Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Interprof Care. 2025 Feb 16;39(2):314–320. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2025.2460477

The Team Resilience Prescription: Navigating Adaptive and Maladaptive Processes in Healthcare Teams

Gabriela Fernández Castillo 1, Maryam Khan 1, Lila Berger 1, Rylee Linhardt 1, Tisnue Jean-Baptiste 1, Eduardo Salas 1
PMCID: PMC11932645  NIHMSID: NIHMS2059522  PMID: 39955780

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world turned its attention to healthcare professionals: everyone’s lifeline. Yet, in doing so, patterns of overwork and exhaustion of those professionals were fortified, resulting in some of the highest burnout rates the field has ever seen. The picture becomes increasingly complex as most healthcare professionals work in teams, and resilient individuals do not necessarily make resilient teams. As many healthcare professionals are taught to keep going – no matter what the obstacles are – resilience ensues, but at what cost? This discussion article argues that team resilience comes in two forms: adaptive and maladaptive. We discuss how teams’ exchange patterns can result in negative cycles of performance, resulting in harm to the self, one’s team, and others (such as patients). We follow this discussion up by putting forward three pillars of adaptive team resilience grounded in job burnout’s facets, integrating literature on sense of calling, emotional contagion, and team adaptivity. Moreover, we consider the pivotal role of the healthcare hierarchy in these processes, and how individuals of differential rank can approach these pillars. We end with a brief discussion on how to incorporate these pillars into organizational practices that foster adaptive behaviors.

Keywords: team resilience, maladaptive resilience, adaptive resilience, burnout, psychological safety

Introduction

A surgical team in Florida is under investigation for having allegedly removed the wrong organ in a 70-year-old patient – an outcome not as uncommon as one might think (Collins, 2024). In healthcare, most would agree that the ultimate goal is patient health and safety. It is likely this surgical team had the initial goal of a successful surgery with no intention of patient harm. Yet, the execution of this goal led to a different outcome. Intentions aside, harm resulted.

Healthcare practitioners and researchers know the issues above are multi-faceted. Healthcare teams face a myriad of challenges related to adverse outcomes, such as conflict management, decision-making, accountability, and more (Fernández Castillo et al., 2024; Zajac et al., 2021). Overall, medical error is a well-cataloged and researched phenomenon (Donaldson et al., 2000). Yet, error rates aside, there are extant problems that serve to exacerbate performance decline.

Healthcare is also recognized for its hierarchical structure – which makes it difficult for lower rank individuals (such as residents) to speak up when they do observe a mistake (i.e., a lack of psychological safety, Edmonson, 1999). Even when healthcare workers get breaks from these issues, they cannot really recover from work, given adverse effects from stress in their workplace, such as affective rumination (Vandevala et al., 2017). This leads to a conundrum in healthcare workers’ work lives. One must uphold patient safety against a system that makes it difficult every step of the way; whilst exhausted, unable to speak up, and burnt out – reflected in the 47% of healthcare professionals seeking to leave their position by 2025 (Kelly, 2022).

To address these issues, scholars have turned their attention to resilience, a protective factor against burnout (West et al., 2020). However, in healthcare, the landscape becomes increasingly complex, as interprofessional teamwork is the norm (Pannick et al., 2015), and resilient individuals do not necessarily make a resilient team (Alliger et al., 2015). Although academic interest in resilience has increased, team resilience continues to be understudied, and its dark side mostly undiscussed (Stoverink et al., 2020).

The goal of this discussion paper is threefold. Firstly, we seek to explore and discuss resilience’s ability to be maladaptive, pushing healthcare teams to the brink. Secondly, we put forward a theoretical framework for adaptive team resilience, centered around the tenets of job burnout (Maslach, 2003). We do this by building on the plethora of prior work that has defined team resilience and its components (e.g., Alliger et al., 2015; Stoverink et al., 2020). Based on these insights, we then provide evidence-based recommendations for maintaining and training adaptive team resilience in healthcare settings.

Can Team Resilience Be Maladaptive?

Team resilience is “a team’s capacity to bounce back from adversity-induced process loss” (Stoverink et al., 2020, p. 395). Simply put, it is a team’s ability to continuously overcome challenges, like stress. Until recently, resilience was considered positive. However, research at the individual-level has revealed resilience has the capacity to be adaptive (e.g., a medical student studies for 4 hours and sleeps 8 before the examination) or maladaptive (e.g., pulling an all-nighter; Jean-Baptiste et al., 2024). For this reason, resilience is not always conducive to well-being. There are situations in which “choosing to engage in resilience may deplete resources beyond one’s capacity, fostering vulnerability rather than well-being and success” (Jean-Baptiste et al., 2024, p. 220).

Although this distinction has not been made in the team-level context, its importance cannot be overstated. Healthcare teams paint a clear picture for the consequences of maladaptive resilience: mistakes are made, healthcare workers quit, and lives can be endangered or lost, all under the intention or underlying goal of patient safety. We argue that a vast majority of healthcare teams are engaging in maladaptive team resilience. In the process of bouncing back after a stressful event, teams engage in actions that have the potential to harm others (e.g., the patient, individual team members, or the team at large). Figure 1 illustrates these possibilities.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The process of bouncing back.

Figure 1 reflects a variety of factors at play: team member actions, team-level actions, and their interplay. For example, a surgeon might skip a surgical step to save time given their exhaustion (Figure 1, configuration B). Or a team can schedule back-to-back surgeries because they believe this is the best way to save as many lives as possible, without allowing team members to take breaks (Figure 1, configuration A). Healthcare teams engage in such patterns because most of the time, these actions do result in overcoming adversity – as not all mistakes lead to deaths. Yet, repeatedly, such a cycle of actions will lead to harm-related consequences, from burnout to patient death. As evident by the field’s burnout rates (Kelly, 2022), healthcare is face to face with its maladaptive processes. Change is needed. It is not enough for teams to overcome challenges, but rather, to overcome them in a way that sustains both performance and well-being.

A Theoretical Framework of Adaptive Team Resilience

Resilient teams have four main resources: a shared mental model (i.e., a shared understanding of how things work), psychological safety (i.e., the ability to speak up without fear of reprimand; Edmonson, 1999), team potency (i.e., a belief that it can resolve challenges), and the capacity to improvise (Stoverink et al., 2020). Moreover, resilient teams minimize, manage, and mend stressors. Minimizing refers to actions taken before the onset of stress, managing refers to actions taken during the stressful period, and mending refers to recovering from stress (Alliger et al., 2015). Throughout this article, we build on both Stoverink et al. (2020) and Alliger et al.’s (2015) work, presenting a behavioral framework that explores how teams can bounce back adaptively. Figure 2 summarizes this framework.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Adaptive team resilience.

We center this framework around mitigating job burnout, given its pernicious hold on healthcare. Job burnout relates to the interpersonal stressors one experiences at the workplace using three tenets: inefficacy, emotional exhaustion and cynicism (Maslach, 2003). Altogether, this framework conceptualizes adaptive team processes by discussing a teams’ ability to minimize feelings of inefficacy by creating a sense of purpose, managing emotional exhaustion by mitigating emotional contagion, and mending cynicism by continuously checking their team’s pulse.

Pillar #1: A Team Needs to Create a Sense of Calling

Healthcare’s fast paced environment can make employees feel isolated and powerless, triggering beliefs their efforts are futile. A lack of clear goals can further these feelings (Maslach, 2003). These issues can compound in feelings of inefficacy, job burnout’s first tenet (Bakhamis et al., 2019). Research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates this point. A participant in a study conducted by Rapp et al. (2021) stated “[...] almost a full third of my patients [were] positive [with COVID…] That rocked us… part of it, honestly was, we felt, as a whole, we felt like we failed our patients” (p. 1179).

To address inefficacy, we propose grounding healthcare teams in a collective sense of calling for two reasons. Firstly, having a shared goal provides purpose that can be used as fuel during tough times (Morgan et al., 2013). Secondly, actions that enhance team identity can contribute to cooperation, which is linked to resilience (Hartwig et al., 2020) – mitigating perceived loneliness (e.g., “we are in it together”). Calling is described as deriving a sense of meaning from prosocial acts (Dik & Duffy, 2009), especially relevant in healthcare, where many pursue the field for its prosocial roots (Caldas et al., 2021). We posit that a sense of calling is not purely an individual resource, it may also be a group one.

At the team-level, a sense of purpose has been defined as a shared understanding of objectives, values and vision, mutually agreed and developed by team members (Sims et al., 2015). Teams connected by a shared sense of purpose have better well-being and performance outcomes (Cunningham et al., 2023). We posit that teams that ground their experiences in connection to meaning and purpose (i.e., calling) for being in the healthcare field will perform better over time. This could mean starting a shift with one’s team by sharing a positive story that reminded them of their purpose – which minimizes aspects of adversity by cushioning a potential fall (Alliger et al., 2015). Then, by tying these to objective goals (e.g., “we have to attend to X amount of patients today, remember why we do this”) teams become adaptively resilient over time. Setting team goals around calling can allow team members to feel a sense of autonomy and meaning as they perceive how their independent contributions impact the team. Moreover – these actions fuel the team and aid in building shared mental models (SMMs).

SMMs help teams identify, clarify, and anticipate occurrences in their environment, contributing to team resilience (Mathieu et al., 2000; Stoverink et al., 2020). Yet, creating a SMM in a complex environment can be difficult, especially in a field that involves interprofessional team members. Sectors where there is an interface between contexts such as an interdepartmental transfer can result in inadequate communication (Weller et al., 2014), emphasizing the need for shared goals in interprofessional healthcare teams (Santana et al., 2011). On top of this, two main psychological barriers complicate the fostering of a successful SMM. Firstly, healthcare’s interprofessional nature can lead to tribes where professional allegiances lead to tensions and/or working in silos (Aquino et al., 2020; Weller et al., 2014). Secondly, healthcare’s hierarchical structure makes it difficult for team members of distinct rank to communicate adequately, resulting in a lack of psychological safety. This is because powerful people (e.g., surgeons) experience more subjective distance from lower power individuals (e.g., residents), making communication between asymmetric power holders difficult (Magee & Smith, 2013). To mitigate these effects, lower power individuals need to be seen as relevant to higher power individuals’ goals (Magee, 2020).

Creating a collective sense of calling can align a team’s mental model by bringing team members closer together via a shared understanding on why they are performing their jobs – giving them fuel past a single day’s results. Doing so aids in the overcoming of psychological barriers by highlighting to more powerful individuals why others are instrumental for the task at hand. It gives people a reason to relate and understand each other (Morgan et al., 2013), improving psychological safety. This is important, as support in prosocial motivation is needed to avoid more exhaustion (Caldas et al., 2021). Therefore, by creating a shared calling, teams feed two resources they need to be adaptively resilient: SMMs and psychological safety.

Pillar #2: A Team Needs to Manage Team Member Emotions

The second component of job burnout is emotional exhaustion (Maslach, 2003). In healthcare, emotional exhaustion arises from an array of circumstances, such as intrusions of non-work time (Rapp et al., 2021). Emotional contagion can worsen these effects (Pettita et al., 2017). On top of this, healthcare has a higher propensity for emotional contagion than other fields (Pettita et al., 2017). For this reason, teams that have the capacity to harness emotional contagion for positive benefits can protect against emotional exhaustion and increase adaptive team resilience. To do this, teams must learn how to manage negative emotions.

Negative emotions are critical for solving problems of immediate survival (Stephens et al., 2013). Reframing what anger signifies can aid in avoiding maladaptive resilience. For example, a team leader could, instead of lashing out over a mistake (e.g., saying “this is unacceptable” using a threatening tone), could say: “Let’s note this to avoid similar mistakes, and let me know how I can improve our communication next time.” Teaching teams how to use anger constructively can potentially help reduce maladaptive strategies, like internalization (Booth, 2010). Teams that are capable of expressing anger in a constructive way perform better (Stephens & Carmeli, 2016). Anger is part of the human experience, not to be avoided but instead, addressed.

Yet, the reality is that asymmetric power holders may approach this differently. For individuals of lower rank (e.g., residents), the best way to communicate anger is doing it in a way that avoids threatening the power holder (Guinote, 2017). When dealing with asymmetric relationships, this can mean having the communication in private (Tannenbaum et al., 2023) or as instrumental to the goal (e.g., “doing X could result in Y, should we approach this in a different way?”; Overbeck & Park, 2006).

Likewise, joy, whether approached as emotional labor (e.g., faking a smile to appear approachable) or as emotional work (e.g., giving a patient a smile to make their day better) can lead to differential outcomes (Pisaniello et al., 2012). Teams should aim to have well-being in all their team members, rather than have one person carry the emotional load for the group (Kaplan et al., 2013). Teams can manage emotional loads via social support, one of the most important markers of resilience (Stoverink et al., 2020). Strong relational bonds within the team may facilitate supportive behavior and cooperation when faced with challenges (Hartwig et al., 2020).

Altogether, engaging with emotions adaptively can potentially increase a team’s belief that it can resolve challenges (e.g., team potency) – another of Stovierink et al.’s (2020) team resilience resources. Teams require moderate levels of team potency to ensure team members are vigilant but not overconfident in their capabilities (Stoverink et al., 2020). The management of team member emotions can help teams achieve moderate levels. It also aids a team in the managing of challenges as they are arising, rather than having them internalize or bubble-up later on (Alliger et al., 2015).

A team well-versed in managing emotions will move forward accordingly, while a team who does not say anything at all risks being overconfident. This is reminiscent of the Floridian surgical team mentioned above. It is likely a team member noticed wrong steps being taken and did not speak up, internalizing negative emotions. Hence, managing emotional situations maintains teams in the middle of potency – confidence, but not delusion. Learning how to engage in respectful interpersonal interactions can also sustain an environment of psychological safety, a key team resource (Edmonson, 1999; Stoverink et al., 2020).

Pillar #3: A Team Needs to Check Their Pulse

The last dimension of burnout is cynicism and depersonalization (Consiglio, 2014). Cynicism is the loss of emotional or cognitive connection to one’s work, correlated with depersonalization, an adverse and disengaged reaction to job aspects (Larsen et al., 2017; Maslach, 2003). As one physician put it: “I feel that I am caring less about non-critical patients than I used to […] I’m not the only one [...] I think that it might be some symptom of burnout (Rapp et al., 2021, p. 1179).

Individuals who experience powerlessness, as described above, disengage from tasks and reduce their social closeness with others (Foulk et al., 2020). Teams must mend the fallout from these stressful events (Alliger et al., 2015). To do this, we recommend teams check their pulse in a timely manner to avoid further burnout. This will help stop feelings of cynicism and depersonalization from spiraling into full detachment from work, helping the team make changes when needed (i.e., team adaptability). An actionable, evidence-based strategy to check the team’s pulse are team debriefs (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013).

Debriefing can foster and promote resilience (Alliger et al., 2015). Team debriefing should involve reflection upon the event. This can mean having a discussion around how everyone is feeling about the task’s completion or lingering emotions about work. By making themselves aware of which team members are experiencing certain challenges – teams may leverage their network to support whoever needs it (known as backup behaviors), enabling a team to mend.

By fostering discussion of the goal at hand and how the team will overcome it next time, team debriefs help ensure goal alignment between all team members. These discussions are helpful in maintaining realistic expectations about what can and cannot change (Tannenbaum et al., 2023). Through these discussions, team members can expand their understanding of what others are capable of and how these capacities can be combined for future adversities – feeding Stoverink et al.’s (2020) last resilient team resource of improvisation and adaptability. Lastly, team debriefs can also include how the team responded successfully to the adversity. Team members can highlight positive, genuine feedback during debriefs, which also enhances psychological safety (Tannenbaum et al., 2023).

Summary

This section described the theoretical framework underpinning adaptive team resilience processes (summarized in Table 1). We discussed how establishing a team sense of calling might minimize feelings of inefficacy, how managing emotional contagion might contain emotional exhaustion, and how incorporating pulse-checks might relieve feelings of cynicism and depersonalization. We move forward delineating evidence-based insights for supporting and training these pillars.

Table 1.

Principles of Adaptively Resilient Teams

Adaptively resilient teams… By… This helps maintain adaptive team resilience because…
1. Create a sense of calling. Setting goals grounded in calling. It can align a team’s shared mental model and increase psychological safety.
2. Manage team member emotions. Using anger constructively and highlighting positive experiences, such as calling. It can help a team stay in the middle of the bell curve of team potency while increasing psychological safety.
3. Adapt appropriately to changing circumstances. Checking the team’s pulse, such as debriefing. It can improve improvisation skills and strengthen psychological safety within the team.
Open in a new tab

Implications for Practice

Team training positively affects participant reactions, learning, and transfer (Hughes et al., 2016). Existing medical team training programs such as TeamSTEPPS (King et al., 2008) emphasize team-based competencies but lack a focus on resilience and discerning adaptive vs. maladaptive resilient behaviors. Therefore, exploring evidence-based insights for training and supporting adaptive team resilience is essential.

The guiding principle of organizational psychology is a needs-analysis, which defines the purpose of training, the drivers of effective performance, and delineates how to create an environment that enhances learning and transfer (Salas & Stagl, 2023). Diagnosing burnout is the first step in addressing burnout. An organization seeking to address burnout could ask employees to take the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1997). In doing so, organizations can pinpoint if burnout is the issue, and if so, they can evaluate coping mechanisms. Organizations can use the three pillars of adaptively resilient teams described above and determine if teams are straying from adaptive strategies.

For example, the first pillar of an adaptively resilient team is to create a sense of calling. Before initiating training, organizations should assess whether teams meet before an important event and if they are coming together to create a collective mission. If they are already doing that, then teams only need to be taught to incorporate calling. However, if they are not, that is a different starting place – highlighting the need to understand what behaviors teams are exhibiting before interference. This knowledge can be used in shaping training design, personalizing it to specific organizational needs.

Healthcare organizations should also analyze organizational climate and note what is exacerbating maladaptive behaviors. Organizational climate is pivotal in enabling effective training and yielding positive outcomes (Salas et al., 2018). Without organizational cooperation and willingness to adjust policies that may be exacerbating burnout symptoms, even teams that display all adaptive resilience behaviors will likely burnout.

Another key insight in training adaptive team resilience is giving teams practice. The most effective solutions are blended learning solutions that enhance learning outcomes (Salas & Stagl, 2023). Oftentimes, effective training gets confounded with an overstated concern in replicating physical work contexts. However, psychological fidelity, defined as whether experiences replicate the underlying psychological processes of the real world is equally important (Kozlowski & DeShon, 2004). In a low-resources context, psychological fidelity is an important resource that should be leveraged to enhance training experiences, as teams need to believe what they are learning will benefit them in the long run. Most training has been found to be able to increase participants’ knowledge of factual information (Salas & Stagl, 2023) – but only the most effective training is capable of getting across why the information is essential.

The second principle of adaptively resilient teams is to manage team member emotions (Table 1). There are endless possibilities for teams to develop this capacity. One of them is simulation-based training (SBT), such as role-playing simulation (Fernández Castillo et al., 2024). The importance of SBT lies not in perfectly replicating employees’ work settings but more in embedding employees in a scenario that allows them to experience real situations in a relatively risk-free environment (Salas et al., 2013). SBT allows for facilitated knowledge transfer. When real situations arise, teams will have the feeling of having experienced the process before, and experience of available lines of support (Salas et al., 2013).

Lastly, organizations interested in bettering worker well-being should incorporate resilience check-points. Feedback is strongly associated with effective team training practices (Salas et al., 2018; Salas & Stagl, 2023). The use of organizational “resilience check-points” where both positive and constructive feedback are offered to stakeholders can support adaptive resilience. A component of effective feedback is bi-dimensional feedback (Kritek, 2015). Teams should be allowed to communicate outstanding issues to management, and have management be receptive and transparent (Tannenbaum et al., 2023). Moreover, to foster true adaptiveness, both teams and organizations should not consider resilience as a “complete” process. Instead, they should understand it as something that requires nurturing, necessitating attention and care.

How To Move Forward

We believe researchers need to distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive processes, both at the individual and team level. Given the nascency of this literature, there is a need for qualitative work to explore how teams actually deal with and overcome challenges. However, this research should not be limited to qualitative methodologies. Researchers can also institute surveys and longitudinal work that compares the three pillars by evaluating them across interprofessional teams and connecting them to viable team performance outcomes (such as surgical error rates).

To move forward with practice, we echo sentiments highlighted by Morera et al. (2024): healthcare professionals are not superheroes, and they should not be treated as such. If organizations recognize that extreme overtime, few breaks, and no true rest is tied to declining performance – organizations can shed light on how coping with stress by continuing to perform above all is not conducive to long-term outcomes. In a field with such high stakes, this is well-worth considering.

We outlined three pillars of adaptive team resilience that map on to the three components of job burnout (Maslach, 2003). A key theoretical contribution of this work is the introduction of a framework that distinguishes between adaptive and maladaptive team resilience, summarized in Figure 1. By doing so, we answer research calls to explore the “dark-side” of resilience, and show that given the multilevel and interdependent nature of teams, actions have the capacity to either enhance or dampen team resilience over time. We highlighted how distinct team configurations may feed into maladaptive team processes, resulting in burnoutm, as well as how the healthcare hierarchy serves to exacerbate these issues. The practical contributions of this work include actionable insights for organizations, such as conducting a needs-analysis, centering training around practice, and offering a bi-directional pathway for teams to also give feedback to administrators. By shedding light on the concept of maladaptive resilience, we highlight to organizations the connection between burnout and performance, incentivizing them to foster supportive environments. With unprecedented turnover in the field – it is clear the line between adaptive and maladaptive team resilience matters.

Table 2.

Summary of Training Insights

Insights for Training Adaptive Team Resilience
1. Analyze Burnout and Resilience Behaviors
2. Center Training on Displaying and Practicing Adaptive Team Resilience
3. Offer Organizational Resilience Check-Points
Open in a new tab

Funding

This work was partially supported by the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-19-2-0173. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Army Research Institute (ARI) for the Behavioral and Social Sciences or the US Government. The research on Team Science was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health, through UTHealth-CCTS grant number UM1TR004906. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health. Rice University is a partner on this grant.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Disclosure Statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

We have no conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Alliger GM, Cerasoli CP, Tannenbaum SI, & Vessey WB (2015). Team resilience. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176–184. 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aquino MRJR, Mullis R, Moore C, Kreit ME, Lim L, McKevitt C, Mackintosh B, & Mant J. (2020). “It’s difficult, there’s no formula”: Qualitative study of stroke related communication between primary and secondary healthcare professionals. International Journal of Integrated Care, 20(4), 11. 10.5334/ijic.5465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhamis L, Paul III DP, Smith H, & Coustasse A. (2019). Still an epidemic: The burnout syndrome in hospital registered nurses. The Healthcare Manager, 38(1), 3–10. 10.1097/HCM.0000000000000243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Booth BE (2010). Anger management for nurses. Journal of Practical Nursing, 60(3), 9–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Caldas MP, Ostermeier K, & Cooper D. (2021). When helping hurts: COVID-19 critical incident involvement and resource depletion in health care workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(1), 29–47. 10.1037/apl0000850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins K. (2024, Sept. 4). Man dies after physician removes the wrong organ during surgery, widow says. Fox 59. https://fox59.com/news/national-world/man-dies-after-physician-removes-the-wrong-organ-during-surgery-widow-says/ [Google Scholar]
  7. Consiglio C. (2014). Interpersonal strain at work: A new burnout facet relevant for the health of hospital staff. Burnout Research, 1(2), 69–75. 10.1016/j.burn.2014.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cunningham AT, Felter J, Smith KR, Sifri R, Arenson C, Patel A, & Kelly EL (2023). Burnout and commitment after 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: A follow-up qualitative study with primary care teams. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 36(1), 105–117. 10.3122/jabfm.2022.220226R1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dik BJ, & Duffy RD (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(3), 424–450. 10.1177/0011000008316430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, & Kohn LT (Eds.). (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system (Vol. 6). National Academies Press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Edmondson A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. 10.2307/2666999 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernández Castillo G, Khalid M, & Salas E. (2024). Beyond communication: An update on transforming healthcare teams. Frontiers in Medicine, 11, 1282173. 10.3389/fmed.2024.1282173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Foulk TA, De Pater IE, Schaerer M, du Plessis C, Lee R, & Erez A. (2020). It’s lonely at the bottom (too): The effects of experienced powerlessness on social closeness and disengagement. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 363–394. 10.1111/peps.12358 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Guinote A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 353–381. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hartwig A, Clarke S, Johnson S, & Willis S. (2020). Workplace team resilience: A systematic review and conceptual development. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3–4), 169–200. 10.1177/2041386620919476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hughes AM, Gregory ME, Joseph DL, Sonesh SC, Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Benishek CN, King LE, Heidi B, & Salas E. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1266–1304. 10.1037/apl0000120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jean-Baptiste T, King D, Banerjee N, & Du I. (2024). Revisiting assumptions about resilience effects: Adaptive versus maladaptive resilience processes in organizations. In Resilience in modern day organizations (pp. 215–225). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaplan S, LaPort K, & Waller MJ (2013). The role of positive affectivity in team effectiveness during crises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 473–491. 10.1002/job.1817 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kelly J. (2022, April 19). New survey shows that up to 47% of U.S. healthcare workers plan to leave their positions by 2025. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/04/19/new-survey-shows-that-up-to-47-of-us-healthcare-workers-plan-to-leave-their-positions-by-2025/?sh=600b508d395b [Google Scholar]
  20. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, Alonso A, Salas E, Webster J, Toomey L, & Salisbury M. (2008). TeamSTEPPS™: Team strategies and tools to enhance performance and patient safety. Advances in patient safety: New directions and alternative approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and tools). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kozlowski SWJ & DeShon RP (2004). A psychological fidelity approach to simulation-based training: Theory, research, and principles. In Schiflett SG et al. (Eds), Scaled worlds: Development validation and application (pp. 75–99). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kritek PA (2015). Strategies for effective feedback. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 12(4), 557–560. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201411-524FR [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Larsen AC, Ulleberg P, & Rønnestad MH (2017). Depersonalization reconsidered: An empirical analysis of the relation between depersonalization and cynicism in an extended version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Nordic Psychology, 69(3), 160–176. 10.1080/19012276.2016.1227939 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Magee JC (2020). Power and social distance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 33–37. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Magee JC, & Smith PK (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186. 10.1177/1088868312472732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Maslach C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189–192. 10.1111/1467-8721.01258 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Maslach C, Jackson SE, & Leiter MP (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third edition. In Zalaquett CP & Wood RJ (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 191–218). Scarecrow Education. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mathieu JE, Goodwin GF, Heffner TS, Salas E, & Cannon-Bowers JA (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Morera D, Delgado J, Lorenzo E, de Castro-Peraza ME, & Delgado N. (2024). “Superheroes? No, thanks.” Accepting vulnerability in healthcare professionals. Human Resources for Health, 22(1), 1–6. 10.1186/s12960-024-00899-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Morgan PB, Fletcher D, & Sarkar M. (2013). Defining and characterizing team resilience in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(4), 549–559. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Overbeck JR, & Park B. (2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 227–243. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Pannick S, Davis R, Ashrafian H, Byrne BE, Beveridge I, Athanasiou T, Watcher RM, & Sevdalis N. (2015). Effects of interprofessional team care interventions on general medical wards: A systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(8), 1288–1298. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Petitta L, Jiang L, & Härtel CE (2017). Emotional contagion and burnout among nurses and physicians: Do joy and anger from different sources of stakeholders matter? Stress and Health, 33(4), 358–369. 10.1002/smi.2724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pisaniello SL, Winefield HR, & Delfabbro PH (2012). The influence of emotional labor and emotional work on the occupational health and wellbeing of South Australian hospital nurses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 579–591. 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rapp DJ, Hughey JM, & Kreiner GE (2021). Boundary work as a buffer against burnout: Evidence from healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1169–1187. 10.1037/apl0000951 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Salas E, Paige JT, & Rosen MA (2013). Creating new realities in healthcare: The status of simulation-based training as a patient safety improvement strategy. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(6), 449–452. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Salas E, Reyes DL, & Woods AL (2018). Team training in organizations: It works– When done right. In Argote L. & Levine JM (Eds), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning (pp. 233–252). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263362.013.38 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Salas E. & Stagl KC (2023). Following the science to make training work. In Pierce CL & Locke EA (Eds), The handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 179–210). Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. [Google Scholar]
  39. Santana C, Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Berg DN, & Bradley EH (2011). Behaviors of successful interprofessional hospital quality improvement teams. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 6(9), 501–506. 10.1002/jhm.927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sims S, Hewitt G, & Harris R. (2015). Evidence of a shared purpose, critical reflection, innovation and leadership in interprofessional healthcare teams: A realist synthesis. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(3), 209–215. 10.3109/13561820.2014.941459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stephens JP, & Carmeli A. (2016). The positive effect of expressing negative emotions on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 862–873. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stephens JP, Heaphy ED, Carmeli A, Spreitzer GM, & Dutton JE (2013). Relationship quality and virtuousness: Emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 13–41. 10.1177/0021886312471193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stoverink AC, Kirkman BL, Mistry S, & Rosen B. (2020). Bouncing back together: Toward a theoretical model of work team resilience. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 395–422. 10.5465/amr.2017.0005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tannenbaum SI, & Cerasoli CP (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245. 10.1177/0018720812448394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tannenbaum SI, Fernández Castillo G, & Salas E. (2023). How to overcome the nine most common teamwork barriers. Organizational Dynamics, 52(4), 101006. 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2023.101006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Vandevala T, Pavey L, Chelidoni O, Chang NF, Creagh-Brown B, & Cox A. (2017). Psychological rumination and recovery from work in intensive care professionals: Associations with stress, burnout, depression and health. Journal of Intensive Care, 5(16), 1–8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40560-017-0209-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Weller J, Boyd M, & Cumin D. (2014). Teams, tribes and patient safety: Overcoming barriers to effective teamwork in healthcare. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 90(1061), 149–154. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C, Trockel M, Tutty M, Nedelec L, Carlasare LE, & Shanafelt TD (2020). Resilience and burnout among physicians and the general US working population. JAMA Network Open, 3(7), e209385-e209385. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.9385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zajac S, Woods A, Tannenbaum S, Salas E, & Holladay CL (2021). Overcoming challenges to teamwork in healthcare: A team effectiveness framework and evidence-based guidance. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 606445. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES