虽然韧性被广泛认为是个体、团队、甚至组织有效应对失败的重要特征，现有文献尚且缺乏对于韧性是如何在组织创新中产生作用的理论机制，实证研究方面也缺乏足够深入和系统的探析。本研究提出，在创新的具体情境中，韧性通过影响个体和团队的认知和行为机制对后续的创新行为产生影响。本文包括两个实证研究。通过对中国南方某研究中心69个团队近700名团队成员的多次问卷调查，发现创新失败经历并不能直接为个体或团队的创新活动带来积极作用，创新失败经历的间接作用是通过个体和团队的韧性，以及韧性所影响的认知机制和行为机制产生的。研究一基于资源保存理论，发现在个体层面，个体的创新失败体验水平越高，直接呈现的韧性水平就越低。在这个过程，个人的能力（教育水平）、对失败的态度（成长思维）、所处的微环境（团队领导的真实型领导风格）都会影响个体在经历失败后所展示的韧性。在团队层面，团队在共同经历失败后，也会展现出韧性，失败程度越高，团队韧性就越低。体现团队基本能力的团队教育水平均值和体现团队环境因素的团队领导的真实型领导风格，并未显著影响团队共同失败经历与团队韧性之间的负向关系。团队成员成长思维中的固定型思维均值水平显著调节团队共同失败与团队韧性之间的关系：当团队成员的固定型思维均值水平越高，团队共同失败经历与团队韧性之间的负向关系就越弱。研究二聚焦于韧性是否会正向影响创新活动这一研究问题，检验了压力应对理论。在个体层面，本文发现韧性正向影响个人创新自我效能和个人失败学习，这两个机制都继续对个人创新卷入产生正向影响。在团队层面，当结果变量为领导评价的团队创新卷入时，团队创新自我效能在团队韧性均值和团队创新卷入之间的中介作用显著。当以团队领导评价的团队创新卷入为结果变量，并且不考虑团队创新自我效能时，团队失败学习的中介效应显著。同时，本研究还发现团队心理安全感越强，团队成员韧性（均值）与团队失败学习之间的正向关系就越强。本文的主要贡献有三个方面：一是发现了在创新失败后韧性对于维持高创新投入起到关键作用；二是提出无论是个体还是团队在应对创新失败过程中应该保持中性态度；三是在个人和团队两个层次探索韧性在创新失败经历与创新行为之间关系。本文对企业创新管理具有较为丰富的实践启示。

Although resilience is an important feature for individuals, teams, and organizations to effectively respond to failure, no existing literature shows a theoretical mechanism for how resilience plays a role in organizational innovation, and in-depth systematic analysis is insufficient in empirical research. This study proposes that resilience will influence subsequent innovation behavior by affecting cognitive and behavioral mechanisms of individuals and teams in specific context.This paper includes two empirical studies. Through multiple questionnaire surveys of nearly 700 members from 69 teams, it finds that innovation failure does not directly bring positive effects to individual or team innovation behavior, but it can indirectly play a role through resilience of individuals and teams. Based on Conservation of Resource Theory, Study 1 finds that at the individual level, the deeper the individual has experienced innovation failure, the lower the level of resilience directly presents. Iindividual ability (education), attitude towards failure (growth mindset), and micro-environment (team leaders’ authentic leadership) will affect resilience displayed by individuals. At the team level, teams will show resilience after experiencing failure: the higher the degree of failure, the lower the resilience of teams. The negative association between teams’ failure and resilience has not been significantly affected by the average level of team education and the authentic leadership. The average level of fixed mindset of team members significantly regulates that the higher the average level of fixed mindset, the weaker the negative association between team’s co-failure and resilience.Study 2 focuses on whether resilience will positively affect innovation involvement and examines Stress and Coping Theory. At the individual level, this paper finds that resilience positively affects individual innovation self-efficacy and personal failure learning, both of which continue to have a positive impact on personal innovation involvement. At the team level, when the outcome variable is team innovation involvement evaluated by team leaders, the mediator role of team innovation self-efficacy between the mean team resilience and team innovation involvement is significant; without regard to team innovation self-efficacy, the mediator effect of team failure learning is significant. Moreover, this study finds that the stronger the team's psychological security, the stronger the positive association between team members' resilience (mean) and team failure learning.This paper’s main contribution: first, this study finds that resilience plays a key role in maintaining high innovation input after innovation failure; second, it proposes that individuals and teams should maintain a neutral attitude in responding to innovation failure; third, it explores the relationship between resilience, innovation failure, and innovation involvement. It also has an important practical enlightenment on innovative management mode of enterprises.