Resilience can be understood as a cultivated competence to act in the face of adversity and to reflect on the crisis or challenge and subsequently improve (Kuntz et al., 2016) in the military context. Military personnel are exposed to a wide range of challenging and traumatic events during training, exercises, and deployments in combat environments that can be detrimental to their health, well-being and performance; and military psychologists are interested in the factors associated with resilience to these experiences. In the literature, resilience is often understood as the ability to “bounce back” from stressful events. Resilience is defined and measured in a variety of ways (Meredith et al., 2011; Fikretoglu and McCreary, 2012). Luthans and Youssef (2007) defines resilience as the ability to adapt “in the face of significant risk or adversity.” Luthans linked resilience to better attitudes toward work/activity and better health outcomes (Snyder, 2002). An Army study on psychological capital (PsyCap) by Schaubroeck et al. (2011) found that in a sample of soldiers deployed in Iraq, higher levels of PsyCap were associated with lower stress appraisal, and the protective effect of PsyCap was stronger for soldiers serving in units with higher levels of combat stress. Research on soldiers recognizes that personality can change throughout adulthood. Fikretoglu and McCreary (2012) defines resilience as a positive adaptation to significant adversity, with resilience being a response to stressful circumstances (e.g., demonstrating positive adaptation). When examining resilience in soldiers, researchers highlight that individuals in the military experience a range of traumatic events during combat training, missions and are constantly exposed to adverse environments as well as low-level stressors (e.g., living in difficult conditions, away from family) (Adler et al., 2011). It is widely acknowledged that psychological resilience is essential to cope with the cognitive, emotional and social stressors associated with the impact of war (Nindl et al., 2018). Psychological resilience is central to military preparedness as it plays an important role in dealing with physiological stressors; moreover, a soldier under psychological stress (i.e., a soldier who is unable to cope with psychological stressors) will not be able to carry out military operations well, however physiologically fit he or she may be (Nindl et al., 2018). Resilience and mental health are interrelated; it demonstrates that military personnel can effectively reduce negative psychological symptoms by improving their resilience level and adopting mature coping styles under stressful situations (Cao et al., 2023).

Contemporary scholarly discourse, as elucidated by Okojie et al. (2023), has advanced the understanding of employee resilience, reorienting the paradigm from a focus on intrinsic coping mechanisms in response to stress to a more contextual examination of resilience manifestation within daily occupational settings (Kuntz et al., 2016). This construct of employee resilience is theorized as a dispositional attribute, instrumental in catalyzing psychological processes that facilitate an individual’s recuperation from strenuous, traumatic, or catastrophic occupational experiences (Kuntz et al., 2016). Furthermore, this research posits employee resilience as a dynamic and malleable capacity within the realm of organizational studies, suggesting that it is not merely an innate trait but a developable faculty. The interplay between individual capacities and the occupational milieu plays a pivotal role in enabling employees to surmount professional obstacles (Kuntz et al., 2016). In light of this, the importance of organizational strategies aimed at nurturing employee resilience and fostering workplace engagement has become increasingly salient (Okojie et al., 2023). The dearth of research specifically addressing the unique daily stresses and challenges encountered by military personnel is a noteworthy gap in the current academic discourse. This lacuna is particularly significant, given the intrinsic characteristics of military service which inherently differ from civilian occupational contexts. In summary, the absence of focused research on the daily challenges faced by soldiers, considering the singular nature of military service, represents a critical gap in the broader field of stress and resilience studies.

Military service is fundamentally distinct from other forms of occupation due to its inherent emphasis on collective operation, typically within small unit structures. This characteristic positions military service as a prime subject for studies in team dynamics, situating it within the broader purview of environmental or contextual research in organizational psychology. We explored two team characteristics in this study – team cohesion and colleagues support.

Commitment to the organization is an individual’s connection to the organization, manifested by his/her involvement in the organization’s activities, acceptance of the organization’s values and goals, willingness to remain a member (Meyer et al., 1993). Organizational researchers (e.g., Miller and Lee, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002) have long been interested in the topic of employee commitment to the organization. Two main approaches can be found in the literature: behavioral, sometimes described as exchange (Becker, 1960), and psychological, also known as attitudinal. Some authors identify a third approach, an integrative approach, which encompasses the first two (Cohen, 2006). Commitment to the organization refers to the employee’s emotional attachment, loyalty, and willingness to contribute to the success of the company. Commitment to the organization is often associated with job satisfaction, engagement and the intention to stay with the organization. The following factors contribute to commitment to the organization: job satisfaction, trust in management, alignment with the organization’s values and culture, fairness and justice in the workplace, and opportunities for personal and professional development. The lack of organizational commitment among soldiers has a negative impact on their productivity, which contributes significantly to their early exit from the armed forces and career change after receiving a full universal education. Team factors, resilience, and the relationship between commitment have been little studied by researchers. No research on these constructs has been carried out in Lithuania with professional soldiers.

Well-being is defined as a phenomenon that encompasses the positive and negative evaluations that an individual give to his or her life as a whole (Diener, 2006). Organizational researchers (e.g., Miller and Lee, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002) have long been interested in the topic of employee commitment to Two HRM concepts can improve employee and organizational performance, namely resilience and well-being (Merdiaty et al., 2021). Resilience and well-being have implications for different organizational arrangements, which depends on organizational management to provide employees with the needs they require to improve their performance (Merdiaty et al., 2021). Internal and external factors make resilience and well-being highly attractive to every organization, and the challenge of HRM is to create a balance to achieve the right level of resilience and well-being so that employees and organizations can work together to develop their creativity and productivity (Merdiaty et al., 2021). In resilience research, there is empirical evidence of positive relationships between organizational citizenship and corporate commitment to the organization (Merdiaty et al., 2021).

Some studies have shown that well-being has a positive impact on two forms of personal resilience: the worker’s ability to cope with stress (personal resilience) and resilient behavior in the workplace (employee resilience); apparently, there is an interesting relationship between the two concepts: whether employees with good well-being in the workplace can increase employee resilience, and vice versa (Merdiaty et al., 2021). Understanding the nature of the link between employee and personal resilience links resilience and well-being through positive and emotional affect to suggest that the two constructs are distinct but reciprocally related (Merdiaty et al., 2021). The gap between resilience and well-being varies considerably across organizational contexts and can be influenced by the state of the country, gender, politics, finance, leadership, organizational form and age, making it challenging to conceptualize appropriate interventions to improve performance (Merdiaty et al., 2021).

Resilience is promoted as an essential aspect of development in an uncertain world full of disruptions and surprises. However, these terms often remain ambiguous when applied, and it is not clear which term, that is, well-being or resilience, is used in different organizations (Chaigneau et al., 2022). Well-being is increasingly understood as a multidimensional concept consisting of objective indicators (what people have achieved or are able to achieve) and subjective measures (how they assess their situation). Well-being is not limitless and looks at how people create well-being in an environment of limited resources (Chaigneau et al., 2022). Resilience is also a multidimensional construct and is often defined as the ability of a system to withstand disturbances while maintaining its structure and functionality (Chaigneau et al., 2022). Both of these concepts are complex and are increasingly understood as dynamic and socially contingent. Taking into account the needs, values and contexts of specific contexts in their practical application is essential to ensure the measurement of well-being and resilience indicators (Chaigneau et al., 2022). Recent literature on well-being suggests that material, relational and subjective domains of well-being influence the person’s resilience and ability to adapt and cope with stressors and shocks (Chaigneau et al., 2022).

Relationships between individuals, communities, and organizations can help build resilience to change by providing social support and access to knowledge and resources (Chaigneau et al., 2022). It can be concluded that all dimensions of well-being can be the sources of resilience, as they influence adaptive capacity and in turn the potential for well-being improvement through adaptation (Chaigneau et al., 2022). Earlier research has demonstrated that individuals with resilience are able to sustain their physical and mental health by not only mitigating the detrimental effects of challenging periods but also by enhancing their psychological well-being (Connor and Davidson, 2003).

From a social-ecological point of view, the field, or living space, can be understood as the social-ecological system that surrounds a human being – that is, an individual, a group, a community, an institution or a society. Field theory itself corresponds to many of the basic principles of socio-ecological research. In order to define the field or life space, Lewin first examined what he called psychological ecology, a life space within the designated area. It is the place where psychological, (subjective) and non-psychological (objective) factors intersect (Lewin, 1951). Ungar et al.’s (2013) research suggests that an ecological perspective helps us understand how people can develop resilience in a complex and changing world. Emphasizing the importance of connections to the social and physical environment, his work highlights the role of wider social and environmental factors in promoting resilience, rather than focusing solely on individual traits or characteristics.

Different models of resilience focus on the interaction between the individual and the resilience environment, where individuals mobilize personal and social resources in response to stressful situations to protect themselves from risk (Mak et al., 2011).

Organizational commitment refers to an individual’s psychological attachment to an organization, characterized by the strong identification with and the desire to maintain membership in the organization to support its goals (Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005). Research has been conducted on the relationship between employee burnout, organizational commitment, and the intention to leave a job in South Korean newspaper companies. It was discovered that employees experiencing burnout showed reduced organizational commitment and heightened intention to leave (Jung and Kim, 2012). Additionally, Son et al. (2022) observed that in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, resilience plays a mediating role between organizational commitment, anxiety responses, and their quality of life. In the realms of resilience, human resource management, and fostering employee dedication to the organization, it becomes vital to enhance resilience and investigate its connections with other organizational elements, especially in more complex professional settings.

While few empirical studies directly examined the links between resilience and well-being, Mak et al. (2011) explored a mediating role of the positive cognitive triad (self-esteem, positive worldview, and hope) between resilience traits and well-being (Mak et al., 2011). In order to understand how students adapt to the daily stresses associated with student life, a positive thinking model was tested that may explain interconnectedness between resilience and well-being (Mak et al., 2011). Resilience was selected as a key construct in positive psychology and is believed to play an important role in promoting human well-being (Mak et al., 2011). Resilience was found to be related to the individual’s general adjustment, job performance, social functioning, physical and social psychological health (Mak et al., 2011).

Resilience research has so far paid insufficient attention to the multifaceted aspects of resilience and occupational context (Liu et al., 2019). In the context of resilience, well-being and human resource management, it is proposed to study resilience from an interdisciplinary perspective related to different occupational contexts. Understanding the contexts can improve the overall understanding of the importance of the phenomenon and how resilience can be developed from an organizational perspective (Liu et al., 2019). Increasing resilience in an organization can serve as one of the factors for positive change in organizational behavior research so that psychology focuses not only on the worst things that happen in life and fixing them, but also on creating a positive environment (Liu et al., 2019). Intuitively, resilience refers to recovery, as both individuals and organizations are exposed to stressful situations throughout their lifecycle (Liu et al., 2019). Thus, resilience can be an important intellectual concept to understand the differences in the behavior of organizational actors when they bounce back (Liu et al., 2019). The role of occupational context may have implications for theoretical developments in resilience research (Kossek and Perrigino, 2016). In organizational research, resilience can be understood as the skill and ability to be resilient in the face of overwhelming stress and change (Coutu, 2002).

From a dynamic perspective, resilience as a capacity can be increased and manifested in a dynamic process in response to traumatic events (Liu et al., 2019). Risk is a necessary component in the contexts studied. Risk is prevalent across domains and occupations, and effective risk management requires resilience (Liu et al., 2019). Different approaches to resilience are complementary since resilience has a multidimensional nature.

Recent research has identified the importance of resilience for community-level phenomena, such as resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Roundy et al., 2017), while in modern society resilience is required in a wide range of organizational contexts. And examining resilience from an interdisciplinary perspective can help reveal new insights (Liu et al., 2019).

Different organizational environments also bring a critical perspective to the issue of levels of analysis when examining the antecedents, processes and consequences of resilience (Liu et al., 2019). Most existing resilience research stemming from positive psychology or positive organizational behavior tends to focus on the individual level (Liu et al., 2019). For example, sports players need to correct mistakes, put them aside and recover quickly (Liu et al., 2019). Entrepreneurs face adverse situations, high uncertainty, stressful events, and challenging circumstances and need resilience to achieve entrepreneurial performance (Bullough et al., 2014).

Increasingly, research is beginning to change the level of analysis in ways that have recognized the importance of team resilience in sporting activities (Morgan et al., 2013) and military training studies (Seligman, 2011). Moving to the organizational level, previous research has identified the importance of resilience in community-level phenomena such as entrepreneurial ecosystems (Roundy et al., 2017).

The Chinese financial services industry was investigated with a sample of 2040 banking employees. This study found that labor resources can positively affect resilience and subsequent employee engagement (Liu et al., 2019).

Branicki, Steyer, and Sullivan-Taylor sought to uncover microprocesses involved in building resilient organizations. The study interviewed 137 resilient managers from the United Kingdom and France. The authors juxtaposed everyday “business as usual” and extreme events as two scenarios to explore the implications for individual and organizational resilience. This study shows that microprocesses have important implications for resilience at both individual and organizational levels (Liu et al., 2019).

As resilience can be difficult if not impossible to develop, it may be easier for organizations to recruit people with high resilience levels. Shin et al. (2012) emphasize theories of resilience, suggesting that in response to demanding and stressful environments, individuals seek psychological or material resources to protect them from the effects of such stressors. Therefore, Shin et al. (2012) argue that organizations should undertake interventions to strengthen the individual resources of existing employees prior to any change in order to reduce the stress experienced during organizational change and enhance commitment to the organization (Tonkin et al., 2018).

Previous studies have indicated that resilience, a key human attribute, plays a significant role in influencing subjective well-being or happiness (Li et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2021). Individuals who exhibit resilience tend to show greater perseverance in challenging situations, handle daily hardships more effectively, and possess a stronger ability to deal with life stressors (Mandleco, 2000; Shreffler et al., 2021). People possessing greater resilience are capable of preserving their physical and mental health, as they are able to mitigate the adverse impacts of challenging circumstances (Connor and Davidson, 2003).

Expanding upon prior investigations, including Ungar et al.’s (2013) ecological viewpoint, this research posits that individuals can cultivate resilience amidst the complexities of a dynamic world. Emphasizing the significance of interactions with social and physical surroundings, this study delves into how social and environmental elements contribute to the formation of resilience, transcending mere individual attributes. The primary objective is to explore the interplay between team characteristics, soldiers’ psychological resilience, commitment and well-being. Crucially, this research seeks to understand the mediating function of psychological resilience in the relationship between team factors and soldier commitment and well-being. The hypotheses are visually presented in Figure 1.

This study used a random sampling method. Four-hundred twenty-two Lithuanian professional military service personnel participated in the study. The participants’ socio-demographic characteristics were as follows: 380 (90.0%) males and 39 (9.2%) females; three individuals did not indicate their gender. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 58 years with a mean age of 34.41 years (SD = 8.94). One-hundred fifty-five (36.7%) managers and 235 (55.7%) professionals took part in the survey: 28 (6.6%) respondents answered “other” to the question on job title, and four did not specify it at all. Two-hundred and one (47.6%) respondent had been working for up to 10 years, 104 (24.6%) for 10–20 years, 115 (27.3%) for more than 20 years, and two respondents did not indicate their length of service. The majority of participants, that is, 194 (46.0%), have a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree; 55 (13.0%) have a college degree, 51 (12.1%) – a vocational degree, and 119 (28.2%) – a secondary education. Two respondents did not indicate their educational background. An online self-completion questionnaire was used to collect the data. The questionnaire was not publicly available and was only open to soldiers who had received information about the study and an invitation to respond. The information and the invitation were distributed through the commanders of the army units. In the cover letter, we introduced the purpose of the study and provided instructions for completing the questionnaire. Participants were informed that the study was conducted in accordance with the ethical requirements of research, that the participants’ responses would be analyzed in aggregate for scientific purposes only, and that the confidentiality of their responses was guaranteed. Participation was entirely voluntary, without any remuneration.

The questionnaire consisted of demographic questions on respondents’ age, gender, education, length of service, the force in which they serve, and scales to measure the study variables: team characteristics (team cohesion and colleague support), psychological resilience, commitment to the organization and well-being. The whole composite concept assessment are presented in Table 1.

Statistical analyses were conducted utilizing IBM SPSS Statistics 29v and SPSS AMOS 29v. The individual level of analysis was applied to collected demographic data and study constructs, which include team cohesion, colleague support as well as resilience, commitment and well-being in soldiers. Descriptive statistics were employed to assess the statistical means and standard deviations (M and ± SD) of the construct variables. Subsequently, the Pearson bivariate correlation procedure was utilized to examine the relationships between constructs involved in this study. To mitigate the impact of common method bias in the study, two distinct methods were employed. The first approach involved the development of instruments that emphasized the anonymity and confidentiality of responses. As a second approach, Harman’s single-factor test was utilized to examine the potential variance introduced by common method bias (Tehseen et al., 2017). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) served as the analytical framework to assess the hypothesized model. Preceding the modeling phase, a factor analysis was conducted to evaluate identified latent constructs and variables. Subsequently, the modeling process continued with theoretical causal model path analysis, following the methodology outlined by Crowley and Fan (2013). SEM identified causal interactions among eight factors. The theorized direct and indirect links among study constructs were then tested: examining how team cohesion directly affects commitment, resilience and well-being in soldiers (hypotheses: H1-H3); assessing the direct pathway between colleague support and soldier resilience (hypothesis: H4); and evaluating the theorized indirect effects between all constructs (hypotheses: H5a & H5b and H6a & H6b). Consistent with the proposed theoretical model design, five variables were recognized, comprising three observed endogenous variables (soldier resilience, soldier commitment, soldier well-being), two observed exogenous variables (team cohesion and colleague support).

The hypothesized relationships among model constructs were rigorously examined using SPSS AMOS 29v, with coefficient weights chosen to evaluate the causal relations. In accordance with the recommendations of previous scholars (Smaliukienė et al., 2023), who advocate for a multipurpose methodology for assessing the adequacy of a theoretical model, the goodness of fit was assessed based on several criteria. The following criteria were employed to evaluate model fit: the probability statistic of χ² likelihood ratio, the Tucker and Lewis Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with related confidence intervals (CI). Only values exceeding 0.95 for the TLI and CFI indices (Hu and Bentler, 1999) and values below 0.08 for the RMSEA measure (Browne and Cudeck, 1992) were considered acceptable. Data analysis and model parameter estimation were executed using the full information maximum likelihood method (Maydeu-Olivares et al., 2010). A bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 iterations was conducted, and confidence recognition was set at 95% for bias-corrected confidence intervals (95% CI). Following the criteria outlined by Hair (2019) and Hayes and Scharkow (2013), the effects of indirect relationships were deemed statistically significant if zero was not included in the 95% bias-corrected CI.

In the initial stage of our analysis, we assessed the conceptual model for its adequacy. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted at the individual level, and preliminary information on research variables was gathered. The normality of the data was deemed acceptable, as indicated by kurtosis and skewness measurements, with absolute values below 3 and 7, respectively—meeting established criteria (Wang et al., 2020). Additionally, a thorough check for multicollinearity showed no evidence thereof. All tolerance values exceeded the 0.20 threshold, signifying the absence of multicollinearity in the examined variables. This analysis ensures the independence of variables, reinforcing the integrity of subsequent analyses. Furthermore, we estimated the convergent and discriminant validity of the designed constructs, which involved examining correlations and assessing convergent and discriminant validity for all variables in the conceptual model. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.

The correlation coefficients presented in Table 2 showed that commitment is positive associated with soldier well-being (r = 0.538, p < 0.01), team cohesion (r = 0.572, p < 0.01) and colleague support (r = 0.404, p < 0.01). Commitment indicated positive and highly significant relationship with employee resilience (r = 0.515, p < 0.01). The employee resilience showed statistically significant relations with soldier well-being (r = 0.511, p < 0.01), colleague support (r = 0.460, p < 0.01) and team cohesion (r = 0.433, p < 0.01).

Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis was rigorously conducted to assess the validity of the constructed model, which includes five distinct constructs. The results clearly demonstrated satisfactory convergent validity, meeting established criteria (Byrne, 2013; Bekesiene et al., 2023). Importantly, all factor loadings were statistically significant at the value of p <0.001 level, affirming the robustness of the model and providing a solid foundation for subsequent stages of analysis and interpretation.

Modeling analysis was conducted using IBM AMOS 29v software. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the theorized links among constructs in specified models: Model 1 investigated how team cohesion influences commitment (H1); Model 2 evaluated the pathway between team cohesion and soldier well-being (H2); Model 3 verified the effect of team cohesion on soldier resilience (H3); and Model 4 tested the impact of social support on soldier resilience (H4). Finally, the indirect effects theorized by hypotheses H5a & H5b and hypotheses H6a & H6b between all constructs were assessed. The goodness-of-fit of the theorized model was evaluated based on test results designed to demonstrate the model fit.