) [63]
	2	TFRL02	Company leader always communicates clearly the short-term goals of the Company
	3	TFRL03	Company leader provides more motivation to employee than to control the course of the company
	4	TFRL04	Company leader plays an important role in the operation of the company
	5	TFRL05	Company leader coordinates with his team in making decisions
	6	TFRL06	Company leader looks for new perspectives in solving problems
Organizational Practices	1	ORPR01	Help is available from the organisation when I have a problem	Tonkin et al. (2016) [54], Vera et al. (2017) [19]
	2	ORPR02	When I do my best job possible, the organisation notices
	3	ORPR03	The organisation cares about my opinions
	4	ORPR04	The organisation implement work-life balance
	5	ORPR05	The organisation provides skill development for me
	6	ORPR06	The organisation provides career development for me
	7	ORPR07	The organisation cares about my wellbeing
	8	ORPR08	The organisation provides equity
	9	ORPR09	The organisation encourages open communication
Team Resilience	1	TRES01	Even if the experience causes pain, find the positive angle and move forward.	Mallak et al, 1998 [39]
	2	TRES02	Perceive change as opportunity, not danger. Allow responses to adapt to the needs of the situation, rather than execute ineffective “programmed” responses.
	3	TRES03	Ensure access to adequate resources to allow positive adaptive response to approach a wide variety of possible events.
	4	TRES04	Provide greater decision making authority to support positive adaptive response and the use of resources to achieve the objective.
	4	TRES05	Develop the ability to create solutions on the spot using materials on hand.
	6	TRES06	Develop the ability to make decisions with less than the desired amount of information.
	7	TRES07	In a team, individuals have a shared understanding of the team’s mission and can fill in wherever needed to ensure smooth functioning of the team.
Team Performance	1	TPER01	In my group, we can work properly even when unexpected situations appear	Hartwig et al. (2020) [2], Vera et al. (2017) [19]
	2	TPER02	In my group, we have experience adversity with good outcome
	3	TPER03	Our group functioning relatively well during adversity

below.

There were 43 items in total that were translated into structured questionnaires. The assessment of the measurement models was mostly performed to ensure that the respective aspects, such as indicator loadings, reliability and validity of the models, met the requirement. Some indicators were eliminated as the loadings were less than 0.7, the indicated minimum loading value. Furthermore, respective requirements, such as the Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted, were also measured, and the results are shown in

Table 3. Measurement model analysis result.

Construct	Items	Cronbach’s Alpha (0.6–0.9)	Composite Reliability (0.6–0.9)	Average Variance Extracted (>0.5)	Factor Loading (>0.7)	t-Value (>1.96)
Transformational Leadership (TRFL)		0.862	0.898	0.595
	TRFL01				0.795	24.176
	TRFL02				0.843	40.920
	TRFL04				0.756	18.129
	TRFL05				0.824	29.729
	TRFL06				0.801	26.212
Team Resources (TRES)		0.833	0.882	0.601
	TRES01				0.751	19.718
	TRES03				0.763	18.843
	TRES04				0.836	36.483
	TRES05				0.873	54.015
Team Interaction (TINT)		0.900	0.926	0.714
	TINT01				0.836	40.810
	TINT02				0.886	70.175
	TINT03				0.876	63.722
	TINT04				0.816	32.619
	TINT05				0.809	28.969
Organizational Practice (OPR)		0.938	0.948	0.669
	OPR01				0.725	19.181
	OPR02				0.827	27.735
	OPR03				0.804	30.670
	OPR04				0.807	30.387
	OPR05				0.782	21.286
	OPR06				0.866	47.605
	OPR07				0.871	54.659
	OPR08				0.848	43.477
	OPR09				0.816	42.910
Individual Resilience (EMRS)		0.844	0.882	0.517
	EMRS01				0.742	23.046
	EMRS04				0.790	32.745
	EMRS05				0.738	23.932
	EMRS08				0.749	22.896
	EMRS09				0.806	33.192
Team Resilience (TRSL)		0.910	0.929	0.651
	TRSL01				0.875	59.809
	TRSL02				0.846	45.857
	TRSL03				0.803	19.994
	TRSL04				0.864	41.285
	TRSL05				0.819	29.761
	TRSL06				0.798	25.314
Team Performance (TPER)		0.869	0.910	0.718
	TPER01				0.790	28.426
	TPER02				0.886	69.213
	TPER03				0.847	33.752

.

From Table 3, it can be seen that the Cronbach’s alpha was above the suggested threshold of 0.7; it shows that all indicators were assumed equally reliable (all indicators had equal outer loadings on construct). The researchers took out the items where the loading was less than 0.7, as suggested by Hair et al. (2019) [64]. The value of the composite reliability was also more than 0.7, and it showed that the model had a higher level of reliability [66]. Average variance extracted was used to measure the convergent validity of the model. Table 3 shows that AVE values were higher than 0.50; hence, the construct clarified more than half of the variance of its indicators on average. Therefore, the level of convergent validity of the model was considered high.

The HTMT ratio, as shown in

Table 4. Correlation matrix (HTMT ratio).

	Employee Resilience	Organizational Practice	Team Interaction	Team Performance	Team Resilience	Team Resources
Individual Resilience	-	-	-	-	-	-
Organizational Practice	0.463	-	-	-	-	-
Team Interaction	0.711	0.566	-	-	-	-
Team Performance	0.723	0.634	0.791	-	-	-
Team Resilience	0.638	0.734	0.750	0.879	-	-
Team Resources	0.686	0.724	0.848	0.774	0.823	-
Transformational Leadership	0.580	0.800	0.762	0.690	0.785	0.821

, was less than 0.9. It indicates that the trajectory model took into account conceptually similar (conservatively) constructs as suggested by area [67]. The smallest coefficient was found in the DC, which was considered low, which was only predicted as 18.5% by ET [68,69]. Finally, the model fit analysis was performed using the PLS algorithm. Based on Wetzels et al. (2009) [70], the goodness of fit was considered a significant fit with results of 0.547; greater than 0.36 was considered the GoF large threshold; and the result showing the value of the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was 0.077, which was still within the model fit threshold [69]. This shows that the model should be considered in accordance with the actual conditions.

All VIF values were less than 5, which indicates that there were no collinearity issues among predictor constructs, based on the Bootstrap with SRMR = 0.064 less than 0.08. The value of RMS_Theta also had a value of 0.115 less than 0.12, which indicates goodness of model fit [69].

The coefficient of determination of the results of the analysis was revealed using the PLS algorithm.

Table 5. Coefficient of determination and blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy measure.

Construct	R2	Q2
Team Performance	0.623	0.441
Team Resilience	0.665	0.456

shows that the Team Performance construct had an R² of 0.623, which means that BS was 62.3%, predicted by Team Resilience, while 37.7% was predicted by other variables. Furthermore, the R² of Team Resilience was 66.5%, which means that the construct was 66.5%, predicted by Organizational Practice, Transformational Leadership, Team Resources, Team Interaction and Individual Resilience, and 34.5% was predicted by other constructs. Both R² values were higher than 0.50, which means that they were relatively moderate to large (less than 0.75 but more than 0.50). The blindfolding-based, cross-validated redundancy measure Q² was also calculated using the Blindfolding function in SmartPLS. The result showed Q² values higher than 0.25, which shows the relatively medium-to-large predictive accuracy of the PLS path model.

Further analysis was performed to ensure the predictive power of the model. This was proven by running the PLSpredict feature, and the result is shown in

Table 6. PLSpredict results.

Indicators	RMSE PLS	RMSE LM	Comparison Result
TPER01	0.704	0.717	Smaller
TPER03	0.596	0.590	Larger
TPER02	0.640	0.668	Smaller
TRSL06	0.694	0.741	Smaller
TRSL03	0.744	0.779	Smaller
TRSL04	0.587	0.648	Smaller
TRSL02	0.614	0.633	Smaller
TRSL01	0.592	0.605	Smaller
TRSL05	0.671	0.716	Smaller

.

Table 6 shows the comparison results of RMSE of PLS and RMSE LM. As most of RMSE PLS values were smaller than RMSE LM, it shows that the minority of indicators yielded higher prediction error, thus, the model indicated medium predictive power. Based on the measurement models assessment it can be concluded that the model provided relatively high accuracy for prediction.

4.2. Structural Model Assessment

The first analysis was performed to find out that whether there was collinearity among predictor constructs and to ensure that the collinearity did not provide bias regression result. Therefore, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values were used to assess it. The assessment results showed that the inner VIF values were less than 3, and it means that there was no collinearity among the constructs (

Table 7. Variance inflation factor (VIF) result.

	Employee Resilience	Organizational Practice	Team Interaction	Team Performance	Team Resilience	Team Resources	Transformational Leadership
Employee Resilience					1.725
Organizational Practice					2.305
Team Interaction					2.746
Team Performance
Team Resilience				1.000
Team Resources					2.988
Transformational Leadership					2.950

).

The next assessment was to find out the significance and relevance of the model’s path coefficients. In order to measure it, a Bootstrapping analysis with 5000 sub-samples was performed, and the results are shown in Figure 2.

From the result, it can be seen that the only path that showed insignificant influence among the constructs was the path between Transformational Leadership and Team Resilience (t-value was less than 1.96). It indicates that Transformational Leadership had insignificant influence on Team Resilience. This analysis was also used to test the hypotheses, as shown in

Table 8. Hypothesis test result.

Hypothesis	Structural Paths	Standardized Coefficient (β)	t-Values	Hypothesis Test Result
H1	Individual Resilience → Team Resilience	0.113 **	2.185	Supported
H2	Team Interaction → Team Resilience	0.238 ***	3.579	Supported
H3	Team Resources → Team Resilience	0.226 ***	3.201	Supported
H4	Transformational Leadership → Team Resilience	0.080	1.161	Not Supported
H5	Organizational Practice → Team Resilience	0.316 ***	5.436	Supported
H6	Team Resilience → Team Performance	0.792 ***	38.133	Supported

Notes: ** significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.001.

.

From Table 8, it can be seen that all hypotheses were supported except H4, which proposed the influence between Transformational Leadership and Team Resilience. Furthermore, the rest of the constructs that predicted Team Resilience showed significant influence at 0.05 and 0.001. Compared to the other path coefficients (β), the influence of Team Resilience on Team Performance was relatively high as the β value was 0.792.

5. Discussion

Team structure, despite being effective, also faces difficulties internally, primarily related to role, interpersonal conflict and coordination [1]. Resilient teams are more likely to be productive, agile and innovative during turbulent times [18]. The difference between a resilient team and a team that is not resilient could be the difference between survival and breaking down when facing adversity [19]. Teams that demonstrate the ability to either emerge in the face of adversity, manage and adapt to major challenges or stress or bounce back from a negative experience are less likely to experience the detrimental effects of intimidating situations [18]. This study has shown that the development of team resilience is complex. It requires multiple perspectives.

5.1. H1—Individual Resilience

At the individual level, this study showed how individual resilience has an influence on team resilience. How does individual resilience contribute to team resilience? As resilience theory mentions, resilience recognizes the importance of access and resources. In team resilience, having individuals who are resilient as team members is a critical factor. Mallak (1998) stated that individual reliance has seven basic principles, which are “(a) perceive experiences constructively, (b) perform positive adaptive behaviors, (c) ensure adequate external resources, (d) expand decision-making boundaries, (e) practice bricolage, (f) develop tolerances for uncertainty, and (g) build virtual role systems”. From these principles, having resilient individuals in the team ensures that the team shares constructive, adoptive, decisive and creative experiences and knows how to manage uncertainty.

5.2. H2—Effective Team Interaction

Teams are defined as an interdependent groups of individuals that share responsibility and focus on a common goal [21]. The team does not work in a vacuum. Previous studies have shown how communication plays an essential role in an organization’s performance. Communication within organizations or internal communication has been established as playing a vital role in influencing organizational effectiveness [47]. D’Aprix (2009), quoted in [48], depicted communication as a “lubricant” in the corporate machinery. It is considered critical in building relationships between an organization and its employees [48]. Good interaction enables the team to learn about and from each other [44]. Therefore, they can come up with better solutions and reduce errors [45]; [46]. With interaction, the team builds mutual understanding and trust. The importance of coordination and cooperation was raised by [1,2]. McEwen et al. (2018) [1] stated that being cooperative and supportive and having the need to seek alignment with other team members are considered components of team resilience.

5.3. H3—Adequate Team Resources

This study showed that the team-level perspective variables influenced team resilience. Having individual team members who are resilient is not enough. The team-level perspective also plays a critical role here. Referring to resilience theory on the importance of resources, in order to build a resilient team, the team should have adequate resources at the team level. Adequate resources make teams perform effectively. What kind of team resource influences team resilience? In building resilience, the team should be able to access resources when they face adversity. They need delegation in order for them to make decisions under uncertainty. They also need social support and feedback to support them whenever they are under stress or need guidance. Enough people in the team, budget and IT also help the team handle difficult situations.

5.4. H4—Transformational Leadership

The third variable in the team perspective is leadership. Regarding leadership styles, the literature reveals several types, such as authoritarian, charismatic, situational, visionary, contingency, behavioral and transactional [71]. Among the 66 leadership styles indicated by Dinh et al. (2014), quoted in [72], transformational leadership is the most emphasized and has been growing rapidly since the 1990s, especially in studies that investigated how these studies promote better performance in organizations [72]. This study showed that the transformational leadership style does not influence the resilience of the team.

For the past 30 years, transformational leadership has been the single most studied and debated idea within the field of leadership. From 2000 to 2022, there were more than 6000 articles published in the SCOPUS database containing the topic of transformational leadership [73]. Transformational leaders do not settle for the status quo; they continuously pursue an appealing and challenging future vision. Transformational leaders show creative behavior, display unconventional approaches and serve as good role models with regard to innovation [63]. They are charismatic and able to inspire their followers to reach the highest level of achievement. Transformational leaders are also able to convince each follower to take ownership of the group goals. They promote incremental contributions of the follower and inspire them to contribute in a manner which exceeds the call of duty [74]. They keep an eye on the long-term vision rather than short-term goals [75].

However, the impact of transformational leadership is not consistent. A meta-analysis study that integrated 31 studies on the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation showed that there was a broad range of results varying from −0.31 to 0.84 [76]. Innovation is complex. It involves various conflicting activities that leaders need to engage in [77]. At the same time, leaders need to have the right mindset and engage with activities that are not compatible. Therefore, leaders need to have the flexibility to adapt their leadership approach and alternate between different behaviors to adjust to the task demands of innovation [77].

Transformational leadership is known as the four Is. Despite the benefits, this type of leadership has some limitations. This might be the reason why transformational leadership is not suitable for project management. Some limitations include favoritism and more conflict due to the nature of transformational leadership relating to individual consideration and intellectual stimulation. As for specific project management, transformational leadership might increase the risk of delay in making decisions. Since transformational leaders also focus on the big picture, they might overlook the detail, which is unfavorable for the project. Since transformational leadership is very good for inspiring people, this might cause a potential burden for their team.

5.5. H5—Positive Organizational Practices

This study reveals that, in order to build team resilience, an organizational perspective is required. This study shows that organizational practices have significance for team resilience. During a difficult time, organizational support, such as leadership, shields the team from further stressors and external threats. Organizational practices, such as work–life balance, wellbeing, skill and career development and organization communication, are protective resources that provide team members with positive and healthy practices to cope with challenges (Friborg (2003), quoted in [54]).

5.6. H6—Impact to Team Perfomance

As an outcome, of course, all the effort in building resilience is expected to produce team performance. This study shows that team resilience does indeed have a positive association with team performance. Teams that demonstrate the ability to either emerge in the face of adversity, manage and adapt to major challenges or stress or bounce back from a negative experience are less likely to experience the detrimental effects of intimidating situations [18]. A team with resilience can emerge in the face of adversity, manage and adapt to major challenges or stress or bounce back from a negative experience and is less likely to experience the detrimental effects of intimidating situations [18].

6. Conclusions

Project management teams have to deal with risk and uncertainty from the project portfolio level to the individual level. Furthermore, project complexity adds to the challenges faced by project management teams. Moreover, projects are performed by project management teams that consist of various individuals from different backgrounds. Therefore, team resilience is critical to successful project management. Resilient teams are more likely to be productive, agile and innovative during turbulent times. These team characteristics become critical assets for anticipating the complexity of projects in the post-pandemic period.

6.1. Research Implications

This study addressed the issues in an attempt to understand multi-perspective factors and how they influence team resilience. To this end, five main contributions with research implications were made, which are: (1) a construct which captures the multi-perspective factors, namely individual, team and organization factors, was developed, (2) it was shown that having team members who are resilient differentiates between having team resilience or not (H1), (3) at a team level, the effect of team interaction and team resources was highlighted (H2 and H3), (4) it was demonstrated that positive organizational practice fosters team resilience (H5), and (5) the positive effect of team resilience on team performance was highlighted (H6).

This model is grounded in the resource-based view (RBV). The RBV has a firm-centric approach for establishing the firm’s competitive advantages. This study confirmed how internal organization strengths can relate to competitiveness and organization performance. This study revealed that, in order to establish a resilience team, multilevel perspectives are required.

6.2. Practical Implications

In terms of practical relevance, firms may find this research beneficial in two main areas. First, it can help firms to establish their team resilience. In team recruitment, firms are better off hiring resilient individuals. This study shows that resilient individuals contribute to team resilience. However, this study also shows that individual resilience alone is not strong enough to establish team resilience. Firms should ensure a level of interaction among team member which fosters cooperation and trust. Firms also need to fulfill the need for resources. Firms should also encourage positive organizational practice. The second practical implication is that this study can be used to estimate the resilience of a team. The R² of individual resilience, team interaction, team resources, transformational leadership and organizational practice is big enough.

6.2.1. Limitation of Study

The study has some limitations. This study mixed project management from various industries regardless of the different level of challenges faced. For example, IT project management has shorter timelines but requires greater flexibility compared to construction industry project management. Second, this study was quantitative by design, therefore, lacking deeper understanding of reasoning.

6.2.2. Further Study

A study which focuses on industries with similar challenges is recommended to confirm the result of this study. A mixed-method study could give better understanding; therefore, it is recommended for future study. A further study to show the reciprocation between team resilience and individual resilience is also recommended.