Search

In this paper, we take a process perspective to inductively theorize how shifting sources of adversity and subjective experiences of team relationship quality influence team resilience across time. Building on the literature, we characterize team resilience as a set of team‐level processes—anticipation, coping, and learning—which can support teams to work interdependently to return to, or beyond, pre‐adversity levels of performance. Despite the rising interest, existing research has tended to be theoretical or exploratory in relation to sources of everyday team adversity. To further understand team resilience, we examine how the characteristics of team resilience unfold across time between a crew of sailors during a challenging multi‐day yacht race and competitive demands. Using video observations and interview data, we explore in real‐time how team resilience processes are (i) shaped by dynamism in the sources of external (environmental) adversity and internal team adversity encountered and (ii) influenced by shifts in the subjective experience of team relationship quality across time. We make two contributions: a novel conceptualization of how external (environmental) adversity and internal team adversity affect team resilience processes across time and a theorization of how relationship quality affects team resilience in the context of shifting adversities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International statistics indicate that occupational, or work-related driving, crashes are the most common cause of workplace injury, death, and absence from work. The majority of research examining unsafe driver behavior in the workplace has relied on general road safety questionnaires. However, past research has failed to consider the organisational context in the use of these questionnaires, and thus, there is ambiguity in the dimensions constituting occupational driving. Using a theoretical model developed by ), this article proposes and validates a new scale of occupational driver behavior. This scale incorporates four dimensions of driver behavior that are influenced by demanding workplace conditions: speeding, rule violation, inattention, and driving while tired. Following a content validation process, three samples of occupational drivers in Australia were used to assess the scale. Data from the first sample ( n= 145) were used to reduce the number of scale items and provide an assessment of the factorial validity of the scale. Data from the second sample ( n= 645) were then used to confirm the factor structure and psychometric properties of the scale including reliability and construct validity. Finally, data from the third sample ( n= 248) were used to establish criterion validity. The results indicated that the scale is a reliable and valid measure of occupational driver behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]