In the postpandemic era, team resilience has become increasingly important due to intensifying environmental dynamics, such as heightened industry competition and potential outbreaks of COVID-19 (Z.-X. Zhang et al., 2020). Team resilience refers to the capabilities, dynamic processes, and shared beliefs that enable a team to maintain its functional trajectory, or to swiftly recover following adversity, despite temporary declines in performance (Hartmann et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2016; Morgan et al., 2013). Given its importance, many studies have explored the antecedents of team resilience (Alliger et al., 2015; Meneghel et al., 2016). Among these, digitalization has transformed business practices (Schallmo et al., 2019) and communication patterns (Bouncken et al., 2020), and therefore provides a foundation for enhancing team resilience. However, few studies have explored the process and boundary conditions of team resilience from the perspective of digitalization (Verhoef et al., 2021).

Previous research has explored the antecedents of organizational resilience across three dimensions: team characteristics, team resources, and leadership characteristics (Dimas et al., 2018; Morgan et al., 2015; Raetze et al., 2021). However, these studies have predominantly examined the impact of digitalization on organizational resilience from a qualitative perspective (Ivanov et al., 2019), and there is a lack of quantitative research exploring this relationship. Some researchers have speculated that digitalization furnishes groups with instruments and resources that facilitate their abilities to anticipate potential risks and proactively develop appropriate responses (Dubey et al., 2019), and there is a lack of quantitative research exploring this relationship.

According to the team process perspective (Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001), digital resources facilitate team reflexivity, the process by which team members collectively evaluate and adapt their team’s objectives, strategies, and procedures within broader organizational and external contexts. This reflexivity enhances team resilience by fostering vigilance against potential risks (Stoverink et al., 2020). However, there is a need for further research on how digitalization affects team resilience from the perspective of team interpersonal interaction processes.

Previous research has explored the situational factors that influence how digitalization affects employees’ proactive behavior (Lu et al., 2025), but less is known about the boundary conditions of the effects of digitalization on team resilience. When team members have cooperative goals, that is, when the team goals align closely with individual members’ goals (Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004), employees are more likely to recognize that assisting their team members to overcome challenges and achieve performance objectives is pivotal in mitigating threats to themselves and to achieving said performance objectives (Lam et al., 2016). This alignment amplifies the impact of digitalization on team resilience through the interpersonal interaction processes of team viability and team reflexivity. However, the literature on this subject is extremely limited.

Therefore, this study investigated the mechanisms and boundary conditions of the effect of digitalization on team resilience via team processes. We aimed to make the following contributions to the field: First, within the current postepidemic context, we examined the influence of digitalization on team resilience, thereby extending the literature on the antecedents of team resilience (J. Zhang et al., 2021). Second, we investigated how digitalization influences team resilience, focusing on team processes, thereby deepening understanding of the mechanisms underlying team resilience. Third, we considered team cooperative goals and investigated the contextual mechanisms and boundary conditions under which digitalization affects team resilience. Our findings have managerial implications for optimizing the efficacy of digitalization within teams. The research model for this study is presented in Figure 1.

Digitalization provides teams with the technological means (Hanelt et al., 2021) to enhance feedback between team members (Narayan et al., 2022) and to deepen their understanding of overall workflow (Thun et al., 2019). Visualizing the team’s workflow enables members to more effectively monitor the flow of tasks (Liang et al., 2023), thereby facilitating the online dissemination of team-related information (Schiuma et al., 2022), clarifying each team member’s progress (e.g., what steps have been completed, what will be done next, and estimated completion times for each step), and increasing opportunities for self-assessment. Previous research has demonstrated that using digital tools to communicate work information can enhance understanding between employees and deepen their awareness of each other’s work (Jeyalakshmi & Rani, 2019). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Digitalization will positively impact team reflexivity.

 

Further, team reflexivity involves team members regularly self-evaluating their work methods, which enables them to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This process helps them to make timely adjustments to enhance their work (Rong et al., 2019) and fosters an environment conducive to developing effective risk response strategies. Team members’ regular introspection allows for valuable insights to be gathered and promptly implemented (Shin et al., 2017), and for a range of solutions to be generated to effectively address unforeseen challenges, thereby enhancing team resilience (Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004). Consequently, team members can improvise and demonstrate creative problem solving in response to environmental threats, quickly establish coordination mechanisms to mitigate risks, and successfully integrate lessons learned from past or current tasks into future tasks. Greater team reflexivity facilitates more frequent exchanges of experiences between team members (Konradt et al., 2016), reduces the likelihood of unproductive conflict, fosters team learning, and enhances team resilience (Gurtner et al., 2007). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Team reflexivity will mediate the positive impact of digitalization on team resilience.

 

Moreover, we expected that cooperative team goals would reinforce the positive impact of digitalization on team resilience through team reflexivity. Cooperative team goals indicate the level of interdependence of individual goals shared by team members (Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004; Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004). High levels of cooperative goals imply high trust between team members and alignment toward common performance objectives. Previous research has demonstrated that cooperative team goals can enhance team efficacy by facilitating upward comparisons between team members (Buunk et al., 2005), and mitigating the likelihood of victimization behaviors within the team (Lam et al., 2011).

 

In the context of digitalization, high levels of cooperation in forming goals signal that team members’ goals and interests are aligned. Thus, employees recognize that achieving team objectives is the foundation for individual success (Lam et al., 2011), and they are likely to adopt a variety of measures to reduce team risk and improve team performance, such as using digital tools to enhance self-evaluation, and to monitor and optimize their working methods (e.g., by analyzing accessible data to predict and formulate timely response plans). This approach encourages reflexivity within the team, enabling team members to identify deficiencies in time management and make informed risk predictions. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Cooperative team goals will moderate the relationship between digitalization and team reflexivity, such that this relationship becomes stronger when the team has high levels of cooperative goals.

 

Furthermore, we speculated that the effects of digitalization on team resilience via team reflexivity would be contingent on cooperative team goals. Higher levels of cooperative team goals reflect greater alignment between employee performance goals and team performance goals (Lin et al., 2017). In such cases, employees tend to invest more effort in solving work problems and improving work efficiency, such as by using digital tools to improve work communication (e.g., Dingtalk for work-related information, and VooV meetings for progress updates), thereby enhancing the team’s risk resistance and fostering the development of team resilience. By contrast, low levels of cooperative team goals have been shown to increase social comparisons between team members, diminish their inclination to assist one another, and hinder their ability to promptly anticipate foreseeable risks (Lam et al., 2011). This ultimately weakens the team’s capacity to deal with threats, and undermines team resilience. Research has demonstrated that members of teams with cooperative goals tend to prioritize the achievement of shared performance goals over individual goals, which leads to heightened motivation to assist fellow team members in attaining these common objectives (Lam et al., 2016). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Cooperative team goals will moderate the positive indirect effect of digitalization on team resilience via team reflexivity, such that this indirect effect becomes stronger when the team has high levels of cooperative goals.

The Ethics Committee of Donghua University approved this research (RLSSZYJ202506130029) and the respondents provided informed consent. The participants comprised 388 employees from 71 teams in a large manufacturing company in Mainland China. They completed three waves of time-lagged surveys. In the first-round survey (N = 388, 78 teams), we asked the employees to rate their perceived digitalization intensity and team reflexivity, and provide demographic information (i.e., age, gender, education level, and tenure). One month later, in the second-round survey (N = 367, 75 teams), we asked the employees to report on perceived team resilience. A month after this, in the third-round survey (N = 343, 71 teams), we asked the employees to report on perceived cooperative team goals. We compared the responses and found 343 questionnaires to be valid. The final sample included 167 (48.7%) men and 176 (51.3%) women with a mean age of 38.01 years (SD = 9.14), and mean length of service of 8.61 years (SD = 6.53). The percentage of employees with a high school education level and above was 54.8%.

We translated all variables in this study into Chinese through a back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). To reduce common method bias, all variables were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, except for the variable of perceived cooperative goals, which was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

 

We used five items developed by Wu et al. (2021) to measure team digitalization intensity. A sample item is “The digital technology affects our team’s task procedures.” In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .84. The following statistics supported aggregation of the data to the team level: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 1 = .17, and ICC2 = .50, and the mean of within group agreement was r_wg = .86 (James et al., 1984).

 

We used nine items developed by Monks et al. (2016) to measure team reflexivity. A sample item is “We regularly discuss whether the team is working effectively together.” Cronbach’s alpha was .91 in this study. The following statistics supported aggregation to the team level: ICC1 = .12, ICC2 = .41, r_wg = .86.

 

We used three items developed by Kantur and İşeri-Say (2012) to measure team resilience. A sample item is “We develop alternatives in order to benefit from negative circumstances.” For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .74. The following statistics supported aggregation to the team level: ICC1 = .17, ICC2 = .50; r_wg = .90.

 

We used three items developed by Lam et al. (2011) to measure team resilience. A sample item is “Our team members’ goals go together.” Cronbach’s alpha was .74 in this study. The following statistics supported aggregation to the team level: ICC1 = .21, ICC2 = .56, r_wg = .85.

Given the team-level nature of this study, we first aggregated the individual-level variable measures to the team level. Second, because of the relatively small sizes of the teams in this study, we used Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017), and adopted the bootstrapping method to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the direct effect of digitalization intensity on team reflexivity, and the mediating effect of team reflexivity. Third, we used the bootstrapping method to estimate the 95% CIs of the moderating effect of cooperative team goals, plotted the simple slope of this moderation effect, and tested the moderated mediation effect of cooperative team goals.

The descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables in our study are shown in Table 1. We observed a positive correlation between team digitalization intensity and team reflexivity, which supported Hypothesis 1.

With Hypotheses 1 and 2, we proposed that team digitalization intensity would be positively related to team reflexivity, and that team reflexivity would mediate the relationship between team digitalization intensity and team resilience. Through use of 2,000 bootstrapped resamples, the results indicated that team digitalization intensity was positively related to team reflexivity, β = .39, p < .01 (see Table 2), and that the indirect path from team digitalization intensity to team resilience through team reflexivity was significant, .19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.33]. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

With Hypothesis 3, we posited that cooperative team goals would moderate the relationship between team digitalization intensity and team reflexivity. Using Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017), we found that cooperative team goals enhanced the effect of team digitalization intensity on team reflexivity, .39, 95% CI [0.07, 0.70]. Specifically, the effect of team digitalization intensity on team reflexivity was positive and significant, .52, 95% CI [0.24, 0.80] (see Table 3 and Figure 2) under conditions of high levels of team cooperative goals (M + 1 SD). However, when cooperative team goal levels were low (M – 1 SD), this effect was nonsignificant, .14, 95% CI [–0.15, 0.42] (see Figure 2). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

In Hypothesis 4 we posited that cooperative team goals would moderate the indirect effect of team digitalization on team resilience through team reflexivity. Compared with teams with lower cooperative goal levels, γ = .31, 95% CI [0.11, 0.51], teams with higher cooperative goal levels showed a higher positive indirect effect of team digitalization on team resilience via team reflexivity, γ = .08, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.26] (see Table 3). The results indicated that the 95% CI of the indirect effect did not contain zero, γ = .23, 95% CI [0.03, 0.42]. Therefore, the moderated mediation effect of cooperative team goals on the positive indirect effect of team digitalization on team resilience via team reflexivity was significant, supporting Hypothesis 4.

On the basis of a survey of 343 employees across 71 teams, we found that digitalization intensity enhanced team reflexivity, thereby strengthening team resilience. Specifically, digitalization facilitated intrapersonal reflexivity among team members, which enhanced team resilience. Further, we found that cooperative team goals enhanced the relationship between digitalization and team reflexivity, and fostered the indirect effect of digitalization on team resilience via team reflexivity.

Our study makes several theoretical contributions to the literature on team resilience. First, focusing on the postepidemic era, this study has corroborated the impact of team digitalization on team resilience, thereby contributing to the literature on the antecedent variables of team resilience. Previous research has demonstrated that teams can significantly enhance resource utilization efficiencies through resource consolidation, thereby improving team resilience (Ambulkar et al., 2014; Do et al., 2022). However, although it has been postulated that digitalization can bolster team resilience, empirical tests in this area are lacking (Verhoef et al., 2021). In the context of the current climate of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (Baran & Woznyj, 2021; Luthans & Broad, 2022), this study has contributed to the literature by validating the impact of digitalization on team resilience.

 

Second, regarding team processes, we have contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms by which digitalization within teams affects team resilience. Within the framework of resource logic, studies have posited that the digitalization of processes can markedly enhance effectiveness by facilitating resource orchestration, thereby improving overall business resilience (Sharma et al., 2024). However, digitalization can also affect communication patterns within a team, thereby influencing the formation of team resilience through the interaction process (Carmeli et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2013). The present study offers a novel explanatory framework for investigating the formation of team resilience.

 

Third, the introduction of cooperative team goals validates the boundary conditions of the effect of team digitalization on team resilience via the team interaction process. From a resource perspective, a team’s absorptive and integrative capacity can amplify the positive effects of change on team resilience (Kantur & İşeri-Say, 2012). However, this study revealed that, from an interpersonal interaction perspective, cooperative team goals enhance the positive effects of digitalization on team resilience through the mediator of team reflexivity, which is a significant advancement in the field.

In addition, our study offers several practical insights. First, digitalization is a critical factor in enhancing team resilience. Therefore, in the context of volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous organizational environments, leaders are encouraged to implement digital transformation strategies, such as process innovation, technology integration, work system redesign, and communication optimization, to enhance team resilience. Second, we found that team reflexivity mediated the impact of digital change on team resilience. Thus, we suggest that managers could hold regular group meetings to summarize group work problems, optimize strategies, and allow employees to communicate with their team members about encountered difficulties and their targeted solutions. Third, our study revealed that cooperative team goals can significantly amplify the indirect effect of team digitalization on team resilience. Thus, managers can establish cooperative team goals by strengthening communication to emphasize the collective awareness of shared interests during periods of uncertainty, and by increasing the weight of team-level metrics in individual performance appraisals.

This study has several limitations. First, the findings indicated that team reflexivity mediated the impact of digitalization on team resilience. However, it is important to acknowledge that other potential explanatory mechanisms may warrant further investigation. For example, according to trust theory (Ling & Guo, 2020), digitalization can facilitate the resolution of workplace challenges and enhance communication efficacy between team members, thus bolstering team resilience. Future research could validate the mechanism by which team trust explains the impact of digitalization on team resilience within this framework.

 

Second, we identified cooperative team goals as a moderator of the impact of digitalization on team resilience via team interaction processes. However, other boundary conditions also warrant consideration. For example, from a task perspective, task interdependence strengthens the links between employees (Saavedra et al., 1993), enhancing collaboration and amplifying the effect of digitalization on team resilience through interpersonal processes. Future research could examine the impact of digitalization on team resilience from the perspective of task interdependence, paying particular attention to the boundary conditions.

 

Third, this team-level study focused on the manufacturing industry, and the sample size was only 71 teams, which may compromise the generalizability of the results. Future research could expand the sample size and replicate this study with samples from other industries (e.g., high-tech industries) to enhance the external validity of the results.

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

 

Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2014). Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002

 

Baran, B. E., & Woznyj, H. M. (2021). Managing VUCA: The human dynamics of agility. Organizational Dynamics, 50(2), Article 100787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100787

 

Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2020). Configurations of firm-level value capture in coopetition. Long Range Planning, 53(1), Article 101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.02.002

 

Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Peíró, J. M., Nauta, A., & Gosalvez, I. (2005). Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00196.x

 

Carmeli, A., Levi, A., & Peccei, R. (2021). Resilience and creative problem-solving capacities in project teams: A relational view. International Journal of Project Management, 39(5), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.03.007

 

Dimas, I. D., Rebelo, T., Lourenço, P. R., & Pessoa, C. I. P. (2018). Bouncing back from setbacks: On the mediating role of team resilience in the relationship between transformational leadership and team effectiveness. The Journal of Psychology, 152(6), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1465022

 

Do, H., Budhwar, P., Shipton, H., Nguyen, H.-D., & Nguyen, B. (2022). Building organizational resilience, innovation through resource-based management initiatives, organizational learning and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Research, 141, 808–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.090

 

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Childe, S. J. (2019). Big data analytics capability in supply chain agility. Management Decision, 57(8), 2092–2112. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2018-0119

 

Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Nägele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.002

 

Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639

 

Hartmann, S., Weiss, M., Newman, A., & Hoegl, M. (2019). Resilience in the workplace: A multilevel review and synthesis. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 913–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12191

 

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

 

Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of ripple effects in the supply chain. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14302-2

 

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.69.1.85

 

Jeyalakshmi, P. R., & Rani, A. L. (2019). The impact of digitalization on employee performance in banking sector. Management Insight, 15(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.21844/mijia.15.1.8

 

Kantur, D., & İşeri-Say, A. (2012). Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(6), 762–773. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.6.762

 

Kennedy, D. M., Landon, L. B., & Maynard, M. T. (2016). Extending the conversation: Employee resilience at the team level. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.41

 

Konradt, U., Otte, K.-P., Schippers, M. C., & Steenfatt, C. (2016). Reflexivity in teams: A review and new perspectives. The Journal of Psychology, 150(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1050977

 

Lam, C. K., Huang, X., Walter, F., & Chan, S. C. H. (2016). Coworkers’ relationship quality and interpersonal emotions in team-member dyads in China: The moderating role of cooperative team goals. Management and Organization Review, 12(4), 687–716. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2016.19

 

Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021882

 

Liang, R., Huang, C., Zhang, C., Li, B., Saydam, S., & Canbulat, I. (2023). Exploring the fusion potentials of data visualization and data analytics in the process of mining digitalization. IEEE Access, 11, 40608–40628. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3267813

 

Lin, C.-P., He, H., Baruch, Y., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). The effect of team affective tone on team performance: The roles of team identification and team cooperation. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21810

 

Ling, B., & Guo, Y. (2020). Affective and cognitive trust as mediators in the influence of leader motivating language on personal initiative. International Journal of Business Communication, 62(2), 258–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420915503

 

Lu, H., Wu, T., Yao, X.-M., & Huangfu, C.-M. (2025). How and when digital transformation intensity influences employees’ safety-related helping behaviors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 215, Article 124092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124092

 

Luthans, F., & Broad, J. D. (2022). Positive psychological capital to help combat the mental health fallout from the pandemic and VUCA environment. Organizational Dynamics, 51(2), Article 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100817

 

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

 

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

 

Monks, K., Conway, E., Fu, N., Bailey, K., Kelly, G., & Hannon, E. (2016). Enhancing knowledge exchange and combination through HR practices: Reflexivity as a translation process. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 304–320.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12108

 

Morgan, P. B. C., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Defining and characterizing team resilience in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(4), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.004

 

Morgan, P. B. C., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2015). Understanding team resilience in the world’s best athletes: A case study of a rugby union World Cup winning team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.007

 

Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).

 

Narayan, R., Gehlot, A., Singh, R., Akram, S. V., Priyadarshi, N., & Twala, B. (2022). Hospitality Feedback System 4.0: Digitalization of feedback system with integration of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies. Sustainability, 14(19), Article 12158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912158

 

Raetze, S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M. T., & Kirkman, B. L. (2021). Resilience in organizations: An integrative multilevel review and editorial introduction. Group & Organization Management, 46(4), 607–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211032129

 

Rong, P., Li, C., & Xie, J. (2019). Learning, trust, and creativity in top management teams: Team reflexivity as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47(5), Article 8096. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8096

 

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.61

 

Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Boardman, L. (2019). Digital transformation of business models — Best practice, enablers, and roadmap. Digital Disruptive Innovation, 36, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781786347602_0005

 

Schiuma, G., Gavrilova, T., & Carlucci, D. (2022). Guest editorial: Knowledge visualisation for strategic decision-making in the digital age. Management Decision, 60(4), 885–892. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2022-181

 

Sharma, V., Vijayaraghavan, T. A. S., Tata, R. R., & Raj, A. (2024). Strengthening organizational resilience: Role of sustainable supply chain, digitalization and business model adaptation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(11), 2420–2437. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2023-0332

 

Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S.-H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9462-9

 

Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., Carmeli, A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2013). Team emotional carrying capacity measure [Data set]. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/t20971-000

 

Stoverink, A. C., Kirkman, B. L., Mistry, S., & Rosen, B. (2020). Bouncing back together: Toward a theoretical model of work team resilience. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0005

 

Thun, S., Kamsvåg, P. F., Kløve, B., Seim, E. A., & Torvatn, H. Y. (2019). Industry 4.0: Whose revolution? The digitalization of manufacturing work processes. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 9(4), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v9i4.117777

 

Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 540–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103254911

 

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1223–1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00473.x

 

Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

 

Wu, T., Chen, B., Shao, Y., & Lu, H. (2021). Enable digital transformation: Entrepreneurial leadership, ambidextrous learning and organizational performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(12), 1389–1403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1876220

 

Zhang, J., Long, J., & von Schaewen, A. M. E. (2021). How does digital transformation improve organizational resilience?—Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11487. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011487

 

Zhang, Z.-X., Dong, Y., & Yi, X. (2020). Building resilience via cognitive preparedness, behavioral reconfigurations, and iterative learning: The case of YunKang. Management and Organization Review, 16(5), 981–985. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.60