Back
In the day-to-day work of leading, it’s tempting to treat resilience as an individual matter — a personal strength that every employee should have or develop in order to cope with change and pressure. But look closely, and you’ll find that exhaustion, overload, and burnout rarely originate solely “within the person.” They arise where pressure rises steadily, stays too high for too long, or rests on too few shoulders. In a world of work defined by change, acceleration, and ambiguity, it isn’t enough to demand more “resilience” from individual employees or to train it into them. It’s more important to look closely at the cultural context — that is, at team culture. Team culture is a key factor in whether pressure on individuals is cushioned or amplified, and therefore in the resilience of the team as a whole. So what makes up that cultural context? It’s worth examining three core dynamics that repeatedly generate pressure in teams — often unnoticed — and the levers we as leaders can pull to keep our teams standing, even in a storm.
Resilience Factor 1 — How Teams Handle Mistakes:The Problem Isn’t the Error. It’s the Demand to Be Error-Free
Many teams operate on a quiet but powerful premise: Good work is error-free work. The idea seems self-evident, especially in environments where mistakes are costly or put client relationships at risk. Yet in practice, this very expectation sets off a dynamic that puts teams under pressure without their noticing. Modern knowledge work rarely happens under conditions that allow for clear answers. Decisions are made while information is missing, circumstances are shifting, or competing demands exist side by side. Under such conditions, “getting it right” is often impossible — at least in the traditional sense.
A culture that nonetheless expects things to be done “right” creates an invisible tension for employees: They feel a responsibility that no one can realistically bear. Anything that isn’t clearly predictable — which, in dynamic organizations, is almost everything — gets recast as a potential source of error. Psychological pressure builds before a mistake has even occurred: What if I overlook something? What if my decision isn’t the best one? What if someone notices? At the heart of the problem is that “right” is almost always understood as perfection — a deductive ideal of 100%, in which any deviation counts as failure. Perfection follows a closed logic: The goal is fixed, and every bit of uncertainty is a risk. That may work in stable environments, but in complex, fast-moving contexts it creates a kind of pressure that people can neither sustain nor channel productively.
Resilient teams replace this logic of perfection with a logic of excellence. Excellence isn’t a demand for flawless results; it’s an inductive approach — a commitment to getting continuously better, making smarter decisions, and finding the next sensible step. Here, ambiguity isn’t a flaw but raw material. Excellence thus provides an orientation that is both more realistic and more effective, because it emphasizes growth rather than flawlessness. And that is precisely where individuals find relief: People who no longer have to be perfect don’t carry the burden of always having to be right. Excellence takes inflated self-expectations out of the work — and in doing so, protects against the kind of internal pressure that, over time, leads to exhaustion and burnout.
Resilience Factor 2 — Calibrated Responsibility:Between Heroism and Irrelevance: Getting the Level of Ownership Right
When we talk about responsibility in teams, we like to stress how important it is for people to take ownership. In periods of high uncertainty, that sounds reasonable: “We carry a great deal of responsibility.” What’s easy to overlook, though, is that how responsibility is experienced internally makes an enormous difference. What matters is less what’s formally written down than how much responsibility individuals actually ascribe to themselves. That felt sense of responsibility determines how much pressure someone carries inside.
Team sports illustrate this pattern especially clearly. Ask players who is responsible, and you’ll hear different answers — the coaching staff, the team as a whole, the leaders on the field. But regardless of how they define responsibility, their behavior tells a different story: Most players intuitively overestimate their personal influence on the course of a game. They blame themselves for turnovers caused by systemic breakdowns, for losses decided by tactics, or for situations shaped by chance, dips in form, or external conditions.
Psychologists call this phenomenon the “illusion of control”: People tend to overestimate their influence whenever they are directly involved — particularly in dynamic, hard-to-read situations. Involvement is automatically translated into responsibility. The inner voice doesn’t say, “I’m part of a system.” It says, “It’s on me.” This overestimation is problematic because it distorts personal responsibility. When felt responsibility significantly exceeds realistic responsibility — what a person can actually influence — the result is over-responsibility. People take on things that fundamentally belong to the system, the organization, or leadership. In calm periods, this often goes unnoticed. In turbulent times, however, an excessive sense of responsibility leads almost inevitably to overload and, in extreme cases, to burnout.
The flip side is too little felt responsibility. People who sense that they “don’t really make a difference” experience not healthy pressure but a lack of perspective. The inner message becomes: “It doesn’t matter whether I’m here or not.” This, too, can lead to exhaustion — not from too heavy a load, but from meaninglessness and inner emptiness. Both over- and under-responsibility create internal pressure: either through overload or through the painful sense of not contributing.
For us as leaders, this doesn’t mean “demanding more responsibility” or simply reducing workloads. It means something more nuanced: continually aligning felt responsibility with actual responsibility — and actively creating clarity about what we really expect. A healthy culture of responsibility emerges where people experience a level of responsibility that is realistic, sustainable, and effective — neither heroic nor meaningless. Calibrating that sense of responsibility is a central lever for giving employees clarity about what they should expect of themselves, so that responsibility remains bearable and doesn’t turn into excessive self-imposed pressure.
Resilience Factor 3 — A Sense of Purpose:Relevance Builds Resilience. How Purpose Can Become a Source of Strength
In organizations, purpose is easily understood as something grand — a mission statement, a vision, a contribution to society. And it’s true: People who feel why their work matters move through difficult periods differently. They endure more, stay more focused, and regain their bearings faster when external conditions become uncertain. Purpose acts as an inner compass. But for purpose to serve that function, it needs a particular quality: It has to be tangible. Close to reality. Within one’s own sphere of influence.
This is often where a quiet disconnect occurs. Many organizations articulate purpose at an abstract, visionary level — and in principle, there’s nothing wrong with that. Visions are meant to provide direction. But they lose their power when they aren’t connected to day-to-day work. When people’s daily experience consists mainly of operational processes, bottlenecks, and complexity, lofty statements of purpose quickly feel far removed from their own impact. The gap between what is said and what people actually experience produces not inspiration but internal tension. Purpose that people can’t connect to feels like a standard they themselves are failing to meet — and thus unintentionally increases the pressure on individuals.
From a psychological perspective, the problem isn’t the scale of a vision but the lack of a connection to it. People need a clear link between what they do every day and what the organization defines as its purpose. Effective purpose, therefore, isn’t a grand promise but a tangible point of reference. It emerges when people see clearly what their work contributes to their immediate environment and how that contribution fits into the bigger picture. Purpose then functions not as a demand but as a source of direction — and becomes one of the strongest safeguards against overload, because people sense that their effort has a concrete place.
Conclusion
We often can’t control our daily reality — not the pace, not the complexity, not the waves that hit us and our teams from outside. We ourselves are caught in the same tensions as everyone else. That is precisely why the decisive lever lies not in holding back the storm but in creating the conditions under which our team can weather it. And that is why, in difficult times, what’s needed most is our clarity: clarity about what matters now, how much responsibility is realistic, and where “good enough” truly is good enough. Often it’s small, very concrete signals that ease internal pressure. And in the end, it’s this clarity that determines whether people spin out in the storm — or stay steady.
