Communication and Team Resilience: The process of bouncing back by using connectivity : The bridge between team resilience and connectivity during disruptive events

(1)

Communication and Team Resilience:

The process of bouncing back by using

connectivity

MASTER THESIS WITHIN: General management NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Engineering Management AUTHOR: Artur Karlsson and Teodor Mihail Costica TUTOR: Jonas Dahlqvist

JÖNKÖPING June 2021

The bridge between team resilience and

connectivity during disruptive events

(2)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express a depth of gratitude to Dr. Jonas Dahlqvist, Elisabeth Reszling, Johannes Fussenegger, David Casado Lopez, and Linnea Johannson for their support and feedback throughout the whole process of writing this paper. Without their constructive feedback, we wouldn’t have been able to improve up to this stage.

(3)

Master thesis in General Management

Key terms: resilience, team effectiveness, connectivity, leadership, strategy, communication

Title: Communication and Team Resilience: The process of bouncing back by using connectivity

Authors: Artur Karlsson and Teodor Mihail Costica Tutor: Jonas Dahlqvist

Date: 20-05-2021

Abstract

Background: Modern teams are faced with constant challenges regardless the field. Therefore,

they require resilience to be able to bounce back from adversities. Even though literature is extensive regarding this subject, a component of resilience, connectivity, hasn’t been studied deeply. Connectivity relies on openness and generativity and has a great impact on team resilience thus exposing a worth pursuing research opportunity.

Purpose: This paper focuses on exploring how connectivity as a component of communication

aids team resilience building. Further knowledge is advanced regarding connectivity’s impact on team resilience by targeting what specific actions within connectivity promote team resilience.

Method: This paper employs qualitative methods by using the output of 12 semi-structured

interviews done within the IT sector. By constantly encountering challenges, IT represents the best methodological choice to study resilience in a team context. Data collected focuses on understanding specific actions that promote resilience and their sequence.

Conclusion: The obtained results present seven strategical steps which expose one procedure

that helps teams with building resilience by using connectivity as a component of communication.

(4)

Figures

Figure 1.1 Connectivity - Resilience ... 5

Figure 2.1: Structure of the theoretical framework ... 7

Figure 2.2 Connectivity ... 9

Figure 2.3 The connection between adversities and resilience ... 12

Figure 2.4 Resilience Capacity ... 13

Figure 3.1: Grounded analysis ... 22

Figure 6.1: Theory generated from findings... 38

Tables

Table 2.1:Definition overview of Leadership and Management ... 10

Table 2.2 Definitions of resilience ... 12

Table 3.1: Informant overview ... 20

Table 3.2: Interview criteria... 21

Appendices

Appendix A... I Appendix B...IV

(7)

1 Introduction

The world we live in is without a doubt in an ongoing fast transition of lately intense technological changes. This fast development of technology has made it so that project activities become increasingly simultaneous. It also means that tasks must be coordinated and negotiated as part of a dynamic collaborative journey (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). One sector that is greatly impacted by this change is the Information Technology (IT) sector. This happens since it represents one of the frontline fields in the battle of fast development, delivery and manages early problems regarding team resilience in the context of organizational growth. Outside of the IT sector, one can also see acts such as developing vaccines also imply handling quick challenges. It shows that rapid development impacts other fields also. One ability that these companies need is the ability to bounce back when faced with adversities. Thus, to a certain degree, resilience is a topic of interest in any area of study since continuous uncertainty and unexpected events one encounter are present at the individual, team, and organization levels.

When working with a team it is quite normal for it to be faced with adversities occasionally. This requires some specific characteristics for individuals within the team. It also shows the importance of having a team with good communication skills and understanding for each other (Stephens et al., 2013). This is important since individuals have both differences and similarities that impact their way of working and communicating. Setbacks such as disruptive events are due to the random nature of the world and they can be experienced without any notice, anytime. The best antidote for incurring difficulties is to process the problematic situation in such a way that enables individuals, teams, and organisations to bounce back but also grow and learn through the process (Stephens et al., 2013). For companies to blossom, their teams must cope with immediate changes that will happen for sure (King et al., 2016). Teams are the central source of resilience in a firm and managing teamwork is laborious (Hackman & Morris, 1975).

When working within a team is also becomes relevant to understand the impact of connectivity. Connectivity is a construct that displays the connection between team members and is rooted in openness and generativity. The connection between connectivity and resilience was explored by an article by Carmeli et al (2013). In that article, they talk about the need for further research regarding the creation and retention of resilience in the face of adversities. Accordingly, when it comes to team connectivity, research is lacking (Carmeli et al., 2013). The idea is further supported by Weick (1993) since even the slightest sign of communication (verbal or non-verbal) has great importance for coordination within complex systems in severe situations. The absence of resilience marks the inability of a team to form high-quality connections and low-level openness to interact with each other, an aspect that is an influential element deciding possible team dynamics (Carmeli et al., 2013).

This study aims to explain how resilience is created within a team with the help of connectivity. The decision was taken to research this connection from the aspect of communication and how it can be used to promote resilience. This will result in a theory for how connectivity within

(8)

communication impacts resilience. Thus, the present paper has resilience in teams as a scope and contributes to the area of leadership and team strategy.

1.1 Background

The team environment of today is inevitably faced with challenges both internal and external. These challenges put a strain on teams and individuals since they challenge and force growth (Gruber et al., 2017). Challenges can come from all fronts and can be global such as a pandemic or a devastating terrorist attack such as 9/11 that struck the United States. They can also be more local such as a major failure of domestic systems. A good connection regarding this was made by Talat and Riaz (2020) where they talk about how the world is based on randomness. By looking at current research one can see the importance of finding ways of promoting resilience within a company. However, it has been noted that there are negative aspects of resilience such as over positive conceptions that end up driving individuals to failure.

As a start, since resilience only exists in the presence of adversities, there is a need of understanding its definition. Definitions of adversities can be seen as quite different and vary from event to event since it is subjective to each individual. During adversities, people use their own experiences and sensemaking to describe and explain events (Kalkman, 2019). These types of events force teams to find solutions and other ways of working (Stoverink et al., 2020). Generally, adversities are events that greatly impact daily activities and they could be an economic crisis, fatal system failures, lawsuits, and more.

To be able to depict a clear overview of the subject studied, in the following sub-chapters resilience, team and individuals, communication and leading groups, problem, purpose, and research questions are presented.

1.1.1 Resilience

Resilience enables a group of individuals to come back after dealing with adversities such as stress and challenging events (Gucciardi et al., 2018). Gruber et al. (2017) describe resilience as how for example teams handle resilience and manage to bounce back from adversities. Events that can put stress on teams can be defined with the help of three factors mentioned in an article by Gruber et al. (2017). Firstly, one factor relates to events that have a big impact on an important part of the company values. Secondly, another factor is that it puts the company in a position that forces a response within a limited time frame. Finally, the last factor represents a challenging event that needs to be new to the company and not something that they can know or prepare beforehand.

Studies regarding the field of resilience and its impact on individuals have been quite widely performed. Such research can be found within fields such as crisis management and organizational management. It has also created an understanding of the individual’s impact on team resilience and shown that there is a gap that can be found in Hartwig et al. (2020). That article has highlighted the need of creating a deeper understanding regarding the process of individual resilience and its connection to team resilience. This is an interesting subject since all individuals within a team come with different types of experiences and pre-resilience that

(9)

contribute to the overall team resilience. Research within this subject is something that Kalkman (2019) has started to explore from the view of sensemaking.

In an article by Klein et al. (2010) resilience is described as a team’s ability to bounce back after being faced with adversities. During the research, resilience is defined as having several meanings. Within an article by Stoverink et al. (2020) resilience is presented from different point of views such as outcome, process, belief, and more. By looking at the different definitions and in what context they are used, this paper settles for one definition: resilience is a process that teams use to bounce back from adversities.

1.1.2 Team and individuals

The existing body of literature on resilience explains various ways to mitigate the destructive effects of setbacks regarding teams and individuals. To face setbacks teams can use sensemaking as an effective means of coping with uncertainty (Talat & Riaz, 2020). During critical situations, a combination of sensemaking and strategy formulation is more likely to be conducted by leaders, who then communicate that strategy to teams and individual employees (Stoverink et al., 2020).

Resilience within teams is something that emerges over time when teams are faced with adversities. Team's adversities come from how well a team can communicate. This shows that team resilience is based on team dynamics and not how resilient the individuals are (Hartwig et al., 2020).However, resilience is tightly connected to the individual’s ability to be flexible and come back when being faced with adversities. They can do this by learning about how to take previous experiences and apply them to new situations (Dutton, 2013). Studies on product development teams point in the direction of investigating the “conditions that facilitate individual learning” in the context of accelerating or hindering team learning (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009).

1.1.3 Communication and Leading groups

Communication is providing others with information in a way that is exact and during a specific timeframe. Communication within teams of individuals has been proven to be an important factor when trying to build resilience and handle adversities. It has also been shown that good communication gives teams the ability to share and make sense of potential problems faster (Talat & Riaz, 2020).

Communication has been observed to have a large impact on resilience while the leadership style seems to have an impact on communication. This implication of leadership styles can be seen in a paper by Karl E (1993) and indicates that by putting initial guidelines for communication during team formation, a team can create better communication between individuals. Communication between individuals has been demonstrated to be one of the most important aspects of creating communication in groups more than organizational communication (Stoverink et al., 2020). Team communication has also been found to play an important part in how well information is understood and made sense of (Gucciardi et al., 2018; Hartwig et al., 2020; Leenders et al., 2003). Communication also helps teams to become

(10)

During adversities, it is also important that leaders try to emphasize creating psychological safeness (Healy, 2016). They can do this by constant communication and pushing team members to voice their thoughts, suggestions, and concerns (Stoverink et al., 2020).

1.2 Problem

Various studies have been done on individual resilience, team resilience, leadership resilience and they generally cover the links between the main participatory entities that influence resilience (Carmeli et al., 2013; Sommer et al., 2016; Stephens et al., 2013). However, one of the most important aspects of human connection that directly influences resilience, connectivity has not been studied deeply (Stephens et al., 2013). Connectivity, as a sub-concept of communication, is a notion that describes a relation between individuals, and it is illustrated by openness and generativity (ability to create new solutions). High levels of openness correlate with a high positivity/negativity ratio that, in turn, relates to resilience and high performance (Carmeli et al., 2013). Openness is a construct that stimulates empathy, psychological safety, and responsiveness to novel ideas (Friedman & Carmeli, 2018). Psychological safety is a common belief accepted by all members that the team is safe (Edmondson, 1999). Thus, the only way of interacting and practicing openness is by using communication, especially in times of great distress.

Since humans rely heavily on communication in all aspects of their life, especially at the workplace, miscommunication tampers with their wellbeing potentially being the cause of disruptive events ranging from fatal accidents to team goal failures. These setbacks can have both long-term and short-term effects in a team context, but this article will focus on short-term setbacks such as the need of adapting to a continuously dynamic environment. Overcoming setbacks require organisations, groups, and individuals to develop and create strong guidelines to be able to bounce back from adversities (Patterson et al., 2007). This is where connectivity can come in and help teams create a shared mindset and boost synergy. So, how can teams within the random world manage the situation so they recover after being faced with adversities?

From an individual to an organization level, all layers must be able to promote both individual resilience and team resilience to achieve a balance that sustains resilience during and after setbacks. Nonetheless, the team is the core resource from which both individuals and organisations benefit yet it is the most difficult to manage (Hackman & Morris, 1975) especially for effective performance and resilience. Studies focus on external complex factors that influence team performance leaving a gap in team connectivity. Apart from less dangerous fields, teams are used in sensitive fields as well such as military, sanitary, health care systems, IT, and others. It goes without saying what disasters miscommunication can cause in these cases making the present topic worthwhile even though it might look trivial at first. Consequently, different types of disasters can happen depending on the type of team in focus. For example, in the Mann Gulch fire disaster, 13 men lost their lives due to a lack of communication and coordination skills the team acted too formal. These made them unable to exchange information properly and clearly (Weick, 1993).

(11)

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore how connectivity as a component of communication assists the process of building resilience within teams from the perspective of individuals and processes, connectivity, and human communication.

To fulfil the purpose, this paper chooses to see adversities as disruptive events from which individuals and teams can learn and grow. Adversities entail sudden situational changes during processes that disturb normal day-to-day activities. Such problems can emerge rather often and increase the need of building resilience. Therefore, this calls for further research, and Figure 1.1 outlines the initial vision. This figure displays how connectivity with the help of communication as a tool is used to build resilience. Communication is presented as a link between connectivity and resilience.

Figure 1.1 Connectivity - Resilience

1.3.1 Research questions

Within today’s society, organisations need the ability to be resilient. This includes both individuals and teams. Therefore, the area of connectivity with its potential contributions to resilience becomes important. The reasoning behind the potential from researching connectivity is that it has not been studied in-depth regarding the connection to resilience via communication. The following research question emerges as a logical extension of the research problem. When designing it, thought has been invested into making it specific to a single problem which will greatly benefit people in teams and leading positions. This problem is researched with primary sources, achieved in the available timeframe, and is specific so it can be answered thoroughly. The goal with these questions is also the create information that will benefit the industry and the scientific community.

Connectivity

• Creativity

• Psychological safety • Leadership

How?

• Ways connectivity (via communication) create team resilience

Resilience

• Solution identification • Return to normal state

(12)

Main question:

• How does connectivity as one part of communication promote team resilience?

This question aims at explaining the mechanism of how teams use connectivity to promote resilience. It focuses on one side of connectivity, the one which the team uses to generate and maintain resilience.

Sub-question question based on the main question:

• What actions within connectivity promote positive team resilience?

Deriving from the first question, the sub-question targets the specific actions that teams take to attain flexibility. It is concerned with those behaviours that positively impact resilience.

(13)

2 Theoretical framework

This paper has its foundation in already existing research within the subject of resilience and communication. Sources that have been used to collect these articles are Google Scholar, Primo, and Web of Science. During the searches, a limitation towards peer-reviewed articles refined with “Management” and “Business” filters was made. The keywords used in the process were: "team*" and "resilience", "resilience " and "leader*" and "team",

“connectivity” and team*”, “integrative review”, and “resilience”. Other relevant studies

have been used by tracking and navigating useful references mentioned in the initially selected papers.

For better understanding, Figure 2.1 depicts an overview of the chapters comprised in the theoretical framework. It facilitates the logical connections used to group them into two main groups. These main groups are also used within the purpose that can be found in chapter 1.3.

Figure 2.1: Structure of the theoretical framework

C

om

m

un

ic

ati

on

Chapter 2.1.1

resilience in groups

Communication for

Chapter 2.1.2

Connectivity

Chapter 2.1.3

Leadership versus

Management

R

esili

ence

Chapter 2.2.1

Definition of resilience

_{and adversities}

Chapter 2.2.2

Team resilience

Chapter 2.2.3

Individual resilience

Chapter 2.2.4

The negative side of

resilience

(14)

2.1 Communication

This sub-chapter presents an overview of several communication components that are relevant to resilience building in teams. It outlines the connection resilience-connectivity, how communication is done in groups, the distinction between leadership and management.

2.1.1 Communication for resilience in groups

Research suggests that communicational skills impact how well teams make sense of information and make decisions (Gucciardi et al., 2018; Hartwig et al., 2020). Effective communication helps during the decision-making process since it allows teams to understand problems and to share information in a precise manner. It also helps teams create an understanding of their present situation and update their understanding as new information is created (Leenders et al., 2003). It is also described by Fussell et al. (1998) that teams that communicate regarding problems and tasks have a higher chance of being coordinated. The team’s resilience also comes from how well the individuals within the team communicate. Stoverink et al. (2020) convey that the formation of team resilience is mainly due to face-to-face communication between individuals

Communication can be defined as a process. This process relates to an individual providing information to the other members in a precise way and within a specific time frame (Gucciardi et al., 2018; Talat & Riaz, 2020). Communication also comes with the possibility of misunderstandings between individuals (Sterbenz et al., 2010). In the context of communication and resilience, sensemaking is frequently used and explored. Sensemaking is an individual-level process that is aimed at understanding scenarios and events. This ability has been proven to be valuable when trying to create higher resilience within a team. Sensemaking within teams is useful since it promotes teams to question and be critical of the information that they are given (Talat & Riaz, 2020).

Communication also gives the reasoning regarding why a team involving resilient individuals might result in a team that lacks resilience. The reason for this can be the absence of communicational and cooperative abilities to understand and work together (Hartwig et al., 2020). Such scenarios demonstrate the importance of promoting good team interaction and communicational skills among a team’s members. Another study also suggests that team members should focus more on quality communication instead of providing information in a quantitative way (Gucciardi et al., 2018). A similar study made by Stachowski et al. (2009) also claims that effective teams have less information exchange than their more ineffective counterpart. Another paper by Leenders et al. (2003) states that communication is necessary. It should not however be so frequent so that it lowers motivation and productivity because frequent communication can create an environment where individual creativity becomes hindered.

By having good communication that focuses on building resilience, a team can also promote psychological safety. This helps teams to faster understand situations and provide an appropriate response, thus it also gives them a better chance of learning from previous mistakes so they do not repeat them in the future (Hartwig et al., 2020).Leaders can also promote good

(15)

psychological safety with the help of good communication (Stoverink et al., 2020). They can do that by making sure that team members get a working environment that promotes voicing thoughts, suggestions, and concerns.

2.1.2 Connectivity

Connectivity is a concept that is still relatively unusual within the research field of management and business seen in the context of teams and resilience. Connectivity describes a relation between individuals, and it is characterised by openness and generativity (Carmeli et al., 2013). Openness promotes constructive perspectives and displays behaviours that cultivate empathy, the creation of a safe environment, and responsiveness to new ideas. Generativity involves the generation of new ideas and the identification of new possibilities. The characteristics of connectivity can be found below in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Connectivity

The power and recurrence of connectivity influence stable emotional and phycological ambience (Friedman & Carmeli, 2018). When it comes to resilience, connectivity relates to it due to people’s feeling of security that expands their horizons which in turn will produce additional resources to manage unexpected events (Fredrickson, 2001). In terms of bouncing back from disruptive events, positive attitudes represent the go-to strategy because they create the much-needed approaches for dealing with any kind of problems (Cameron et al., 2011). Moreover, connectivity is shown to have a positive influence on resilience associated beliefs and capacities (Rahimnia et al., 2014).

An examination is performed on the communication feature of openness. Tangentially, the area of generativity is touched upon but only as an outcome of the investigation of connectivity-openness-communication. The logical link between connectivity, communication, and resilience is discussed in detail in the problems section 1.2.

Connectivity

Openness

Empaty

Safe

environment

Responsivness

Generativity

Generation of

new ideas

Identification

of possibilities

(16)

2.1.3 Leadership versus Management

Because resilience in teams happens in the presence of a superior, his/her attitude is an important aspect to study. This subsection is dedicated to pointing out the difference between leadership and management. The two terms leadership and management are sometimes used interchangeably but they describe slightly different concepts which have some similarities as well. To be able to assess resilience in terms of team connectivity as part of communication, examination in depth of the two is required. The following table exposes several definitions of Leadership and Management.

Table 2.1:Definition overview of Leadership and Management

Leadership Management

Works with vision and direction while developing strategies that will help reach the set vision.

Makes planning to develop processes.

They work with communicating information related to vision, mission, and direction of work. They also play a part in the formation of teams and partnerships.

They organize and work with staff. Among some things, they work with making sure that structure is maintained and divide authority among employees. Leaders motivate and make sure that their team

feels inspired.

Managers have control over the process and work with finding and solving potential problems.

Source: Toor & Ofori (2008)

Management refers to administrative, tangible aspects of running an organisation whereas leadership deals with intangible elements that concern qualities and abilities to mentally guide the presence of a human being. The individual in charge of a company may retain both positions at the same time. One could argue that leadership and management are two sides of the same coin. However, in real-life situations, there may be cases where the director is either a leader or a manager. Without any doubt, whether an individual supervises repetitive intangible work or exercises the qualities of a leader, communication is a worthwhile, indispensable means of development. Management is just a means to structure the work to be done. Employees know exactly what they must do. It’s an approach of keeping the organisation stable, working at the same pace with little means of development. In this case, communication is useful for task delegation and strategic meetings (Toor & Ofori, 2008).

Given the rigid concept of management which provides a good understanding of day-to-day repetitive tasks within an organisation, this paper aims to further deepen the knowledge on resilience in the context of communication relating to the leading notion. During the literature review, three types of leadership stood out as being beneficial towards building resilience while still having a communication connection. Transactional, transformational, and servant leadership have a positive impact on building resilience. Specifically, transformational leadership helps both the superior and the employee grow and develop by creating an

(17)

environment that promotes proficiency beliefs (Bass et al., 2003). Transactional leadership concerns tasks that can be measured. In extreme time-pressured situations, a transactional attitude encourages positive affect and resilience (Sommer et al., 2016). Lastly, servant leadership which is rooted in ethicscontributes to strengthening the connection between goal, process clarity, and team effectiveness (Hu & Liden, 2011). A subtle common aspect of all leadership types presented is communication as it is indispensable in the relation of superior employee, in assessing situations and assigning tasks, and, finally, in establishing the connection between goals, processes, and the team.

Regardless of the leadership type used, psychological safety is a crucial factor in developing resilience as it represents a basic human need (Healy, 2016). Research on team learning has shown that taking risks without fear lead to more effective learning (Amy et al., 2001). Where there is resilience, there is an event to be resilient from and therefore fallibility is also inevitable. In these conditions, leaders agree that problems might arise and communicate with others to build an environment beneficial to learning and problem-solving. While facing disruptive events, one generally goes through the process alone requiring frequent and rich communication to further proceed. If leaders do not reach out to the team and present the situation state, employees underperform when exposed to disruptive situations (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009).

2.2 Resilience

This sub-chapter summarizes the existing literature on resilience. Various definitions are presented, and one is chosen for this paper. Aspects like individual, team and negative sides of resilience are exposed for a better understanding of the subject.

2.2.1 Definitions of resilience and adversities

Within the field of resilience, researchers often talkabout it as an individual's abilityto bounce back when faced with adversities. Bouncing back also refers to a team's ability to react and recover with only small side effects. Such abilities have been seen on an individual, team, and system level and have been researched within areas such as Psychology, Crisis Management, and Healthcare. Also, the field of resilience research has done a shift from being focused on identifying factors related to resilience and is now directed towards creating an understanding of how to use resilience. However, resilience is a concept with many definitions and has therefore been described from many different perspectives. Some articles see resilience as a process while others see it as an outcome. These different ways of viewing resilience are addressing distinctive parts of resilience, and the scientific community has not agreed upon one specific viewpoint when talking about it (Gruber et al., 2017; Windle, 2011).

Within the table below many viewpoints on resilience have been collected. Together with a short description, greater insight is given to the different ways of viewing resilience.

(18)

Table 2.2 Definitions of resilience

Resilience viewpoint Definition

Process Resilience is a process that happened over time due to communication among team members. It is also described as the process of reaching positive adaptation during adversities and challenging events (Gucciardi et al., 2018).

Outcome Resilience is something that happens over time. It has also been described as the outcome of adapting positively while being faced with adversities (Gucciardi et al., 2018).

Capacity Team’s capability to handle adversities (Gruber et al., 2017). Ability Team’s ability to make sense of and make decisions regarding

handling adversities. It has also been described as the ability to adapt and recover from adversities and unforeseen events (Furniss et al., 2011).

Belief Team’s belief that they can bounce back in the face of adversity (Maynard et al., 2020).

When analysing Table 2.2, it is shown that resilience has been seen as a process within research that involves communication. This article has therefore decided to also see resilience as a process for how teams can combat adversities. When describing resilience as a process, Southwick et al. (2014) use a description that highlights that handling adversities often is something that happens on many levels at the same time. It is therefore rather fitting to see it as a continuous process to sustain well-being. This definition becomes a good choice for this study since major parts treat how to use connectivity as a facet of communication while being a resource in teams. This process is displayed in Figure 2.3 which shows that adversities create the need for teams to be resilient. Adversities are then followed by teams using resources to bounce back.

Figure 2.3 The connection between adversities and resilience

Resilience research is concerned with a multitude of adversities originating from diverse sources. Therefore, this field is broad, and it is difficult to exactly illustrate what a disruptive event is. In this study, a disruptive event represents a situation that disturbs normal daily activities and has a great impact on the team and business. Examples of such incidents belong to fields like health care and military and IT etc. Therefore, a disruptive event can be a

Adversities

Teams using

their

resources

(19)

pandemic, a failed product release for a customer, burnout of employees due to high-intensity continuous workload. Researchers consider that crises develop over time and are caused by an event that disturbs a team’s usual processes. It often involves an incubation period processes followed by a trigger event that initiates the need for resilience. It’s after this stage that teams can work to find a solution that will enable them to bounce back with an adopted team process (Gruber et al., 2017). These disruptive events can be internal and external and can be solved by having individual or organizational responses depending on the situation (Milburn et al., 1983). Masten (2001) mentions that resilience requires two criteria. The first criterion refers to the process of overcoming adversity so that the team can be called self-resilient. The second criterion is who defines what resilience is and at what time. The reason for this is the many variations of resilience and the fact that it can be defined by internal psychological factors or how well individuals adapt to external criteria such as major business failure. This paper chooses to analyse factors that are external to the individual and is limitedly concerned with internal psychological aspects.

When studying team resilience, one must be aware of the difference between resilience and team adaptation. These words share many aspects and therefore might be easily confused. One way of distinguishing team resilience and team adaptation isby determining the nature of the event: an action or an outcome. Adaptation can also be defined as a task that teams face when handling adversities. On the other hand, resilience refers to how well a team faces adversities by looking at its’ ability to recover.

Francis and Bekera (2014) introduce three factors that facilitate understanding of both teams and individual resilience capability. These three factors are adaptive capacity, absorptive capacity, and restorative capacity (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4 Resilience Capacity Source: Based on Francis & Bekera (2014)

Resilience

Capacity

Adaptive

Capacity

Absorptive

Capacity

Restorative

Capacity

(20)

A system’s absorptive capacity is referring to how well a team or an individual can handle adversities and return to normal activity. On the other hand, adaptive capacity relates to how well a team can change its activities to handle adversities. Adaptive capacity can also be promoted by having teams that recognise adversities and can re-organise themselves after being disturbed by adversity. It has also been found that there is a direct correlation between lack of recovery and increased incidence of health and safety problems (Achor & Gielan, 2016).This connection between building resilience and team adaptation is also made by Stoverink et al. (2020). The study describes that adaptation as a strategy that allows teams to be resilient and bounce back in the face of adversities. When teams bounce back, they show their restorative capacity. Restorative capacity is the team’s ability to bounce back after being faced with adversities (Francis & Bekera, 2014).

These abilities connect with how the individual's resilience is impacted by how similar the adversity is to their previous experiences. Accordingly, one can demonstrate the importance of having communication that lets the employees sharetheir previous knowledge about their field. Such information can then help build knowledge about adversities so that teams and organizations can make good future choices (Fisher et al., 2016).

2.2.2 Team resilience

The subject of team resilience is an explored issue and has given researchers a chance to use information regarding individual resilience and put it into the context of teams. This also explores team resilience as a product of the team’s ability to communicate (Stoverink et al., 2020). Dynamic communication has also been proven effective since it enables easier usage of individual experiences and sensemaking (give meaning to an experience). However, the term of team resilience does not have an agreed scientific definition since the word resilience is used in various ways in current literature. Some researchers see it as an outcome when facing adversities, while others see it as a process in teams that manage to bounce back from being faced with adversities. The result however is always that a resilient team recovers when in great distress (Stoverink et al., 2020). Hartwig et al. (2020) describe the negative health aspect of facing individuals and teams with adversities. Also, it mentions that resilience is a team’s ability to return to normal after being faced with adversities. Therefore, promoting resilience is a necessary aspect of working in a team since it enables teams to be effective. Powerful teams promote the usage of personal resources while making sure to limit potential conflicts (Hartwig et al., 2020). A good example is illustrated by teams that are faced with adversity that require them to change their approach or process. Such problems require good situational awareness and communication so that they effectively can face adversity and make sure that they make the necessary changes to return to normal.

Stoverink et al. (2020) describe how a team’s awareness of roles can help them face adversities. It helps them understand and coordinate tasks with each other. One practical example of how to build communication to face difficulties is described by Weick (1993). During the paper, he talks about how leaders can promote team communication during the formation stage. Tactics that leaders used were to create firm basslines for how communication should be created. This strategy also created a mutual understanding of the individual's own responsibility to

(21)

communicate. This way of creating boundaries within the team was also said to have the positive benefits of recognizing the importance of communication and verification if they did not understand the actions of their teammates.

When discussing resilience, it’s also important to understand the difference between talking about individual and team resilience. This happens becausedifferent characteristics need to be met before a team can be called resilient. A good example of this is that team resilience treats a team and how well they interact with each other during adversity (Gucciardi et al., 2018; Hartwig et al., 2020).

2.2.3 Individual resilience

Before being part of resilient groups, members must possess a certain degree of individual resilience. Otherwise, they are not useful to the team. This could mean processes such as communication, the ability to find an environment in which there is psychological safety, the possibility of integrating one’s opinion to form a shared identity, and personal resources (knowledge, skills) to cope with the unknown.

However, given a group of resilient people, one might not form a resilient team. A group of highly resilient individuals does not guarantee a team’s successful recovery from adversity since team members may still fail to effectively cooperate and communicate to overcome setbacks (McEwen & Boyd, 2018). This happens because a resilient team requires, on one hand, to be synergic and, on the other hand, individuals that possess inner capabilities for building resilience. Communication skills influence how team members join resilient team processes to resolve problematic situations. (Hartwig et al., 2020). Moreover, when facing a major disturbance, individuals must use the available ability capital (knowledge, abilities) and act promptly (Gruber et al., 2017).

Personal identity expression within a group represents an essential factor to personal and group development. The moment an individual can honestly express himself, it outlines unknowingly the needed characteristics of an environment for having a sense of belongingness. This sense of belonging enhances individuals’ motivation to support the team’s interests (Van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). Also, it displays the open-mindedness for a possible shared perception within the group. A team that is confident in its capabilities determines a shared belief in individuals that they also possess what it takes to cope on their own with adverse events. In an environment characterised by a shared identity, employees are more willing to help each other and therefore, decrease the effect of adversities (Hartwig et al., 2020).

2.2.4 The negative sides of resilience

Most of the literature on resilience claim that resilience is a positive factor in human life as concluded by an integrative review which analysed 384 articles on Organisational Response to Adversity (Gruber et al., 2017). There are a plethora of papers focusing on the advantages of resilience on an individual, group, and organisational level. As with most aspects, there is no such facet as only a good one. It is curious however how research on the negative side of resilience is lacking. Studying yet one more angle on resilience brings benefits to everyone

(22)

though it is scarce, existing research provides some insightful ideas of how resilience can have a negative impact.

Resilience develops, among environmental factors that enhance it, in the presence of a predefined perception of the real world and its events. Specifically, resilient people and groups possess an optimistic view of themselves, outcomes, and circumstances. This enables the easiness of bouncing back to a previous state of balance even though a disruptive issue had occurred. However, if not managed with caution, resilience can degenerate into overconfidence that can lead to unwanted results (Gruber et al., 2017).

The perception bias shows its shortcomings once again when people are faced with extreme events. It distorts reality in such a way that the individual judges other potential threats less dangerous than they truly are. Research has shown that, when people escape disaster and frame their experience in terms of resilience, they underestimate the danger of future similar situations and are less likely to take actions to mitigate potential risks (Tinsley et al., 2012). Thus, resilience can indeed be the cause of subsequent problems (Gruber et al., 2017).

Nowadays, persistence is praised to be the go-to quality in a person. Making use of persistence one can obtain and fulfil its biggest dreams. What it is failed to be mentioned is that misguided persistence can drive tremendous amounts of assertive behaviour towards the wrong objective. Therefore, situations in which persistence may be ill-chosen, such as escalation of commitment to a losing course of action (Brockner, 1992; Ross & Staw, 1993).

Taking into consideration all information available in the literature so far, it can be said that the negative side of resilience is scarce and as a direct consequence of that, its unfavourable aspects in the context of communication are non-existent. This study intends to incorporate and bring further understanding when it comes to resilience in the context of connectivity as a fact of communication.

(23)

3 Method

This chapter presents practical information about the way this study is designed. It outlines the approach used according to the author’s view of the world and the rationale behind the chosen design. Also, it includes the essential concerns about trustworthiness and ethics.

3.1 World view

The researchers’ worldview has a fundamental impact on how the study is approached. Analysing existing literature, a lack of general understanding when it comes to connectivity in the context of resilience emerges. The foundation of this paper is represented by a relativist ontology. Relativism is an ontological view that phenomena depend on the perspectives from which they are observed; also an epistemological position that observations will be more credible if made from several different perspectives is employed (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Therefore, semi-structured interviews are a coherent choice given the world view that we have as authors.

Given the nature of our study which relies on shared assumptions and practices, this paper aims to further drive knowledge creation, building on existing judgement generated by the literature review. The present paper assumes existing research conclusions as valid when it comes to the idea that resilience is both beneficial and harmful and communication has an impact on it, leadership is an effective way to generate resilience aspect which can be reflected and learned by teams and individuals, disruptive events are inevitable but represent opportunities or defeats depending on their magnitude which can be managed in the context of a “random world” (Talat & Riaz, 2020), behaviour regulates various types of situations and communication is important to achieve a shared understanding. It also builds on existing knowledge and pursuits paths unexplored when it comes to building resilience in the context of communication.

Language is an essential component when it comes to studying resilience in the context of communication. Undoubtedly, communication regardless of the concept is best researched with individuals exposing their verbal language. Therefore, language represents reality. In order not to influence ones’ reality through asking questions that might influence even slightly the subject, interviews are to be done employing a passive attitude bringing forward reality close to its’ most raw form. Once external factors are limited to a minimum, true statements are those that correspond with reality uncovering facts.

3.2 Research Approach

In this study, theory plays a crucial role in assuring relevance, trustworthiness, and future research directions. Whereas it trusts previous research and carefully analyse and meditate on its’ findings, in this study’s exploration of unresearched concepts such as connectivity in the context of resilience. This study will purposefully challenge previous theories and generate additional new knowledge. Therefore, theory serves as a solid and trustworthy base for this research providing further guidance.

(24)

Following the inductive research approach, the role of theory is medium (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018), and we are cautiously reflective of the findings. This thesis's starting point is the lack of, towards no information on the impact connectivity has on building resilience. Since communication is a means of interacting between people and connectivity is part of it, this study has chosen to interview several individuals. Specifically, it found that the most appropriate method of achieving the purpose is to interview IT team members who encounter frequent disruptive events to generalise from data to theory.

From the data collected, the results are planned to be generalised to create a connectivity theory for further outlining how we theorize that resilience is built-in teams. This includes generalisations of patterns for individuals and teams, description of required skills and qualities.Employing an objective, neutral and detached researcher attitude, this study uses the constant comparison method to assess data to data and data to theory. The overall approach is characterised by a qualitative analysis based on interviews where interviewees will participate in semi-structured dialogues.

3.3 Design

This sub-chapter describes the design of the study. It outlines the choice made and the reasoning behind it. Starting from the problem and purpose, interviews in the IT sector are presented as the most appropriate methodological decision.

3.3.1 Problem and relevance

Business environments, leaders, and followers are suffering from unexpected events. These events range from external events such as financial crisis, considerable requirement changes, the exaggerated dynamic work environment, to internal events such as budget cuts, organisational restructuring, demanding performance targets, misalignment when it comes to a shared team mindset when problems arise. The problem outlined is of general interest because teams of all types encounter such macro challenges in the face of which they must be resilient and communicate for finding an optimal solution. This paper focuses on a form of communication: connectivity. Research is done in the area of connectivity in the context of resilience because of a gap identified in the literature. From the articles reviewed, only a few studies mention or reference papers regarding connectivity and resilience mechanisms but none of them take this aspect as input for further studying resilience.

3.3.2 Research purpose

The research purpose consists of exploring and developing a theory of how individuals can use connectivity as part of communication to further aid resilience. In addition, this study aims to understand the internal factors correlated with connectivity in the context of disruptive events. Given the research problem, the research purpose, a set of research questions have been compiled. They follow and draw on existing research’s further directions focusing on external factors, the strategy of using communication, and adjacent factors that have a worthwhile influence.

(25)

3.3.3 Method

The current scientific perspective on resilience in the context of teams offers various standpoints when it comes to conditions, environments, and factors that enhance resilience. Generally, these factors are specified and some of them are researched in-depth (sensemaking, psychological safety) but one is scarce: connectivity in teams. The gap outlined, placed in a relevant context, can be investigated to determine an understanding of connectivity in turn offering the possibility of generating a theory for resilience building with it.

Organisations strategically organise the workforce in teams to perform in highly demanding and dynamic environments. They encourage internal cultures that promote flexibility on all levels. Whether it comes to a flexible workload, timetables, dress codes, connectivity means that companies aim at proving freedom in exchange for high productivity in any means possible. Striving for excellence is two-folded: a team can achieve its desired purpose, or it can encounter defeat. The best place to study resilience is where failures are often encountered and successfully overcame most of the time; where teams encounter healthy doses of uncertainty and find ways of coping.

Therefore, given the conditions imposed by studying connectivity in the context of resilience, teams in the IT sector are the most suitable methodological choice. Specifically, this study aims to gather knowledge and generate a connectivity theory within the circumstances defined by agile teams performing daily tasks. Agile teams rely on agile methodologies that are defined as flexible iterative processes where adaptation is the key to project success (Serrador & Pinto, 2015).

The method employed for this study relies on primary and secondary sources for obtaining knowledge. The primary source is represented by semi-structured interviews with various individuals from different companies that work within the IT field, developing different products. This choice is motivated by the fact that IT teams tend to face an extremely dynamic environment which, naturally, calls for high levels of resilience for coping up. Within the spectrum of IT, the choice of analysing different companies and team cultures builds on a variety of methods that achieve the same goal: resilience in the face of challenges. This way, a more concrete understanding of the common factors that connectivity has on resilience can be explored while being sufficiently sophisticated to account for the variation observed. Using online platforms, a total of 12 IT professionals were interviewed, from different countries and with different backgrounds.

Preparatory documents before the interviews were designed. Specifically, a description of the study with all relevant information was compiled. Additionally, a consent form will be presented protecting the privacy of participants. All documents were written in a simple to understand manner without any scientific terms so understanding is facilitated for the participants.

The interviews are built upon the extended theoretical background because, during that phase, relevant concepts related to the research purpose have been identified. Questions are build taking into consideration resilience as a process and outcome, team resilience, individual

(26)

resilience, leadership and management, communication, sensemaking, and the dark side of resilience. By taking those subjects into account the thesis generated a set of questions. These were related to collecting profile data to get initial information about the interview participants. Questions were later aimed towards creating an understanding of teams, leadership, and disruptive events. Interviews then concluded by collecting information about communication and potential other contribution that the participants had regarding resilience.

Table 3.1: Informant overview

Number of interviewees 12

Departments IT department, Software Development

Background Between 6 months and 13 years of

experience

Number of hours spent interviewing 10

Company size (Local and Worldwide) 50-10.000 employees

This paper is based on semi-structured interviews. Structured interviews were not feasible since we did not need rigidity when discussing disruptive events that can vary greatly from company to company. The choice of interviews is motivated due to the opportunity to analyse in-depth multiple different instances of the same situation (distinctive interviewees in different companies that face team troublesome events that disrupt IT-related normal activities) that generate resilience through, among others, connectivity. This brings a unique perspective since the researcher has the possibility of analysing the individual and its’ team. The indicated happens through the lens of the employee and his/her experience.

The analysis is done using the grounded analysis technique (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). The permanent focus when using it is to concentrate on the previously mentioned relevant concepts that relate to connectivity in the context of resilience. Theoretical sampling is an iterative process in which codes, categories, concepts, and themes are identified. Based on findings, the theory will continuously evolve aided by constant comparisons focusing on theoretical saturation. Therefore, the 46 articles reviewed and their conclusions will be paired with the field study knowledge. There is no need for falsifying the findings due to the grounded analysis’ iterative process which regenerates theory, thus falsifying unnecessary conclusions.

3.4 Data collection

During this study, a qualitative way of collecting data was used to research the subject creatively while having good flexibility and freedom of method (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). This study's way of collecting data is with the help of semi-structured interviews as the primary. Qualitative studies use an approach that is creative in the research method while quantitative research relies on surveys and information in the form of numbers (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). The qualitative approach allows quite a great deal of flexibility and freedom for the

(27)

researcher while collecting data in a non-numerical way. However, this comes with the responsibility of picking the optimal method. One aspect of qualitative interviews is when the researcher collects information called natural language data which can be compiled from both team leaders and team members. The goal during the process is to understand the interviewed subject’s views, perceptions, and opinions. Semi-structured interviews use a set of predefined questions accompanied by guiding queries to direct the conversation so that all needed topics get covered (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). During the data collection phase, one can use structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, or unstructured interviews. Other processes that can be used to collect this type of data are by diary and written correspondence (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

This study has chosen to use a qualitative approach that uses semi-structured interviews to collect information about connectivity in the context of resilience. The interviews were held as remote interviews due to the ongoing pandemic. All online interviews were conducted with the help of the video chat software Teams that allowed the researcher and interviewee to see and interact with each other.

3.5 Interviewee selection

This study utilizes the understanding of building resilience from IT teams to help create better insight into how connectivity as a facet of communication impacts it. The openness which manifests through communication is seen from team member’s point of view. Interviews were conducted on several different companies within the IT sector to make sure that different angles confirm the results. This helps the paper display different individual perspectives on the use of communication to promote resilience. The total number of interviews made within this study is 12, where the majority is represented by people with extensive work experience.

The overview of the criterion and their reasoning are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Interview criteria

Criteria Number Criteria Reasoning

1 Work within the IT industry The IT industry is representative for fast, frequent changes and sometimes for major disruptive which call for resilience

2 Have at least 6 months of experience in the IT industry

Valuable feedback from real-life experiences can be given after the employee is fully acquainted with the company

3 Have experience of at least one disruptive event

Disruptive events represent part of the purpose of this study, and they relate to resilience behaviours

4 Work in a team Resilience in teams can only be analysed

when analysing units of people working together

5 Usage of constant

communication as a means of resolving problems

IT professionals rely on constant and sustained communication to analyse, develop, and perfect technical solutions and problems that arise

(28)

3.6 Data analysis

Toprocess information from the interviews, this study has chosen to use the grounded analysis method. Grounded analysis is a systematic methodology used when trying to create theory with the help of existing “grounded” data – data collected from interviews in this case (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Within grounded analysis, the researcher tries to make sense of information by putting it in context with the help of coding. The method of grounded analysis is quite extensive and demands the researcher to iteratively correlate data fragments with each other and build a theory based on it (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

Figure 3.1: Grounded analysis

Sources: Based on information from Easterby-Smith et al. (2018)

Grounded analysis is comprised of six steps which are depicted in Figure 3.1 according to (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). The initial step refers to familiarization, a process in which the researcher goes through collected information to get naturalized with it. This was done by transcribing and re-reading empirical data. It created an opportunity to reflect on the collected information and check for any potential connections. After reflecting, open coding was performed. During this step, information was categorised into codes which later were compared

Grounded

Analysis

Step 1: Familiarization

Step 2: Open coding

Step 3: Conceptualization

Step 4: Re-coding

Step 5: Linking

Step 6: Gap identification

•if a gap is identifyed, more focused interviews are performed in that direction and the process starts over form Step 1.

(29)

to each other. In this way, codes were evaluated from multiple perspectives. One important aspect of these codes was that they related to quotes from the original transcript to show context.

The next step within Easterby-Smith et al. (2018) was conceptualization. This step is about trying to make sense of the codes that have been collected by sorting them into bigger categories. Such categories were for example interaction, sharing experiences, and flexibility. They shared similarities and were rooted in questions such as “what are these data about?” or “How is this view expressed?” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018, p. 367). This resulted in the main categories named team environment and problem-solving all codes belonged to.

After data has been understood, focused re-coding followed where extra information was provided to cover information gaps. This also meant some additional interviews focusing on areas lacking information. It was also an opportunity to look over already existing codes and see if new definitions were needed. The biggest difference between this coding and the previous coding is that the one before concentrates on developing a theory, re-coding however is focused on organising the data so that it can be analysed more easily. The next step according to Easterby-Smith et al. (2018) was to go through linking where categories got grouped under clear themes. The outcome was responsibility, resources, individual learning, sharing experiences, team and individual self-knowledge, trust and safety, leadership, and lastly stress management. Each theme’s description was based on several categories that treated similar information.

3.7 Trustworthiness and Ethics

When conducting a study, certain guidelines should be followed. They help with trustworthiness and ethical concerns. This sub-chapter presents what choices were made to enforce them.

3.7.1 Trustworthiness

This study has used the four criteria stated by Guba (1981) to ensure trustworthiness and credibility. Therefore, the focus was placed on Truth Value, Applicability, Consistency, and Neutrality. There is also another article that develops this further by stating that, to ensure trustworthiness one should think about credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability (Schwandt et al., 2007). This article has therefore taken extra measures to ensure

that every part of the process is trustworthy and the results too.

The first step to ensure trustworthiness was to establish credibility by using reputable sources to provide information. Such sources were peer-reviewed papers with a high number of citations and high impact value. This ensures credibility by making sure that all provided information during the theoretical framework is reliable and scientifically verified. Another step taken to support credibility is by making sure that all information originates from individuals with good knowledge related to resilience and adversities in the IT industry. This assures that data provided by the interviewees is applicable and contributes to the building of a trustworthy result. Also, the interviewees were asked similar questions to check that the

(30)

provided information was commonly perceived. Such action was taken to limit the chances of basing the result on one individual experience.

To ensure transferability several actions were performed. The first one was to limit the use of words that can be perceived differently from individual to individual. The second action was to define concept terms (one we could not avoid using) since some of them vary between scientific articles. The last part of ensuring trustworthiness is by taking actions that ensure its

dependability and confirmability. Such actions can be to provide the reader with enough

information so that they can make their own decisions and conclusions regarding empirical data and other chapters. One way of doing this is by making sure that as much info as possible is provided during the empirical data. This will also make the reader able to confirm the conclusions made within the analysis themselves.

3.7.2 Ethics

When conducting a study, it is important to consider ethics to protect interviewees. Writers can do this by following ethical principles that are displayed in Easterby-Smith et al. (2018). The first action that this study took was to provide all interview participants with contextual information. That information was included in a GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) consent form which presented what rights they had and how their information would be treated (Appendix A). This ensured them that no harm will fall to them, their dignity is preserved, and they can make an informed choice. After every interview, the information was transcribed and given a code name to ensure that there is no way of connecting the transcription material and the interview subject. This transcribed material was placed in the thesis in the form of empirical data with anonymized quotes. This information about coding names and empirical data will provide anonymity, transparency, and making sure that no one feels vulnerable.

Communication and Team Resilience: The process of bouncing back by using connectivity : The bridge between team resilience and connectivity during disruptive events