How do teams adapt during adversity? Larson and Klonek (2026) critically look at the current state of research by looking at a study by Bisbey et al. (2025) on team resilience capacity. They recognise the importance of the longitudinal data that was gathered but stated that many researchers make methodological decisions which are not capable of explaining the intricate nature of team dynamics.
Additionally, they explained that confusing studying dynamics with a longitudinal design is one of the biggest challenges that researchers face while conducting studies on team dynamics. Since, the analysis assumes that each team will follow the same linear path and so they simply gather data over multiple periods of time which is insufficient.
So, in order to capture true team dynamics a trajectory-focused analysis method can be helpful since it allows us to see different growth trajectories which can test whether different teams develop resilience at different rates or in different forms. Hence, using it can help to understand how factors like trust, cohesion, and psychological safety create gain or loss spirals which determine a team’s ability to bounce back over time.
Moreover, there is another misunderstanding in the concept of emergence. Larson and Klonek (2026) stated that higher average scores in a team state (for example: resilience) do not prove that there is any emergence. So, it is a consensus-building process where individual perceptions integrate into a shared team property.
Hence, they say that true team dynamics are found in the convergence of member viewpoints. So they suggest using Consensus Emergence Modeling (CEM) to track whether team members are actually coming to an agreement over time or if their perceptions are drifting apart which is a state known as “dissensus”. This approach allows researchers to test if factors like psychological safety actually facilitate the emergence of shared resilience by enabling open communication and shared sensemaking.
All in all, understanding team dynamics needs more than just repeated measures. It also needs analytic tools that can model change, consensus, and context. When these ways are adopted, the field may move closer to understanding how teams truly navigate the complexities of the modern workplace.
Food for thought: If a team’s resilience depends on members agreeing with each other, what happens when some team members feel the team is coping well while others feel it is struggling? Can we still call the team “resilient,” or does true resilience require everyone to be on the same page?
References
- Bisbey, T., Paoletti-Hatcher, J., Snyder, G. P., Seo, C., & Salas, E. (2025). Towards Understanding how Teams Overcome setbacks: A longitudinal study on the emergence and impact of team resilience. Group & Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011251384689
- Larson, N. L., & Klonek, F. E. (2026). A Commentary on Bisbey et al. (2025): Oops, We Did It Again—Repeated Shortcomings in Team Dynamics and Emergence Research. Group & Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011261422323