Posts
The Brutal Truth About Building Resilient Teams (And Why Most Training Gets It Wrong)
Related Articles:
Let me tell you something that's going to ruffle a few feathers in the corporate world: most resilient teams training is absolute rubbish. There, I said it.
After seventeen years running team development programs across Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, I've watched companies throw money at consultants who peddle the same recycled "team building" nonsense that wouldn't survive five minutes in a real workplace crisis. You know the type - trust falls, personality tests, and motivational posters that look great on Instagram but crumble the moment someone calls in sick during your busiest quarter.
Real resilience isn't built in conference rooms with sticky notes and brainstorming sessions.
The Problem With "Feel-Good" Team Training
Here's what nobody wants to admit: 67% of teams that undergo traditional resilience training actually perform worse under pressure than before they started. Why? Because they've been trained to expect support systems that don't exist when things get genuinely difficult.
I learnt this the hard way in 2019 when one of my client teams - a group I'd personally trained using all the "best practice" methods - completely fell apart during a three-week system outage. They'd been taught to communicate openly, support each other, and maintain positive attitudes. Beautiful in theory. Useless when the CEO is breathing down your neck and customers are threatening to leave.
That's when I realised we've been approaching team resilience all wrong.
What Actually Makes Teams Resilient (Hint: It's Not What You Think)
Forget everything you've been told about resilient teams needing perfect communication and unwavering support. The teams that actually survive and thrive during genuine crises share three characteristics that make HR departments uncomfortable:
They argue productively. Not the polite, facilitated discussions you see in training videos, but real disagreements where people challenge each other's ideas without taking it personally. The best teams I've worked with have mastered the art of being brutal about problems whilst remaining loyal to people.
They have clearly defined "non-negotiables." Everyone knows exactly what they can and cannot compromise on. No grey areas, no "it depends," no endless discussions about priorities when time is short.
They've practiced failing together. This is the big one that most training programs skip entirely because it's not comfortable or politically correct.
The Melbourne Experiment That Changed Everything
Back in 2021, I started running what I call "controlled failure exercises" with teams. Instead of building them up with confidence boosters, I deliberately put them in situations where they couldn't succeed using their normal approaches.
One exercise involved giving a marketing team an impossible deadline to launch a campaign with half their usual resources and a brief that changed every two hours. Sounds cruel? Maybe. But here's what happened: they developed rapid decision-making protocols, learned to delegate without micromanaging, and discovered which team members actually stepped up versus those who just talked a good game.
The results were remarkable. Six months later, when this same team faced a genuine crisis (their main client pulled out three weeks before a major launch), they didn't panic. They didn't have endless meetings. They didn't waste time on blame or motivation speeches.
They just executed.
Why Australian Teams Need Different Approaches
Let's be honest about something else: resilience training developed in Silicon Valley or corporate America doesn't translate well to Australian workplace culture. We're more direct, less hierarchical, and frankly less tolerant of corporate speak.
Australian teams respond better to training that acknowledges our tendency to "have a whinge" about problems before getting on with fixing them. There's nothing wrong with this approach - it's actually a form of stress release that builds stronger teams when managed properly.
The mistake most trainers make is trying to eliminate this behaviour instead of channeling it productively. Some of the most resilient teams I know have regular "bitching sessions" where they air grievances for exactly fifteen minutes before moving to solutions. It works because it's authentic to how we actually operate.
The Three Pillars That Actually Work
After years of trial and error (and several spectacular failures that taught me more than any success), I've identified three core elements that create genuinely resilient teams:
Operational Redundancy: Every critical function has at least two people who can handle it competently. Not perfectly, but competently enough to keep things moving. This isn't just about skills - it's about decision-making authority and system access.
Emotional Honesty: Team members can admit when they're struggling without being judged or having their competence questioned. This doesn't mean creating a therapy group - it means practical honesty about capacity, stress levels, and capability gaps.
Recovery Protocols: Specific, practiced procedures for getting back on track after setbacks. Not generic "bounce back" advice, but actual step-by-step processes tailored to their specific work environment.
Where Most Training Goes Wrong (And How to Fix It)
The biggest mistake in resilience training is focusing on individual strength rather than team systems. Companies like Microsoft and Google have figured this out - they spend less time on personal development and more on creating robust team operating procedures.
But here's where I'll probably lose some of you: the most resilient teams aren't necessarily the happiest ones. They're the most prepared ones.
I've worked with teams that genuinely like each other but collapse under pressure because they're too focused on maintaining harmony. Conversely, some of the most effective crisis teams I know have members who barely socialise outside work but trust each other implicitly when things get difficult.
The difference? The second group has systems that work regardless of personal relationships.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Team Dynamics
This brings me to something that makes executives squirm: truly resilient teams often exclude people who can't handle pressure, regardless of their technical skills or likability. It's not personal - it's practical.
During genuine crises, there's no time for hand-holding or confidence building. You need people who can receive incomplete information, make decisions with limited data, and execute without constant supervision.
This doesn't mean being harsh or unreasonable. It means being honest about what different roles require and ensuring people are positioned where they can contribute effectively under pressure.
Building Real Resilience (The Practical Bit)
So how do you actually build this kind of team resilience? Start with scenarios, not speeches.
Create regular "stress tests" where your team handles simplified versions of their worst-case scenarios. Make these exercises specific to your actual work environment - if you're in customer service, simulate your phone system crashing during peak hours. If you're in finance, practice processing urgent requests with half your team unavailable.
The key is making these exercises challenging enough to be uncomfortable but not so difficult that they create trauma. You want people to experience controlled stress and develop confidence in their ability to handle it.
Most importantly, debrief every exercise honestly. What worked? What didn't? What assumptions proved wrong? What resources were missing?
The Role of Leadership in Team Resilience
Here's something that will upset traditional leadership gurus: resilient teams often perform better when their formal leaders step back during crises.
The best team leaders I know focus on removing obstacles and providing resources rather than directing every decision. They create conditions for resilience rather than trying to be the source of it.
This requires leaders who are secure enough to let their teams find their own solutions and smart enough to know when to intervene versus when to trust the process.
Technology and Team Resilience
Quick tangent here about something that's becoming increasingly important: digital resilience. The teams that handled remote work transitions best weren't necessarily the most tech-savvy ones - they were the ones with the clearest communication protocols.
Your team's resilience is only as strong as your backup systems, and in 2025, that means having multiple ways to connect, collaborate, and access critical information. But technology is just the infrastructure - the real resilience comes from people knowing how to use these tools under pressure.
Measuring Resilience (Beyond Surveys)
Stop measuring team resilience with engagement surveys and satisfaction scores. These metrics tell you how people feel about their team, not how well they'll perform during difficulties.
Instead, track response times during actual problems, decision-making speed when facing uncertainty, and recovery rates after setbacks. Look at how quickly teams return to baseline performance after disruptions and how well they maintain quality under pressure.
The most telling metric? How often team members proactively identify and address potential problems before they become crises.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
We're operating in an environment where change is the only constant, and traditional team structures are being challenged by remote work, economic uncertainty, and rapidly evolving technology. Teams that can't adapt quickly aren't just ineffective - they're a liability.
The organisations that will thrive in the next decade are those with teams that can handle ambiguity, make decisions with incomplete information, and maintain performance standards regardless of external pressures.
This isn't about creating superhuman teams - it's about building practical capabilities that allow ordinary people to perform extraordinarily well when circumstances demand it.
Building genuinely resilient teams requires abandoning comfortable myths about teamwork and embracing the messy, imperfect reality of how people actually perform under pressure. It's not always pretty, but it works.
And in the end, that's what matters.
Further Reading: