A multilevel review of stressor research in teams

Razinskas, Stefan; Hoegl, Martin Article — Published Version A multilevel review of stressor research in teams Journal of Organizational Behavior Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Razinskas, Stefan; Hoegl, Martin (2019) : A multilevel review of stressor research in teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, ISSN 1099-1379, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 41, Iss. 2, pp. 185-209, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2420 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/230074 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUE A multilevel review of stressor research in teams Stefan Razinskas |Martin Hoegl Institute for Leadership and Organization, LMU Munich School of Management, Ludwig‐ Maximilians‐Universität München, Munich, Germany Correspondence Stefan Razinskas, Institute for Leadership and Organization, LMU Munich School of Management, Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität München, Geschwister‐Scholl‐Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected]u.de Summary The contemporary work environment is characterized by an ongoing trend to embed employees in teams because of their expected abilities for handling complex tasks and integrating diverse sets of knowledge and skills. However, leveraging this potential is endangered by stimuli within and outside of teams that take a toll on cohesion and teamwork among team members. Understanding the role that stressors and demands play in the work‐related functioning of teams and their members is therefore an increasingly important challenge in the organizational behavior literature. Whereas research on stressors and demands has primarily focused on the individual level, we expand the research scope by considering these phenomena to be multilevel. We perform an interdisciplinary review of the literature on these stimuli in teams and show how related research, such as that on destructive leadership, may benefit from a more balanced account and integration of frameworks on stressors. Our multilevel review is informative for the literature on stressors and demands at the individual and team levels, as it offers an important conceptual grounding for how and why various stimuli in this social environment differentially influence both the collective entity and its individual team members. KEYWORDS demands, stressors, teams, work groups 1|INTRODUCTION More than a quarter century has passed since James Driskell and Eduardo Salas (1991) published their seminal work on collaborative decision‐ making under stress. In the years that followed, the trend of teamwork in the workplace increased rapidly, paralleled by a corresponding increase in the number of academic publications on this topic (Weiss & Hoegl, 2015). Likewise, a sizable and increasingbodyofresearchhasstartedto investigate stressors—defined as “theeventsorpropertiesofevents(stimuli) that are encountered by individuals”(Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001, p. 14)—in the context of teams. Although this research on team stressors (i.e., the demanding stimuli encountered by teams and their members) has been slow to accumulate and long occurred predominantly in the military context (for a comprehensive overview, please refer to Cannon‐Bowers & Salas, 1998), team stressors are receiving heightened attention in leading journals today (e.g., Maruping, Venkatesh, Thatcher, & Patel, 2015; Sacramento, Fay, & West, 2013). Traditional team‐level studies have shown, for example, how team performance is driven by team stressors through specific intrateam processes and boundary conditions (Drach‐Zahavy & Freund, 2007; Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009), whereas first cross‐level studies have detected how specific team stressors translate into performance‐relevant attitudes, behaviors, and emotional states within individual team members (e.g., Kozusznik, Rodríguez, & Peiró, 2015; Westman, Bakker, Roziner, & Sonnentag, 2011). ------- ------------ --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------------ --------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------- This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Organizational Behavior published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Received: 27 October 2017 Revised: 26 September 2019 Accepted: 15 October 2019 DOI: 10.1002/job.2420 J Organ Behav. 2020;41:185–209. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 185 Studies accounting for higher level stressors have revealed the complex nature of team stressors, identifying some team stressors as beneficial for team performance and others as detrimental (Drach‐ Zahavy & Freund, 2007; Gardner, 2012; Pearsall et al., 2009). Studies on cross‐level effects have shown that among other factors, team members' exhaustion and engagement depend on the stressfulness of their team's climate (i.e., ranging from distressed to eustressed; Kozusznik et al., 2015). Most of these findings are in line with findings at the individual level showing that stressors differentially affect outcomes such as performance, commitment, and engagement (for reviews at the individual level, please refer to Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz‐Vergel, 2014; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Notably, however, only a few studies conducted in actual team contexts have explicitly drawn upon and theoretically extended stressor frameworks that were originally conceptualized at the individual level (e.g., Ellis & Pearsall, 2011; Pearsall et al., 2009). This is surprising, given that the need for multilevel approaches in occupational stress research was articulated long ago (Bliese & Jex, 1999). Consequently, although team research is gradually expanding the knowledge of how teams are affected by specific stimuli (e.g., time or performance pressures), the development of explicit stressor research in teams is potentially stalled. This is particularly critical because the bifurcation of literature leading to two separate streams (i.e., micro and macro) impedes the advancement of knowledge (House, Rousseau, & Thomas‐Hunt, 1995), thereby creating unnecessary pluralism (Goldspink & Kay, 2004). A more integrative approach to the study of stressors and teams is hence needed to effectively use any potential synergies currently lying dormant. By extending the informative literature reviews of workplace stress (Ganster & Rosen, 2013) and stressors (Cooper et al., 2001) at the individual level, we provide a unified overview of the empirical research addressing stressors and demands in teams to allow such synergies to surface. Our contribution is thus threefold. First, as team research on stressors appears to be unstructured in terms of a rather random selection of stressors, outcomes, and potential buffering mechanisms, we align and structure previous findings to put scholars who are interested in the same specific phenomena within those categories (e.g., stressors intrinsic to a team's job or originating from relationships at work) on the same page. This approach will connect their research ideas to findings from potentially related stressors. Second, although research on work stressors has become increasingly invested in the study of collectives, much of the discussion is implicitly applied as analogous to the individual level. However, especially when stressors affect individuals embedded in collective structures such as teams, interactions and team‐internal processes are pivotal to the effects of the stressors. To avoid an overly restricted and static understanding of stressors and demands at work, we systematically review the literature across multiple levels of analysis and discuss the multilevel nature of stressors (Bliese, 1998; Bliese & Jex, 1999). Third, as scholars from related fields of team research arguably investigate stressor‐like phenomena without explicitly drawing on this stream of research, we raise their awareness of a more balanced account of team‐stressor research. We exemplify this by the literature on destructive leadership behaviors (e.g., Mawritz, Dust, & Resick, 2014; Tepper, 2007). Applying a team‐stressor lens to these behaviors will give rise to substantial progress that would otherwise be overlooked. Taken together, we contribute to the existing literature by explicitly focusing on stressors in collective entities (e.g., Maruping et al., 2015; Rodríguez‐Escudero, Carbonell, & Munuera‐Aleman, 2010; Savelsbergh, Gevers, Van der Heijden, & Poell, 2012), and we advance related streams of team research that center on stressful stimuli jeopardizing the proper functioning of teams and their members. 2|REVIEW METHOD 2.1 |Theoretical approach and structuring Because teams and work groups are characterized as collectives operating in settings that link individuals to one another (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000), we integrate studies on both forms of interdependent collective work in our systematic literature review. Some authors consider their studies to relate to teams exclusively, but blurring the lines between the two terms may provoke others to classify these studies as research on work groups, or vice versa. In keeping with previous reviews (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Costa, Fulmer, & Anderson, 2018; Thatcher & Patel, 2012), we use the terms “team”and “group”interchangeably for simplicity's sake, although we more frequently use the term team. As Kerr and Tindale (2004, p. 624) noted, “the distinction is a rather artificial one that reflects more about subdisciplinary territoriality than about fundamental differences in focus or objectives.”If a distinction is to be made, then team studies typically, but not exclusively, tend to be of an applied nature, with data collected in real work teams, whereas group studies tend to be of an experimental nature in that they investigate groups in laboratory settings (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; McGrath et al., 2000). Because research on stressors in the organizational context of teams appears to be rather unstructured, the approach to organizing our interdisciplinary literature review is twofold. On the one hand, we classify the extant empirical research on stressors and their effects on and within teams into three broader categories reflecting the hierarchical levels considered. First, there are studies investigating individual‐level stressors and their effects on team members (e.g., Jex & Bliese, 1999; Jex & Thomas, 2003). These studies apply a single‐level approach by observing individuals embedded in teams and how individual‐level stressors affect their work. Second, by applying this single‐level approach to the higher level, that is, the team level, some studies consider the team‐specific and team‐external influences that affect collective entities as a whole (e.g., Ellis, 2006; Maruping et al., 2015). This vein of research has started to emerge due to the increasing relevance of teams in organizational practice. Third, studies perform multilevel investigations of stressors within teams. Articles simultaneously accounting for individual‐level and team‐level models (i.e., homologous multilevel models; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; e.g., RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 186 Griffith, 1997; Sacramento et al., 2013) must be differentiated from those investigating actual cross‐level effects of either higher level stressors or buffering resources on outcomes pertaining to individual team members (e.g., Savelsbergh et al., 2012; Triana, Porter, DeGrassi, & Bergman, 2013). On the other hand, within each of these broad categories structured around the hierarchical levels, we cluster the reviewed studies according to the categories of the stressors they examine. We follow the categorization of workplace stressors developed by Cooper and Marshall (1976) in which stressors affecting employees in their work typically fall into one of the following six categories: (a) stressors intrinsic to a job (e.g., workload, time pressure); (b) stressors due to relationships at work (e.g., interpersonal animosity, poor leadership); (c) stressors due to roles in the organization (e.g., role ambiguity, role conflict); (d) stressors related to career development (e.g., job insecurity, thwarted ambition); (e) stressors due to organizational structure and climate (e.g., politics, lack of participation); and (f) stressors at the work–home interface (e.g., family problems, financial difficulties). Drawing upon this well‐established categorization facilitates the integration of previous reviews of stressor research at the individual level (e.g., Cooper et al., 2001) with the review of the research on teams presented in our article. 2.2 |Literature search Before demonstrating how this article's multilevel approach fits into and contributes to the existing research on stressors in teams, we delve into an interdisciplinary review of the previous work carried out in the three broader categories outlined above. In line with best practices (e.g., Hodgkinson & Ford, 2014; Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu, & Hirst, 2014; Short, 2009), we first systematically searched for reasonable combinations of relevant key terms relating to contexts (e.g., “team,”“group,”and “collective”) and stressors (e.g., “stressor,” “demand,”and “stimuli”and specific stressors such as “time pressure,” “workload,”and “ambiguity”) in Web of Science, EBSCO (i.e., Business Source Complete, PsycARTICLES, and SocINDEX), and Google Scholar. We then screened the results of our search by reading the abstracts and consulting the references of the remaining research to identify further research that was undetected by our initial search strings. We identified 90 empirical journal articles, one dissertation, and one book chapter for our multilevel literature review, with the most recent study having been published in June 2019 (i.e., Shen, Chang, Cheng, & Kim, 2019). As illustrated in Figure 1, the body of research on stressors in teams has not only persistently grown over the last quarter century but changed its perspective since the turn of the millennium, with an increasing proportion of the research now considering multiple hierarchical levels (i.e., the individual “and”team levels) rather than only a single level (i.e., the individual “or”team level). Given the nature of the topic, our systematic literature review is highly interdisciplinary. Figure 2 provides an illustrative distribution of the 90 reviewed journal articles across disciplines. Whereas 14.4% of the reviewed articles were published in business and management journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal and Administrative Science Quarterly), 41.1% were published in psychology journals (e.g., Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice and Journal of Occupational Health Psychology). Roughly one‐third of them (30.0%) were published in organizational behavior journals (e.g., Journal of FIGURE 1 The relative evolution of research on stressors in teams by hierarchical level FIGURE 2 The number of reviewed journal articles across disciplines RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 187 Applied Psychology and Journal of Organizational Behavior), that is, in journals that are interdisciplinary in nature and thus ranked by the Social Sciences Citation Index within the fields of both management and psychology. The remaining articles (14.4%) were published in journals from other disciplines, such as sociology, hospitality, and ergonomics. 3|A MULTILEVEL FRAMEWORK OF STRESSORS AND DEMANDS IN TEAMS 3.1 |Individual‐level investigations of stressors and demands in teams 3.1.1 |Stressors intrinsic to a job Research on individual‐level stressors and their effects on team members has identified different causes of stressors intrinsic to team members' jobs. Workload and time pressure are certainly the most prominent stressors from this category. For example, team decision‐ making and responsibility were shown to increase and team‐based job rotation to decrease both of these stressors (Cruz & Pil, 2011). These stressors, in turn, tend to translate into heightened experiences of stress (Cruz & Pil, 2011), anxiety (de Jonge, van Breukelen, Landeweerd, & Nijhuis, 1999), and acute job strain (Gevers, van Erven, de Jonge, Maas, & de Jong, 2010). In team‐based settings, this “strain‐ based process”is critical because strains—particularly from the emotional domain—tend to impair teamwork behaviors (Gevers et al., 2010). These findings are in line with those from the military context showing that individual‐level stressors (such as overload) negatively affect team members' group perceptions, job satisfaction, and well‐ being (Jex & Thomas, 2003). Worsening matters, pressures intrinsic to the work of teams seem to disrupt team members' perceptions of team cohesiveness and to increase their competitive mindset (Klein, 1996), which potentially leads to a dysfunctional upward spiral in which stress and competition (or disadvantaging behaviors) mutually reinforce one another. As a pleasant side effect, however, team members in highly competitive teams were shown to experience less pressure from other stressors (Sonnentag, Brodbeck, Heinbokel, & Stolte, 1994), arguably because the existence of permanent competition constitutes a chronic stressor that makes team members more used to (and robust against) stressful events. Although these studies consistently show the detrimental effects of stressors intrinsic to team members' tasks at hand on their well‐ being, empirical evidence also suggests that the decision‐making process in teams becomes more decentralized under excessive stressors. When experiencing stressors in the military context, for example, team leaders and members become more open and willing to accept input from one another, thereby decentralizing authority within the team (Driskell & Salas, 1991). Likewise, in the student context, Brown and Miller (2000) found less centralized communication between psychology students when their teams were working on highly complex and taxing tasks, pointing to a “behavior‐based process”among team members that resulted from their individual experience of stressors. In addition to individual‐level stressors that are potentially beneficial for team members, buffering resources were also shown to help mitigate the potential detrimental effects that other, more negative stressors may have. For example, in team‐based care, team members' job autonomy was revealed to buffer the negative effect that job‐ intrinsic stressors had on the work motivation of team members (de Jonge et al., 1999). Other studies with designs that account for team‐level buffers assessed via team members' individual perceptions (and therefore are not conceptualized as cross‐level studies, such as those reviewed below) have shown that the strain imposed on members of army companies (i.e., a team‐based military unit) by job‐ intrinsic stressors is effectively buffered when they have strong self‐ efficacy beliefs (Jex & Bliese, 1999). Likewise, the sheer perception of support from others is shown to be functional in this regard (Bliese & Castro, 2000). Evidence from student teams suggests that when such support is not available, team identification can compensate for this deficit by buffering the strain‐related effects of individual‐level stressors (Jimmieson, McKimmie, Hannam, & Gallagher, 2010). This identification seems to have its most beneficial stressor‐buffering effect on satisfaction for prototypical team leaders (Cicero, Pierro, & van Knippenberg, 2007), which shows that the complex interrelationships and dependencies between team leaders and members are critical to the study of stressors and demands in teams. 3.1.2 |Stressors due to relationships at work Research on stressors resulting from team members' relationships at work has predominantly focused on the role of social identification given the unique social structure of teams and work groups. Extant individual‐level investigations of the work relationships of team members have hence emphasized that identity‐based processes play a pivotal role not only in stressors' effects on performance at the team level (as shown below) but also in team members' individual experience of stress (Haslam & Reicher, 2006). In this regard, members of teams with a strong collective sense of team identification favor the “we”over the “I”(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012). Reflecting the idiom that “when ‘I’is replaced by ‘we,’even ‘illness’becomes ‘wellness,’” teams and their members can profit from a strong shared sense of identification. More specifically, such a shared identity should not only motivate team members to provide more support for their own in‐group (Haslam & Reicher, 2006) but also trigger feelings of team cohesiveness. In the student context, this sense of a shared social identity, which makes a team cohesive, was shown to translate into less stress, confusion, and mood disturbances among the members of a varsity team (Henderson, Bourgeois, LeUnes, & Meyers, 1998) and to compensate for the neuroendocrine stress reactions of students collectively working on an experimental task (Häusser, Kattenstroth, van Dick, & Mojzisch, 2012). Because identification with a particular team is easier for team members to develop when they are not required to work simultaneously in more than one team, it is unsurprising that Pluut, Flestea, and Curşeu (2014) RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 188 TABLE 1 Overview of the reviewed individual‐level investigations of stressors and demands in teams Reference Sample Key takeaways for research on stressors in teams Composition model Stressors intrinsic to a job … …conceptualized as individual‐level mediators: Cruz and Pil (2011) 1,708 team members from 292 team‐ based establishments (U.K.) Team members' time pressure and workload, which translate into stress, seem to be triggered by team decision‐making and responsibility, but to be decreased by team‐based job rotation. – …conceptualized as individual‐level predictors: Bliese and Castro (2000) 1,538 U.S. Army soldiers of 53 companies (U.S.) Overload tends to induce strain, and this effect is shown to be efficiently buffered by role clarity only in high‐supportive teams. – Brown and Miller (2000) 216 psychology students in 48 teams (U.S.) Communication seems to be more centralized in teams working on tasks of low complexity (irrespective of time pressure). – Driskell and Salas (1991) 78 U.S. Navy students in 39 teams (U. S.) When being stressed, team members seem to become more receptive to information provided by others. – Gevers et al. (2010) 48 team members from medical emergency teams (the Netherlands) Acute job demands tend to impede effective teamwork behavior only when they result in acute job strain. This detrimental effect is shown to be particularly true for strain from the emotional domain. – Jex and Bliese (1999) 2,273 U.S. Army soldiers of 36 companies (U.S.) Team members with strong (vs. weak) self‐efficacy seem to be less (vs. more) psychologically and physically strained by long work hours and work overload, and they appear to be more satisfied with their job when working on tasks of high significance. – Jex and Thomas (2003) 2,081 U.S. Army soldiers of 31 companies (U.S.) Overload, interpersonal conflict, and work‐family conflict tend to impair team members' job satisfaction, well‐being, and group perceptions. – Jimmieson et al. (2010) 155 psychology students employed in team‐based structures (Australia) Highly team‐identified members seem to be less negatively affected by role ambiguity in their job satisfaction. Strong team identification seems to buffer against the harms of role ambiguity for their psychological well‐being only when team members lack co‐worker support. – Klein (1996) 1,676 employees from 6 plants (U.S.) Work pressure tends to disrupt perceptions of team‐cohesive behaviors and to trigger perceptions of intrateam competition. – Sonnentag et al. (1994) 180 software professionals from 29 teams (Germany and Switzerland) The experience of stressors like overload seem to decrease team members' identification with their team and increase their perceived pressure. While team members are even less identified when cognitive requirements are high, they tend to be more pressured when cognitive or learning requirements are high or when there is low competition. – …conceptualized as individual‐level moderators: Cicero et al. (2007) 329 employees from 3 organizations (Italy) Team leaders' prototypicality is shown to relate more strongly to their members' job satisfaction when team members experience more stress and identify more strongly with their team. – Stressors due to relationships at work … …conceptualized as individual‐level criteria: Haslam and Reicher (2006) 15 adult men in 2 teams (U.K.) A shared identity not only appears to increase the provision of more social support, but also to allow for effectively resisting the adverse effects of situational stressors like inequality. – Häusser et al. (2012) 96 students in 24 teams (Germany) Feelings of being part of a team seem to buffer stress only if its members develop a sense of shared social identity. – Henderson et al. (1998) 20 varsity athletes from one team (U. S.) Team members perceiving strong team cohesion tend to experience less stress (e.g., depression, confusion, mood disturbance). – …conceptualized as individual‐level mediators: (Continues) RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 189 found that teamwork demands in the organizational context strain team members more who possess multiple team memberships. Although the social relationships within a team can serve as a valuable resource for its members when a shared identity is able to arise, work relationships also bear the risk of creating conditions under which individual team members are harmed. Specifically, Haslam, Jetten, O'Brien, and Jacobs (2004) show that team members experience more stress when the bearer of a stressful message is from their in‐group (i.e., their own team) than from an out‐group, which reflects existing research showing that discouragement from in‐group members rather than out‐group members provokes downward performance spirals (Rees et al., 2013). Moreover, perceptions of team‐internal competition in student teams are known to function as a stressor that leads to disadvantaging behaviors toward fellow team members, more stress, and less calmness and satisfaction (Boos, Franiel, & Belz, 2015). Notably, social stressors associated with cultural differences between members of binational teams have been shown to be more stressful than actual work‐related stressors (Pines & Zaidman, 2014). Thus, the social context in which team members work obviously influences the severity of the effects of a stressful event. 3.1.3 |Stressors at the work–home interface Our review shows that most research on social stressors in teams considers team‐internal stressors resulting from relationships at work. However, individual‐level stressor research reveals that the social context—which extends beyond such workplace relationships—at the work–home interface may constitute an equally important source of stress (Cooper et al., 2001). To date, ten Brummelhuis, van der Lippe, and Kluwer (2010) have offered the only study in this vein. Specifically, their research shows that team‐external social stressors (i.e., conflicts in the team members' private lives) impair helping behaviors aimed at fellow team members. Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the studies examining individual‐level stressors within teams. We have structured the table according to not only the overarching stressor category but also the role that such stressors play in the respective research models (i.e., criteria, mediators, predictors, or moderators). Moreover, this overview—similar to the ones presented later in this review—offers more information about the samples used and brief key takeaways for research on stressors in teams because not every article places stressors in teams at center stage (instead casually contributing to this stream of research). Given that researchers increasingly aim at gaining a more elaborate understanding of stressors in teams, a growing number of studies are expanding beyond individual‐level relationships. This type of research investigates higher level or cross‐level effects. The following two sections present the corresponding studies requiring more complex data collection and analysis, to which we refer in outlining a future research agenda. 3.2 |Team‐level investigations of stressors and demands 3.2.1 |Stressors intrinsic to a job Although studies that investigate the effects of team stressors exclusively at the team level have grown in popularity over the last two TABLE 1 (Continued) Reference Sample Key takeaways for research on stressors in teams Composition model Pluut et al. (2014) 151 employees from one IT company (Romania) While taskwork demands (i.e., task load) and both teamwork demands (i.e., team process load and conflict) increase team members' job strain, only the teamwork demands appear to be enhanced by multiple team membership. – …conceptualized as individual‐level predictors: Boos et al. (2015) 200 students in 20 teams (Germany) Intrateam competition seem to provoke disadvantaging behaviors, more stress, and less calmness and satisfaction. – Haslam et al. (2004) 40 psychology students in team‐based structures (U.K.) For team members, stressful messages from in‐group members appear to be more stressful than that provided by members of an out‐group. For challenging messages, in contrast, more stress is created when it is delivered by out‐rather than in‐group members. – Pines and Zaidman (2014) 120 Israeli employees from binational teams (Israel) Social stressors associated with cultural differences between team members tend to be significantly more stressful than the stressors associated with working with members of the same culture. – Stressors at the work—home interface … …conceptualized as individual‐level predictors: ten Brummelhuis et al. (2010) 495 team members of 95 teams (the Netherlands) Team members experiencing private conflicts with their partners at home show less helping behaviors toward their fellow team members at work. – RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 190 decades, research on the antecedents of stressors in teams is still underrepresented. Beyond research showing that the provision of information is helpful in avoiding overload and ambiguity in teams experiencing organizational change (Rafferty & Jimmieson, 2010), only two studies to date have investigated the antecedents of team‐level stressors by examining the role of team composition in particular. Whereas Hudson and Shen (2018) focused on actual staffing within teams and showed that understaffing influences teams' quantitative and qualitative workload, Keller (2001) examined team composition from a team‐diversity perspective. His research revealed that cross‐ functional teams are more stressed than their homogeneous counterparts and that this stress taxes their performance by impairing team cohesiveness, thus pointing to an “identity‐based process”by which team stressors affect team performance. Empirical evidence of the consequences of workload and time pressure experienced by an entire team is mixed. On the one hand, team workload tends to undermine the performance and effectiveness of teams (Brown, 2011). This is partly because workload appears to inhibit teamwork (Entin & Serfaty, 1999) by, among other things, increasing the absenteeism duration of teams, which complicates their smooth joint work (Fritzsche, Wegge, Schmauder, Kliegel, & Schmidt, 2014). Likewise, time pressure seems to tax shared mental models and transactive memory (Ellis, 2006) and to impair the accuracy of such mental models and the allocation of information within teams (Ellis & Pearsall, 2011). From a knowledge perspective, such performance decrements under pressure were shown to be transmitted by team members' tendency “to overly rely on general expertise while discounting domain‐specific expertise”(Gardner, 2012, p. 1), which points to an “information‐based process”that enables team stressors to affect team performance. On the other hand, empirical findings suggest that quantitative stressors via team commitment and qualitative stressors via organic structuring positively influence team effectiveness (Drach‐Zahavy & Freund, 2007), which can be explained by experimental findings from the student context. Student teams tend to develop relatively pronounced cohesion when they must collectively function under fear (Morris et al., 1976), and moreover, the structuring of teams into non‐specialized rather than specialized team members appears to counteract the performance decrements associated with elevated degrees of workload (Urban, Bowers, Monday, & Morgan, 1995). Because appointing leaders in positive physical environments has been shown to enhance team members' attitudes toward their team (Worchel & Shackelford, 1991), student teams appear to make use of their leaders' structuring behaviors that are typically triggered by more complex tasks (Marta, Leritz, & Mumford, 2005). This is in line with findings from the organizational context showing that the team orientation of team leaders' supervision tends to buffer the negative effects of work pressures on team cohesion (Klein, 1996). Finally, Urban, Weaver, Bowers, and Rhodenizer (1996) show that work overload caused by a lack of resources does not necessarily degrade the performance of student teams, although it triggers more complaints about the availability of team resources. This finding resonates with the organizational phenomenon of team members potentially becoming self‐declared victims of their restrictions (Hoegl, Gibbert, & Mazursky, 2008). Considering these equivocal findings, it is unsurprising that in the years following the establishment of the challenge–hindrance stressor framework at the individual level (LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007), team studies on the dual nature of team stressors began to accumulate in organizational behavior research. Whereas challenge‐ related team stressors were found to improve the performance and transactive memory of student teams, hindrance‐related team stressors tend to impair both (Pearsall et al., 2009). These differential performance effects of team stressors were identified as being transmitted through the coping strategies used by student teams (Pearsall et al., 2009) and the job satisfaction of new product development (NPD) teams (Rodríguez‐Escudero et al., 2010). Oppositional effects of team stressors have been studied predominantly in the NPD context, where it is necessary to unlearn current beliefs and routines in order to develop innovative products (Lee & Sukoco, 2011). Whereas challenge‐related team stressors appear to increase team unlearning, hindrance‐related team stressors seem to decrease it (Lee, 2011). Further research has revealed that time pressure in NPD teams may act as both a challenge‐related and a hindrance‐related team stressor, with opposite direct effects on team performance (Chong, van Eerde, Chai, & Rutte, 2011) and opposite interaction effects with the geographic proximity of team members affecting their communication (Chong, van Eerde, Rutte, & Chai, 2012). Many investigations of time pressure in teams have not only applied experimental manipulations of time pressure in teams of students but also drawn on the attentional focus model (Karau & Kelly, 1992). Providing further support for an information‐based process of team stressors, this model suggests that members of time‐pressured teams focus more on tasks and their completion, thereby filtering out other information that they perceive as less important to accomplishing a task successfully. This is partly the case because although time pressure results in elevated communication quantity and quality (Pfaff, 2012), it tends to increase normative and decrease informational influences in teams (Kelly, Jackson, & Hutson‐Comeaux, 1997). However, whereas only one further study (Kelly & Loving, 2004) found support for such a filtering‐out effect in student teams, others failed to provide empirical evidence that time pressure directly affects teams' information seeking (e.g., Durham, Locke, Poon, & McLeod, 2000; Kelly & Karau, 1999; Parks & Cowlin, 1995). The process of filtering information—which would explain why teams under time pressure often show lower decision‐making quality and decreased accuracy—hence appears to be more complex. It is thus unsurprising that the effect of time pressure on student teams' decision‐making has been revealed to be contingent on the initial decision preference of team members (e.g., strong and shared with others; Kelly & Karau, 1999). Likewise, in the organizational context, two more recent studies examined the more complex effects of time pressure. This research revealed time pressure to be beneficial for team performance at moderate levels (i.e., having an inverted U‐shaped relationship) because learning orientation and knowledge sourcing (Khedhaouria, Montani, RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 191 & Thurik, 2017) as well as specific team processes (i.e., team transition, action, and interpersonal processes; Maruping et al., 2015) are efficiently activated at such levels of time pressure. The latter indirect effect was found to vary with the level of team temporal leadership (i.e., the structuring, coordination, and management of task pacing in teamwork; Maruping et al., 2015). Whereas traditional stressor frameworks conceptualize stressors as the causes (i.e., predictors) of the stress process, studies conceptualizing stressors intrinsic to a team' job as moderators are equally informative to our understanding of stressors in teams. Similar to the direct effects of team workload discussed above, this job characteristic appears to have opposite contingency effects. Whereas work overload seems to inhibit the positive relationships that team resources have with both team resilience and team performance (Meneghel, Martinez, & Salanova, 2016), it may constitute a condition under which task conflicts benefit team performance (Bang & Park, 2015). Similarly, although work overload tends to limit the positive effects that team improvisation has on team performance (Magni & Maruping, 2013), it may strengthen the positive effect of team reflexivity on team innovation (Schippers, West, & Dawson, 2015). Although workload does not seem to alter the degree to which familiarity among team members is beneficial for a team's success in the military context (Espevik, Johnsen, & Eid, 2011), it hampers the positive effect of a team's adaptation and coordination training on its performance (Serfaty, Entin, & Johnston, 1998). Likewise, workload has shown mixed contingency effects for team members' cross‐training (i.e., team members are trained on the tasks, duties, and responsibilities of their fellow team members) affecting team performance in this context. Whereas Volpe, Cannon‐Bowers, Salas, and Spector (1996) did not find workload to interact with cross‐training in predicting the effective teamwork, communication, and performance of student teams, Cannon‐Bowers, Salas, Blickensderfer, and Bowers (1998) showed that cross‐training may benefit the performance of naval teams the most under conditions of high workload. In contrast, time pressure appears to limit not only the positive potential of cross‐training for the decision‐making speed of such teams (McCann, Baranski, Thompson, & Pigeau, 2000) but also the positive potential of team cohesion for the performance of student teams (Zaccaro, Gualtieri, & Minionis, 1995). Thus, in contrast to the research that conceptualizes stressors as predictors, team‐level studies conceptualizing job characteristics such as work overload (Magni & Maruping, 2013; Schippers et al., 2015) and time pressure (McCann et al., 2000; Zaccaro et al., 1995) as moderators rather than predictors suggest that individual‐level stressor frameworks are still insufficiently accounted for at—and extended to—the team level. 3.2.2 |Stressors due to roles in the organization Team‐level stressors stemming from the organizational roles of teams and their members have received less attention thus far. Research has shown that role‐related team stressors (e.g., team role ambiguity and conflict) tend to undermine the job satisfaction of teams, thereby jeopardizing their overall performance (Rodríguez‐Escudero et al., 2010). The decrements in team performance caused by such team stressors (e.g., lack of goal or process clarity) were shown to be due to decreases in team potency (i.e., team members' shared confidence in the capabilities of their team; Hu & Liden, 2011). 3.2.3 |Stressors due to organizational structure and climate The way in which organizations structure both their teams and the organizational context constitutes an important stressor affecting organizations' efficiency. Initial research has pointed to the adaptive responses of leaders who must cope with understaffed teams, showing that headcount understaffing tends to trigger more initiating structure behaviors of team leaders, whereas expertise understaffing results in more consideration behaviors (Shen et al., 2019). In terms of the workplace climate affecting a team's proper functioning, conformity pressure in student teams was shown to stifle team creativity when team members were creative and to boost it when they lacked such creative talent (Goncalo & Duguid, 2012). Likewise, in the NPD context, team crisis and team anxiety can actually play a positive role with the support of management (e.g., by affecting team learning or speed to market; Akgün, Byrne, Lynn, & Keskin, 2007). 3.2.4 |Stressors at the work–home interface Finally, initial research on team‐level stressors associated with the work–home interface has revealed that family demands on teams decrease teamwork and team performance (through reduced task work), but their detrimental effect on teamwork appears to be effectively buffered by the support of both coworkers and supervisors (ten Brummelhuis, Oosterwaal, & Bakker, 2012). Table 2 presents a detailed summary of the team‐level studies reviewed above. 3.3 |Homologous multilevel investigations of stressors and demands Replicating lower level stressor effects at the higher level of analysis is the main goal of research applying homologous multilevel models. A further distinction is hence needed for multilevel investigations of stressors within teams because articles simultaneously accounting for individual‐and team‐level models (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) must be differentiated from those evaluating cross‐level effects of team‐ level predictors on individual‐level criteria. 3.3.1 |Stressors intrinsic to a job Although it is very informative, team‐stressor research applying homologous multilevel models is scarce, arguably because of the complexity of the data collection and analysis needed for this type of study. When team members experience individual job demands, such as monotony and time pressure, these demands typically result from deficits in self‐efficacy perceptions (Consiglio, Borgogni, Alessandri, & Schaufeli, 2013) and trigger (vs. inhibit) team members' creativity RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 192 TABLE 3 (Continued) Reference Sample Key takeaways for research on stressors in teams Composition model showing that commitment is predominantly diminished by team members' work pace and their role ambiguity. de Jonge et al. (1999) 895 nurses from 64 units (the Netherlands) Only individual‐level qualitative and quantitative demands tend to trigger emotional exhaustion and job‐related anxiety. In contrast, work motivation is shown to be decreased by such demands on both levels, but only the lower‐level effect to be efficiently buffered by autonomy. Additive model Savelsbergh et al. (2012) 38 teams with 283 team members from the construction industry (the Netherlands) Particularly team quantitative overload is shown to impede both team and individual performances by hindering team learning behaviors. Moreover, it also indirectly decreases individual performance by increasing team members' individual quantitative role overload. Referent‐shift consensus model van Emmerik and Peeters (2009) 49 teams with 428 team members of a municipality (the Netherlands) While team members' quantitative and emotional job demands trigger work‐to‐family conflict, it seems to be the other way round for their mental job demands. The respective team demands appear to play a less crucial role for team members' experiences of work‐to‐family conflict. Direct consensus model Westman et al. (2011) 100 teams with 310 team members of an employment agency (the Netherlands) Whereas in teams of strong social support team job demands are shown to translate into team member job demands over time, this cross‐over effect does not hold in teams of weak social support. Direct consensus model …conceptualized as individual‐level predictors: Alfes et al. (2018) 132 teams with 2,288 team members of a state administration (Switzerland) While team members' overload appears to be detrimental to their subjective health, this relationship is shown to be less negative in highly cohesive teams. – Bliese and Britt (2001) 1,923 U.S. Army soldiers of 52 companies (Haiti) Work stressors like a lack of privacy tend to decrease morale and this effect is shown to be less negative when team consensus is strong. – Griffith (2002) 104 companies with 7,892 U.S. Army soldiers (U.S.) Individual‐level time pressure appears to impair team members' well‐being and identification, and to foster their disintegration. While individual perceptions of support may somewhat compensate for those decrements, collective perceptions of support show none of these buffering effects. – Levecque et al. (2014) 97 teams with 1,098 team members of a car manufacturer (Belgium) Team members' individual job demands tend to provoke psychological distress. This positive lower‐level effect between demands and distress is shown to be efficiently buffered by a positive team climate. – Loi et al. (2016) 63 teams with 285 team members working in four hotels (China) When team potency is low, emotional job demands appear to enhance (vs. decrease) team members' intention to quit if their proactive personality is low (vs. high). When team potency is high, both little and highly proactive team members tend to show an increase in intention to quit as emotional demands increase. – Schulz et al. (2017) 621 teams with 6,449 team members working in a health insurance organization (Germany) While team members' individual job demands tend to trigger psychosomatic complaints and presenteeism, they are shown to decrease their subjective general health, mental health, and work ability. – Triana et al. (2013) 79 four‐person teams of management students (U.S.) After having received negative feedback, such recipients who had a disproportionately heavy share of their team's workload are shown to experience significantly less helping behaviors from their teammates when they are racially distant rather than racially similar. – (Continues) RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 199 research on the role of unwarranted favoritism in the quality of leader–member relationships in teams (e.g., Hsiung & Bolino, 2018; Omilion‐Hodges & Baker, 2013). It should be mentioned that such stressors (i.e., insecurity and career stagnation) could equally affect the entire team. As such, the security of teams is threatened when they face the risk of their projects being terminated (e.g., Shepherd, Patzelt, Williams, & Warnecke, 2014), whereas some teams can stagnate when they receive fewer resources than comparable teams within the same organization (e.g., Hoegl et al., 2008). Both these realities of team‐based work have implications in terms of how teams and their members function and should therefore be featured in stressor research. 4.2 |Advancing research through antecedents of stressors in teams 4.2.1 |The role of team diversity and faultlines In addition to the lack of research on career development stressors in teams, our integrative framework presented in Figure 3 uncovers TABLE 3 (Continued) Reference Sample Key takeaways for research on stressors in teams Composition model …conceptualized as team‐level predictors: Driskell et al. (1999) 32 three‐person teams of U.S. Navy students (U.S.) In interdependent teams, stressors like task load and time pressure seem to decrease team performance by narrowing team members' team perspective. Experimentally manipulated Halverson et al. (2004) 55 three‐person teams of arts students (U.S.) When team members are stressed (vs. not stressed), they tend to perceive their leaders to be more (vs. less) charismatic. Experimentally manipulated Stressors due to relationships at work … …conceptualized as team‐level predictors: Hon and Chan (2013) 50 teams with 265 team members working in the hotel industry (China) Whereas challenge stressors tend to mediate the positive relationship of team task conflict with both job performance and satisfaction, hindrance stressors are shown to mediate the negative relationship of team relationship conflict with both job performance and satisfaction. – Leon‐Perez et al. (2016) 55 teams with 798 team members from a vehicle safety and emission inspection firm (Spain) Team relationship conflict seems to increase team members' burnout. Moreover, while team process conflict is shown to decrease the quality of service, this negative relationship is shown to be buffered by a strong conflict management climate. Referent‐shift consensus model Li et al. (2016) 86 teams with 351 team members and 86 leaders from various industries (China) Team leaders' psychological distress appears to increase distress in their team members via an increase in abusive supervision. This cross‐over effect is shown to be even strengthened when either team performance or team members' psychological capital is low. Key‐informant design Stressors due to organizational structure and climate … …conceptualized as individual‐level predictors: Choi et al. (2013) 90 teams with 4,432 team members (South Korea) Team members appear to be less stressed and thus to show less turnover intentions with increasing levels of distributive justice. This effect is shown to be even more negative in strong empowerment climates. – Haber (2016) 43 plants with 2,143 employees (U.S.) Team membership tends to provoke stress only in cultural contexts of conflict and distrust. – …conceptualized as team‐level predictors: Kozusznik et al. (2015) 78 teams with 535 team members working in social service firms (Spain) In distressed team climates, team members seem to be significantly more exhausted compared to those in eustressed team climates. Team members in balanced (i.e., neither distressed nor eustressed) team climates appear to show the strongest engagement as measured by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Direct consensus model Mañas et al. (2018) 11 teams with 706 team members (Spain) In teams, a role ambiguity climate tends to decrease team members' extra‐role performance via diminishing their affective engagement. Direct consensus model RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 200 another major shortcoming of the extant team‐stressor literature, namely, the scarce research examining stressors' antecedents at both individual and team levels. This is surprising given that (from a practical perspective) proactively avoiding the surfacing of stressors (i.e., primary intervention; Tetrick & Winslow, 2015), for which possessing knowledge about their antecedents is crucial, is by far the most valuable and sustainable intervention strategy (LaMontagne, Keegel, Louie, Ostry, & Landsbergis, 2007). As we pointed out in our literature review, research on the team‐level antecedents of stressors has mainly addressed team composition (Hudson & Shen, 2018; Keller, 2001). Although it appears reasonable to investigate the evolution of stressors (on both levels) from such a perspective, we believe that drawing upon and more thoroughly integrating knowledge from research on team diversity (for reviews, please refer to Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011; van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2012) and team faultlines (for reviews, please refer to Meyer, Glenz, Antino, Rico, & González‐Romá, 2014; Thatcher & Patel, 2012) constitutes a promising avenue for future research. There is a trend in organizational behavior literature to investigate the emergence of collective properties, such as passion (Cardon, Post, & Forster, 2017), resilience (Gucciardi et al., 2018), and engagement (Costa, Passos, & Bakker, 2014), and initial attempts have also been made to consider how similarities (vs. dissimilarities) among team members are related to the convergence (vs. divergence) of perceptions at the team level (Torrente, Salanova, & Llorens, 2013). However, the research on team stressors to date has insufficiently considered the roles that homogeneity (vs. heterogeneity) and the formation of subgroups play in the collective perceptions of such stressors. As illustrated in Figure 3, our literature review identifies two mediating mechanisms of team‐level stressors: identity‐and information‐ based pathways. These mechanisms resonate with team‐diversity literature in which the categorization–elaboration model (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004) is well established and describes how team diversity—similar to team stressors, as outlined in our review—can differentially affect team performance. Thus, a stronger integration of the findings from the team‐stressor literature with those from team‐diversity research appears to be overdue. Similarly, integrating stressor research with research on team faultlines (i.e., "hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes;" Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328) appears to be promising. In this regard, it would be interesting to see how members from different faultline‐induced subgroups either differ FIGURE 3 A multilevel framework of the extant literature on stressors and demands in teams RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 201 or align in terms of their perceptions of specific team‐and individual‐ level stressors because this has important implications for the degree to which stressors in teams can be conceptualized as a collective property rather than as individual (or subgroup) perceptions. 4.2.2 |From bad apples to bad barrels? Beyond looking at the (diverse) composition of teams as a source of stressors, our review should also encourage scholars to further study how teams themselves become stressors for their individual members. This resonates with initial attempts in team‐conflict literature, for example, to understand how conflict can become contagious (Jehn, Rispens, Jonsen, & Greer, 2013). In terms of emotional contagion theory (e.g., Barsade, 2002; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005), it is relevant not only to investigate how team members collectively make sense of stressors affecting their team but also, and perhaps more importantly, to understand how other team members are affected by an individual member experiencing stronger stressors than his or her colleagues. This might be particularly relevant for teams operating in extreme environments in which the consequences of failure are more dramatic (Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2018). In regard to time pressure, for example, it is well known that the degree to which individuals perceive this stressor (partly) depends on their personality (e.g., neurotic individuals tend to overestimate time pressure; Freedman & Edwards, 1988). Thus, if a team consists of members with dissimilar personalities, it is plausible that the experience of this specific stressor may differ among its members, as well. If such perceptions diverge, then longitudinal research on the adaptive processes within teams is important to improve our understanding of how stressors in teams unfold. On the one hand, the other team members may help this outlier better cope with the situation, thus decreasing his or her experience of this specific stressor. Such an adaptation (i.e., the convergence of perceptions of stressors) will likely be functional in that it ultimately helps lower the amount of time pressure experienced within the entire team, which is recommended in teams failing at establishing the contingencies that may allow time pressure to benefit teams (such as temporal leadership, as reviewed above). On the other hand, there is also the risk of a more dysfunctional adaptation occurring if the perceptions of a team member who feels highly time pressured were to infuse the perceptions of his or her fellow team members. Such a dysfunctional adaptive process may metaphorically transform bad apples into bad barrels, thus endangering the proper functioning and performance of the entire team. Consequently, further research that connects to the scant knowledge on the cross‐over effects of stressors within teams (e.g., Bakker et al., 2006; Li et al., 2016; Westman et al., 2011) is not only needed but also promising. This is particularly true because membership in multiple teams is becoming increasingly relevant in organizational practice (Mortensen & Gardner, 2017), which may lead to a contagion effect of stressors even between different teams that share the same “bad apple”(i.e., a team member who feels an exaggerated amount of pressure). 4.3 |Conceptualizing and measuring stressors in teams More generally, our literature review emphasizes that collecting cross‐ level rather than single‐level data within teams is worthwhile (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Although the same stressors potentially affect team members when they work in teams, their perceptions and responses sometimes differ, leading to a non‐independence bias that contributes to the non‐equivalence of the results at the individual and team levels (Bliese, 1998; Bliese & Jex, 1999). Thus, collecting only single‐level data from individuals within teams makes it more difficult to detect actual team‐level effects (Bliese & Jex, 1999). Cross‐level data collection efforts are therefore promising because they are theoretically and empirically relevant for the multilevel phenomena of specific stressors (Bliese & Jex, 1999; Farh & Chen, 2014; Korsgaard, Soyoung Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008). As listed in Tables 2 and 3, different ways of conceptualizing (and thus measuring) team‐level stressors exist. The research we reviewed on stressors in teams has made use of three of Chan's (1998) seminal typology of composition models (i.e., the specification of functional relationships between phenomena at different levels). Our sample contains seven articles that used an additive model (e.g., Keller, 2001; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012) and simply summed up team members' perceptions of an individual‐level stressor (regardless of the agreement about the stressor among the team members) to form the stressor at the team level. However, like other fields of team research, such as research on group job design (van Mierlo, Vermunt, & Rutte, 2009) and organizational climate (Wallace et al., 2016), research on team stressors more frequently uses either direct consensus or referent‐shift consensus approaches to construct team stressors from individual‐level data. In our review, 11 of the studies applied a direct consensus approach (e.g., Hudson & Shen, 2018; van Emmerik & Peeters, 2009). When collecting data using this approach, the operationalization of the stressor is referred to team members themselves and is then aggregated to the team level, typically by using the construct's arithmetic mean across all team members once sufficient agreement within the team is reached (i.e., values for r WG exceed. 70; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Finally, 13 articles conceptualized team stressors by using the referent‐shift consensus model (e.g., Maruping et al., 2015; Sacramento et al., 2013), which differs from the direct consensus approach only by referring the stressor items to the entire team. Thus, although the operationalization of team stressors during the data collection stage differs between these approaches, the data analyses are identical. Consequently, perhaps the most critical (albeit promising) challenge for future research on stressors in teams to overcome is the question of how to operationalize team stressors for quantitative field studies, which requires understanding the convergence among individuals that allows such higher level phenomena to emerge (Fulmer & Ostroff, 2016). This is important because when studying team‐level stressors in the organizational context, applying a key‐informant design (which seven of the reviewed field studies did, e.g., Drach‐ Zahavy & Freund, 2007) is not always suitable, or manipulating RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 202 stressors (which 22 of the reviewed experiments did, e.g., Pearsall et al., 2009) is largely inapplicable. Thus, more research is needed in which specific stressors, such as time pressure, are simultaneously assessed using both direct and referent‐shift consensus approaches. Once such data are aggregated, they can be used not only to examine how the respective team‐level constructs differ in the degree of agreement (i.e., the consensus) and the effect size but also how the direct consensus measurement, which is in essence an aggregated operationalization of an individual‐level stressor, works differently (or similarly) at the lower level. van Mierlo et al. (2009) offer a framework on the distinction between and the baseline psychometric qualities of composed group constructs that might be informative in this respect. Empirically complementing and qualifying previous cross‐level studies on team stressors using their approach is therefore a promising avenue of future research. Specifically, investigating whether the differential team‐performance effects of challenge‐and hindrance‐ related team stressors also hold true for outcomes at the lower level of analysis by using data from both composition models may contribute significantly to the developing body of cross‐level studies on team stressors (e.g., Consiglio et al., 2013; Kozusznik et al., 2015; Savelsbergh et al., 2012). 4.4 |Reconsidering phenomena of related literature streams Beyond informing extant research on stressors within teams, the reviewed findings should demonstrate that other streams of team research have already been devoted to stressor‐like phenomena without consciously making use of what is known from the research presented above. The research on destructive leadership behaviors, such as abusive supervision (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002) and supervisor undermining (Tepper, 2007), proves to be a worthwhile exemplar to consider in this regard. These behaviors are associated with hostile climates that are “characterized by consistent acrimonious, antagonistic, and suspicious feelings among coworkers”(Mawritz et al., 2014, p. 737). Along with traditional stressor frameworks, abusive supervision is unequivocally a hindrance‐related stressor for employees who are confronted with supervisors applying such destructive leadership behaviors (e.g., Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Nandkeolyar, Shaffer, Li, Ekkirala, & Bagger, 2014; Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011). Depending on the victim(s) targeted and the structural context, abusive supervision can occur at both the individual and team levels (Farh & Chen, 2014). Whereas individual‐level abusive supervision targets a particular individual or team member, team‐level abusive supervision targets the entire team (Farh & Chen, 2014; Priesemuth, Schminke, Ambrose, & Folger, 2014). Because it occurs through interpersonal transactions, creating feelings of being threatened by aggressive others, this stressor‐like phenomenon has predominantly emotional components (van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2011). In accordance with what has been discovered for other detrimental stressors, as reviewed above, it is little surprising that abusive supervision increases emotional exhaustion and decreases job performance at the individual level, although individuals' cognitive reappraisal (Chi & Liang, 2013), conscientiousness (Nandkeolyar et al., 2014), and psychological capital (Li et al., 2016) ameliorate such detrimental effects. At the team level, team member support (Hobman, Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009) and organizational support (Kim, Kim, & Yun, 2015) have been shown to attenuate the undesirable effects of abusive supervision. Therefore, expanding the concept of stressors to the team level is informative for studies on destructive leadership (such as abusive supervision) once such leadership behaviors are understood and theorized as stressors. Although some studies have begun to examine abusive supervision in light of traditional stressor theories (e.g., Chi & Liang, 2013; Hobman et al., 2009), further integrating such theories is helpful for the theoretical development in both areas. To conclude, our multilevel perspective allows organizational behavior scholars to more easily embed their research into a compelling framework, thereby avoiding fragmented theorizing (Sparrowe & Mayer, 2011). Applying this integrative approach to the theories of other domains may generate promising insights. This is particularly important because such related theories sometimes unknowingly share obscure links to concepts established in different streams of research (Mayer & Sparrowe, 2013), such as those on stressors and demands. Bridging the gaps and embracing the similarities between seemingly disparate fields of research are hence helpful for allowing scholars to draw upon a more elaborate rationale regarding how team stressors could shape the behaviors and performance of teams and their members beyond what is already known. Our review is a first step toward creating such a more comprehensive understanding of the functioning of teams and their members despite (or because of) certain stressors. ORCID Stefan Razinskas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3100-5969 Martin Hoegl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4339-8616 REFERENCES 1 *Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007). Team stressors, management support, and project and process outcomes in new product development projects. Technovation, 27(10), 628‐639. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.02.008 *Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., & Ritz, A. (2018). A multilevel examination of the relationship between role overload and employee subjective health: The buffering effect of support climates. Human Resource Management, 57(2), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21859 Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz‐Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,1(1), 389–411. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐031413‐091235 *Bakker, A. B., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations,33 (4), 464–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406291310 1 The references marked with an asterisk form part of the systematic literature review. RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 203 *Bakker, A. B., Van Emmerik, H., & Van Riet, P. (2008). How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: A constructive replication. Anxiety, Stress and Coping,21(3), 309–324. https://doi. org/10.1080/10615800801958637 *Bang, H., & Park, J. G. (2015). The double‐edged sword of task conflict: Its impact on team performance. Social Behavior and Personality,43(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.5.715 Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,47(4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912 Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001 Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group‐level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods,1(4), 355–373. https:// doi.org/10.1177/109442819814001 *Bliese, P. D., & Britt, T. W. (2001). Social support, group consensus and stressor–strain relationships: Social context matters. Journal of Organizational Behavior,22(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.95 *Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: Multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work and Stress,14(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 026783700417230 Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Incorporating multiple levels of analysis into occupational stress research. Work and Stress,13(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/026783799296147 *Boos, M., Franiel, X., & Belz, M. (2015). Competition in human groups— impact on group cohesion, perceived stress and outcome satisfaction. Behavioural Processes,120,64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. beproc.2015.07.011 *Brown, B. (2011). Teams and stress: A meta‐analysis and process analysis. All Dissertations. Paper 731. *Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task‐ performing groups—Effects of task complexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Research,31(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100201 *Busch, C., Deci, N., & Laackmann, M. (2013). Teamwork and health: The influence of team characteristics on coping and health among low‐ qualified workers. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung,44(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612‐013‐0209‐z Bushe, G. R., & Chu, A. (2011). Fluid teams: Solutions to the problems of unstable team membership. Organizational Dynamics,40(3), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.005 Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC, U.S.: American Psychological Association. *Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., Blickensderfer, E., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). The impact of cross‐training and workload on team functioning: A replication and extension of initial findings. Human Factors,40(1), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480550 Cardon, M. S., Post, C., & Forster, W. R. (2017). Team entrepreneurial passion: Its emergence and influence in new venture teams. Academy of Management Review,42(2), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2014.0356 Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(2), 234–246. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021‐9010.83.2.234 *Chen, J., Bamberger, P. A., Song, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2018). The effects of team reflexivity on psychological well‐being in manufacturing teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,103(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/apl0000279 Chi, S.‐C. S., & Liang, S.‐G. (2013). When do subordinates' emotion‐ regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly,24 (1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006 *Choi, B. K., Moon, H. K., Nae, E. Y., & Ko, W. (2013). Distributive justice, job stress, and turnover intention: Cross‐level effects of empowerment climate in work groups. Journal of Management & Organization,19(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2013.35 *Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., & Kim, M. U. (2010). How do groups react to unexpected threats? Crisis management in organizational teams. Social Behavior and Personality,38(6), 805–828. https://doi.org/10.2224/ sbp.2010.38.6.805 *Chong, D. S. F., van Eerde, W., Chai, K. H., & Rutte, C. G. (2011). A double‐ edged sword: The effects of challenge and hindrance time pressure on new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,58(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/ tem.2010.2048914 *Chong, D. S. F., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Chai, K. H. (2012). Bringing employees closer: The effect of proximity on communication when teams function under time pressure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,29(2), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐ 5885.2011.00890.x *Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2007). Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089‐2699.11.3.165 *Clausen, T., & Borg, V. (2010). Psychosocial work characteristics as predictors of affective organisational commitment: A longitudinal multi‐level analysis of occupational well‐being. Applied Psychology. Health and Well‐Being,2(2), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758‐ 0854.2010.01031.x Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management,23(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014920639702300303 *Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Alessandri, G., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Does self‐efficacy matter for burnout and sickness absenteeism? The mediating role of demands and resources at the individual and team levels. Work and Stress,27(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678373.2013.769325 Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S.: Sage Publications. Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology,49(1), 11–28. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8325.1976.tb00325.x Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,39(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.2213 Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Team work engagement: A model of emergence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,87(2), 414–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12057 *Cruz, K. S., & Pil, F. K. (2011). Team design and stress: A multilevel analysis. Human Relations,64(10), 1265–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726711409264 RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 204 Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, H. H. M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso‐level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly,20(4), 571–585. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.009 *de Jonge, J., van Breukelen, G. J. P., Landeweerd, J. A., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (1999). Comparing group and individual level assessments of job characteristics in testing the job demand‐control model: A multilevel approach. Human Relations,52(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001872679905200106 *Drach‐Zahavy, A., & Freund, A. (2007). Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior,28 (4), 423–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.430 *Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1991). Group decision making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology,76(3), 473–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021‐9010.76.3.473 *Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,3(4), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089‐2699.3.4.291 Driskell, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (2018). Teams in extreme environments: Alterations in team development and teamwork. Human Resource Management Review,28(4), 434–449. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.002 Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,45(2), 331–351. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3069350 Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal,55(3), 643–666. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amj.2009.0804 *Durham, C. C., Locke, E. A., Poon, J. M. L., & McLeod, P. L. (2000). Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information‐ seeking strategy, and performance. Human Performance,13(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1302_1 Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management,26(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540‐5885.2009.00341.x *Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal,49(3), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794674 *Ellis, A. P. J., & Pearsall, M. J. (2011). Reducing the negative effects of stress in teams through cross‐training: A job demands‐resources model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,15(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021070 *Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors,41(2), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779591196 *Espevik, R., Johnsen, B. H., & Eid, J. (2011). Communication and performance in co‐located and distributed teams: An issue of shared mental models of team members? Military Psychology,23(6), 616–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.616792 Farh, C. I. C., & Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(6), 1074–1095. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037636 Freedman, J. L., & Edwards, D. R. (1988). Time pressure, task performance, and enjoyment. In J. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (Vol. 91) (pp. 113–133). Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S.: Sage Publications, Inc. *Fritzsche, L., Wegge, J., Schmauder, M., Kliegel, M., & Schmidt, K.‐H. (2014). Good ergonomics and team diversity reduce absenteeism and errors in car manufacturing. Ergonomics,57(2), 148–161. https://doi. org/10.1080/00140139.2013.875597 Fulmer, C. A., & Ostroff, C. (2016). Convergence and emergence in organizations: An integrative framework and review. Journal of Organizational Behavior,37(S1), S122–S145. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1987 Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management,39(5), 1085–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475815 *Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double‐edged sword: Enhancing team motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly,57(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0001839212446454 *Gevers, J., van Erven, P., de Jonge, J., Maas, M., & de Jong, J. (2010). Effect of acute and chronic job demands on effective individual teamwork behaviour in medical emergencies. Journal of Advanced Nursing,66(7), 1573–1583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2648.2010.05314.x Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. (2004). Bridging the micro‐macro divide: A new basis for social science. Human Relations,57(5), 597–618. https://doi. org/10.1177/0018726704044311 *Goncalo, J. A., & Duguid, M. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.004 *Griffith, J. (1997). Test of a model incorporating stress, strain, and disintegration in the cohesion‐performance relation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,27(17), 1489–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐ 1816.1997.tb01610.x *Griffith, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis of cohesion's relation to stress, well‐ being, identification, disintegration, and perceived combat readiness. Military Psychology,14(3), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327876MP1403_3 *Guastello, S. J., Correro, A. N. II, & Marra, D. E. (2018). Do emergent leaders experience greater workload? The swallowtail catastrophe model and changes in leadership in an emergency response simulation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,22(4), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000091 Gucciardi, D. F., Crane, M., Ntoumanis, N., Parker, S. K., Thøgersen‐ Ntoumani, C., Ducker, K. J., …Temby, P. (2018). The emergence of team resilience: A multilevel conceptual model of facilitating factors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,91(4), 729–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12237 *Haber, J. (2016). Institutionalized involvement: Teams and stress in 1990s U.S. Steel. Industrial Relations,55(4), 632–661. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/irel.12154 *Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2004). Charismatic leadership in crisis situations—A laboratory investigation of stress and crisis. Small Group Research,35(5), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1046496404264178 *Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., O'Brien, A., & Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social influence and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self‐categorization model of stress. Stress and Health,20(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.995 *Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(5), 1037–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐ 9010.91.5.1037 *Häusser, J. A., Kattenstroth, M., van Dick, R., & Mojzisch, A. (2012). "We" are not stressed: Social identity in groups buffers neuroendocrine RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 205 stress reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48(4), 973–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.020 *Henderson, J., Bourgeois, A. E., LeUnes, A., & Meyers, M. C. (1998). Group cohesiveness, mood disturbance, and stress in female basketball players. Small Group Research,29(2), 212–225. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1046496498292004 Hirst, G. (2009). Effects of membership change on open discussion and team performance: The moderating role of team tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,18(2), 231–249. https://doi. org/10.1080/13594320802394202 Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology. An International Review,58(2), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464‐0597.2008.00330.x Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2014). Narrative, meta‐analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the differences and why do they matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(S1), S1–S5. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/job.1918 Hoegl, M., Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2008). Financial constraints in innovation projects: When is less more? Research Policy,37(8), 1382–1391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.018 *Hon, A. H. Y., & Chan, W. W. (2013). The effects of group conflict and work stress on employee performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513476367 House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas‐Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior,17, 71–114. Hsiung, H.‐H., & Bolino, M. C. (2018). The implications of perceived leader favouritism in the context of leader–member exchange relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,27(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1395414 *Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(4), 851–862. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0022465 *Hudson, C. K., & Shen, W. (2018). Consequences of work group manpower and expertise understaffing: A multilevel approach. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,23(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ocp0000052 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 Jehn, K., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. (2013). Conflict contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict Management,24(4), 352–373. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA‐05‐2011‐0039 *Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work‐related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology,84(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021‐ 9010.84.3.349 *Jex, S. M., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work and Stress,17(2), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267837031000146804 *Jimmieson, N. L., McKimmie, B. M., Hannam, R. L., & Gallagher, J. (2010). An investigation of the stress‐buffering effects of social support in the occupational stress process as a function of team identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,14(4), 350–367. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0018631 *Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,28(6), 542–571. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0022‐1031(92)90045‐L *Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross‐functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,44(3), 547–555. https://doi. org/10.2307/3069369 *Kelly, J. R., Jackson, J. W., & Hutson‐Comeaux, S. L. (1997). The effects of time pressure and task differences on influence modes and accuracy in decision‐making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,23 (1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297231002 *Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25(11), 1342–1354. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167299259002 *Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. J. (2004). Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underlying processes in the attentional focus model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022‐1031(03)00094‐5 Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology,55, 623–655. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009 *Khedhaouria, A., Montani, F., & Thurik, R. (2017). Time pressure and team member creativity within R&D projects: The role of learning orientation and knowledge sourcing. International Journal of Project Management,35(6), 942–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2017.04.002 Kim, S. L., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: A social exchange perspective. Group & Organization Management,40(5), 599–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601115577514 Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods,3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 109442810033001 *Klein, S. M. (1996). Work pressure as a determinant of work group behavior. Small Group Research,27(2), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1046496496272006 Korsgaard, M. A., Soyoung Jeong, S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222–1252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308325124 *Kozusznik, M. W., Rodríguez, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2015). Eustress and distress climates in teams: Patterns and outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management,22(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038581 LaMontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., Louie, A. M., Ostry, A., & Landsbergis, P. A. (2007). A systematic review of the job‐stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990‐2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,13(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1179/ oeh.2007.13.3.268 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review,23(2), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1998.533229 *Lee, L. T.‐S. (2011). The effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on unlearning and NPD success: The moderating role of team conflict. African Journal of Business Management,5(5), 1843–1856. https://doi. org/10.5897/AJBM10.844 Lee, L. T.‐S., & Sukoco, B. M. (2011). Reflexivity, stress, and unlearning in the new product development team: The moderating effect of RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 206 procedural justice. R&D Management,41(4), 410–423. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467‐9310.2011.00645.x *Leon‐Perez, J. M., Antino, M., & Leon‐Rubio, J. M. (2016). The role of psychological capital and intragroup conflict on employees' burnout and quality of service: A multilevel approach. Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01755 LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta‐analytic test of the challenge stressor—Hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal,48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921 *Levecque, K., Roose, H., Vanroelen, C., & Van Rossem, R. (2014). Affective team climate: A multi‐level analysis of psychosocial working conditions and psychological distress in team workers. Acta Sociologica,57(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699313498262 *Li, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, L.‐Q., & Liu, S. (2016). The crossover of psychological distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: The role of abusive supervision, psychological capital, and team performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,21(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0039960 Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three‐level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal,55(5), 1187–1212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0400 *Loi, R., Liu, Y., Lam, L. W., & Xu, A. J. (2016). Buffering emotional job demands: The interplay between proactive personality and team potency. Journal of Vocational Behavior,95‐96, 128–137. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.08.007 *Magni, M., & Maruping, L. M. (2013). Sink or swim: Empowering leadership and overload in teams' ability to deal with the unexpected. Human Resource Management,52(5), 715–739. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/hrm.21561 *Mañas, M. A., Díaz‐Fúnez, P., Pecino, V., López‐Liria, R., Padilla, D., & Aguilar‐Parra, J. M. (2018). Consequences of team job demands: Role ambiguity climate, affective engagement, and extra‐role performance. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 2292. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.02292 *Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The Leadership Quarterly,16(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.04.004 Martinez‐Corts, I., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Boz, M. (2015). Spillover of interpersonal conflicts from work into nonwork: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,20(3), 326–337. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0038661 *Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2015). Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal,58(5), 1313–1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amj.2012.0468 Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management,40(1), 130–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503014 Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology,99(4), 737–747. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0035863 Mayer, K. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2013). Integrating theories in AMJ articles. Academy of Management Journal,56(4), 917–922. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2013.4004 *McCann, C., Baranski, J. V., Thompson, M. M., & Pigeau, R. A. (2000). On the utility of experiential cross‐training for team decision‐making under time stress. Ergonomics,43(8), 1095–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00140130050084897 McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review,4(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8 *Meneghel, I., Martinez, 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 Meyer, B., Glenz, A., Antino, M., Rico, R., & González‐Romá, V. (2014). Faultlines and subgroups: A meta‐review and measurement guide. Small Group Research,45(6), 633–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1046496414552195 Morris, W. N., Worchel, S., Bois, J. L., Pearson, J. A., Rountree, C. A., Samaha, G. M., …Wright, S. L. (1976). Collective coping with stress: Group reactions to fear, anxiety, and ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,33(6), 674–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐ 3514.33.6.674 Mortensen, M., & Gardner, H. K. (2017). The overcommitted organization: Why it's hard to share people across multiple teams—and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review,95(5), 58–65. Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J. (2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(1), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034262 Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F., & Hirst, G. (2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(S1), S120–S138. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1916 Omilion‐Hodges, L. M., & Baker, C. R. (2013). Contextualizing LMX within the workgroup: The effects of LMX and justice on relationship quality and resource sharing among peers. The Leadership Quarterly,24(6), 935–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.004 *Parks, C. D., & Cowlin, R. (1995). Group discussion as affected by number of alternatives and by a time limit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,62(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1006/ obhd.1995.1049 *Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,109 (1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002 *Pfaff, M. S. (2012). Negative affect reduces team awareness: The effects of mood and stress on computer‐mediated team communication. Human Factors,54(4), 560–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018720811432307 *Pines, A. M., & Zaidman, N. (2014). Stress and burnout in bicultural teams in hi‐tech industry. British Journal of Management,25(4), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8551.12056 *Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curşeu, P. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,18(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/ gdn0000016 Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor‐hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(2), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐ 9010.92.2.438 Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple‐mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,57(5), 1513–1534. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0237 RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 207 *Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Team change climate: A group‐ level analysis of the relationships among change information and change participation, role stressors, and well‐being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,19(5), 551–586. https://doi. org/10.1080/13594320903007869 Rees, T., Salvatore, J., Coffee, P., Haslam, S. A., Sargent, A., & Dobson, T. (2013). Reversing downward performance spirals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,49(3), 400–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jesp.2012.12.013 Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees' responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(4), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0021593 *Rodríguez‐Escudero, A. I., Carbonell, P., & Munuera‐Aleman, J. L. (2010). Positive and negative effects of team stressors on job satisfaction and new product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,27(6), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐ 5885.2010.00756.x *Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,121(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008 *Savelsbergh, C., Gevers, J. M. P., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Poell, R. F. (2012). Team role stress: Relationships with team learning and performance in project teams. Group & Organization Management,37(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111431977 *Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management,41(3), 769–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441210 *Schulz, H., Zacher, H., & Lippke, S. (2017). The importance of team health climate for health‐related outcomes of white‐collar workers. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00074 *Serfaty, D., Entin, E. E., & Johnston, J. H. (1998). Team coordination training. In J. A. Cannon‐Bowers, & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 221–245). Washington, DC, U.S.: American Psychological Association. *Shen, W., Chang, K., Cheng, K.‐T., & Kim, K. Y. (2019). What to do and what works? Exploring how work groups cope with understaffing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,24(3), 346–358. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ocp0000129 Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A., & Warnecke, D. (2014). How does project termination impact project team members? Rapid termination, “creeping death,”and learning from failure. Journal of Management Studies,51(4), 513–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joms.12068 Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1312–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309337489 *Sonnentag, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Heinbokel, T., & Stolte, W. (1994). Stressor‐burnout relationship in software development teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,67(4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8325.1994.tb00571.x Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal,54(6), 1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4001 Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology,90(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.90.2.295 *ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Oosterwaal, A., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Managing family demands in teams: The role of social support at work. Group & Organization Management,37(3), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601111435410 *ten Brummelhuis, L. L., van der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E. S. (2010). Family involvement and helping behavior in teams. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1406–1431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350778 Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management,33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812 Tetrick, L. E., & Winslow, C. J. (2015). Workplace stress management interventions and health promotion. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,2(1), 583–603. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐032414‐111341 Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management,38(4), 969–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311426187 Torrente, P., Salanova, M., & Llorens, S. (2013). Spreading engagement: On the role of similarity in the positive contagion of team work engagement. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,29(3), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a21 *Triana, M. D. C., Porter, C. O. L. H., DeGrassi, S. W., & Bergman, M. (2013). We're all in this together …except for you: The effects of workload, performance feedback, and racial distance on helping behavior in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,34(8), 1124–1144. https:// doi.org/10.1002/job.1842 *Urban, J. M., Bowers, C. A., Monday, S. D., & Morgan, B. B. (1995). Workload, team structure, and communication in team performance. Military Psychology,7(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/s153278 76mp0702_6 *Urban, J. M., Weaver, J. L., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1996). Effects of workload and structure on team processes and performance: Implications for complex team decision making. Human Factors,38(2), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872096779048101 van den Tooren, M., & de Jonge, J. (2011). Job resources and regulatory focus as moderators of short‐term stressor‐strain relations. Journal of Personnel Psychology,10(3), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866‐ 5888/a000042 van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta‐analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job‐related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,119 (1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003 *van Emmerik, I. J. H., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Crossover specificity of team‐level work‐family conflict to individual‐level work‐family conflict. Journal of Managerial Psychology,24(3), 254–268. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/02683940910939331 van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology,89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.89.6.1008 van Mierlo, H., Vermunt, J. K., & Rutte, C. G. (2009). Composing group‐ level constructs from individual‐level survey data. Organizational Research Methods,12(2), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1094428107309322 *Volpe, C. E., Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of cross‐training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors,38(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1518/ 001872096778940741 Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Paul, J., Burke, M., Christian, M., & Eissa, G. (2016). Change the referent? A meta‐analytic investigation of direct and referent‐shift consensus models for organizational climate. Journal RAZINSKAS AND HOEGL 208