Team Performance Management

Emerald Article: Emotional intelligence abilities and their relationships

with team processes
Nicholas Clarke
Article information:
To cite this document: Nicholas Clarke, (2010),"Emotional intelligence abilities and their relationships with team processes",
Team Performance Management, Vol. 16 Iss: 1 pp. 6 - 32
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591011028906
Downloaded on: 21-10-2012
References: This document contains references to 82 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Elizabeth J. Rozell, Wesley A. Scroggins, (2010),"How much is too much?: The role of emotional intelligence in self-managed work
team satisfaction and group processes", Team Performance Management, Vol. 16 Iss: 1 pp. 33 - 49
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591011028915
Umar Ghuman, (2011),"Building a model of group emotional intelligence", Team Performance Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 7 pp. 418 - 439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591111182661
Robert Kerr, John Garvin, Norma Heaton, Emily Boyle, (2006),"Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness", Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 265 - 279
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610666028
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Emotional intelligence abilities
and their relationships with team
processes
Nicholas Clarke
School of Management, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to identify whether relationships exist between emotional intelligence
(EI) and specic teamwork behaviours that are associated with transition, action and interpersonal
team processes using the ability model of EI.
Design/methodology/approach A total of 68 MBA students comprising 13 randomly assigned
teams completed a pencil and paper performance-based test of emotional intelligence. Some 14 weeks
later a score reecting the extent team members engaged in a number of teamwork behaviours
consistent with transition, action and interpersonal team processes was obtained from peer ratings.
Findings Emotional intelligence was found to explain direct and unique variance in transition and
interpersonal team processes. However, only three individual branches of EI were found to be of any
signicance, and these differed in each instance.
Practical implications These ndings add to the growing body of literature suggesting
emotional intelligence may be an important aspect of individual difference amongst team members
that can contribute to team effectiveness. Individuals with differing EI abilities may be particularly
important to teams dependent upon the teams activity phase.
Originality/value The paper shows that blanket assertions regarding the signicance of
emotional intelligence for team effectiveness are far too simplistic. Differing EI abilities are associated
with particular teamwork behaviours, which in turn become important during different phases of team
activity. The ndings suggest a need for more sophisticated frameworks regarding how EI relates to
specic cognitive, verbal and behavioural teamwork activities.
Keywords Emotional intelligence, Team working, Team performance, Interpersonal relations
Paper type Research paper
Widespread changes to job design over the past two decades has seen the increasing
prominence given to team-based restructuring with the expectation of greater
efciencies and performance gains in organisational work processes (Guzzo and
Dickson, 1996; Beyerlein, 2000). Understanding the nature of teamwork and importantly
those factors that either contribute to, or underpinteameffectiveness should better assist
us to meet these expected performance gains. An important aspect of individual
difference thought to inuence teameffectiveness is the concept of emotional intelligence
(Jordan and Troth, 2004; Mayer et al., 2008). Salovey and Mayer (1990) initially dened
emotional intelligence as a set of four specic cognitive abilities that involve the capacity
to identify, reason with and utilise emotions effectively. Specically, the ability to:
(1) perceive emotion;
(2) integrate emotion to facilitate thought;
(3) understand emotions; and
(4) manage emotions.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
TPM
16,1/2
6
Received April 2009
Revised August 2009
Accepted September 2009
Team Performance Management
Vol. 16 No. 1/2, 2010
pp. 6-32
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527591011028906
Since then, alternative denitions of the construct have emerged alongside different
approaches to its measurement. Although each of these has the potential to offer new
insights into team effectiveness, they also pose challenges for building an integrated
body of knowledge upon which to develop a theory of emotional intelligence and team
effectiveness. In addition to the ability model of EI, three major alternative
conceptualisations of EI can be found, often categorised as personality or trait models
(e.g. Petrides and Furnham, 2001), mixed models (e.g. Bar-On, 1997; Dulewicz et al.,
2003) and competence-based models (e.g. Boyzatis and Goleman, 2002). These models
of EI although sharing some limited degree of overlap in places, differ markedly in how
they perceive the nature of the construct and what is included in the constructs domain
(See Weinberger, 2002 for a review). For example, in sharp contrast to Salovey and
Mayers (1990) ability model of EI, Bar-Ons (1997) measure of EI, (the EQ-i)
incorporates the ve sub-constructs of:
(1) interpersonal skills;
(2) intrapersonal skills;
(3) adaptability;
(4) stress management; and
(5) general mood.
Together this EI construct assesses 16 dimensions including amongst them self regard,
assertiveness, independence, exibility, stress tolerance and happiness. Some of these
aspects are seen as more akin to individual dispositions or traits and are assessed
similarly through the use of personality type self-report scales. Boyzatis and Goleman
(2002) use a competence-based approach to capture self and peer ratings of
17 individual EI competences. These are grouped into four cluster categories of:
(1) self-awareness;
(2) self-management;
(3) social awareness; and
(4) relationship management.
Within these competence clusters are included dimensions such as adaptability,
achievement, initiative, organisational awareness and developing others, which some
authors suggest represent more distal behavioural indicators of emotional intelligence
rather than the actual construct itself (Clarke, 2006a).
Unsurprisingly then, studies have often found low inter-correlations between
measures originating from these differing models (e.g. OConnor and Little, 2003;
Petrides et al., 2004). The limited extent of overlap between these models would
suggest that differing measures of EI are likely to offer varying degrees of predictive
power in explaining unique or additional variance in any behavioural variables
associated with team effectiveness. Furthermore the theoretical bases upon which
relationships are expected are also likely to vary. Given these arguments, we should be
cautious in theory building derived from conating ndings from studies that have
used differing models of EI. Instead, we need to clarify at a theoretical level how and in
what ways differing conceptualisations of emotional intelligence are thought to explain
variance in team effectiveness. This paper contributes to these aims through
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
7
presenting ndings from a study that investigated the relationship between emotional
intelligence and team effectiveness using Salovey and Mayers (1990) ability model of
emotional intelligence. First, the ability model of emotional intelligence and the
theoretical basis for its role in team effectiveness is summarised. A critical review of
the empirical literature that has examined the role of ability EI in team effectiveness
then follows. Next, based upon limitations with how team effectiveness has been
perceived and measured in these previous studies, an alternative methodological
approach to examining relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and team
effectiveness is put forward. This suggests a need to identify relationships between EI
and sets of team processes that are associated with different phases of team activity.
Findings are then presented that show signicant relationships between emotional
intelligence abilities at the individual level and both transition and interpersonal sets of
team processes. The paper contributes to the literature through helping to further
delineate the boundary conditions that might surround the association between
emotional intelligence abilities and team effectiveness. Implications for future research
arising from the ndings are discussed.
The ability model of emotional intelligence and its role in team
effectiveness
The ability model of emotional intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mayer et al.,
2008) is one of the more parsimonious of emotional intelligence models that have been
put forward in the literature. The concept is dened far more narrowly as comprising a
set of four cognitive abilities associated with the processing of emotional information.
The four cognitive abilities are:
(1) perceiving emotion;
(2) using emotions to facilitate thinking;
(3) understanding emotions; and
(4) managing emotions in oneself and others.
These are hierarchically organised in that higher abilities are thought to depend on those
below. Over the past 15 years, a number of studies have shown increasing discriminant
and incremental validity of this version of the EI construct, notably as independent from
personality constructs and general intelligence (Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Mayer et al.,
2001; Mayer et al., 2008). For example, it has been found to correlate only modestly with
verbal and perceptual reasoning (Mayer et al., 2008), as well as openness and
agreeableness (Salovey and Mayer, 1993) Criterion-related tests investigating how the
ability model predicts life outcomes or behaviours have also been theoretically
consistent with the nature of the construct within a range of differing domains. These
have included ndings that show its relationship with aspects of social functioning
(Brackett et al., 2006; Lopes et al., 2004), psychological well-being (Brackett and Mayer,
2003; Brackett et al., 2006) and a number of important work related outcomes, such as
decision making and negotiation (Day and Carroll, 2004; Mueller and Curhan, 2006).
Theoretically a relationship between emotional intelligence abilities and team
effectiveness has been posited, recognising that many behaviours thought to underpin
team processes such as cooperation and conict management possess signicant
emotional dimensions. Similarly, team affective states such as trust and commitment
TPM
16,1/2
8
are also recognised as also possessing major emotional components that play a role in
their genesis (Wolff et al., 2006). With this as a basis, the four emotional abilities that
comprise the cognitive model of EI might be expected to assist individuals within
teams in the following ways. For example, an awareness of team member emotions
within teams should help individuals to understand one anothers needs and help with
team bonding. Such bonding and close interpersonal ties can help build trust, resolve
conict and promote closer cooperation (Larkey, 1996, McAllister, 1995). An
understanding of how events in teams can trigger specic emotional responses that
then impact on behaviour and performance can also assist team members to plan task
work (Jordan et al., 2002). Team members that are better at managing and controlling
theirs and others emotions are also thought to be better at motivating others, as well as
helping to improve conict management (Prati et al., 2003; Van Rooy and Viswesvaran,
2004; Wolff et al., 2002).
Previous research on the ability model of emotional intelligence and teams
Given the problems inherent in generalising ndings from other EI models, a more
focused approach for specically examining emotional intelligence abilities and team
effectiveness is needed. Thirteen studies were located in the literature that have
investigated the role of emotional intelligence in team effectiveness. Of these studies,
ve used competence-based derived measures of EI to examine relationships (Hartel
et al., 2006; Koman and Wolff, 2008; Offerman et al., 2004; Rapisarda, 2002; Wolff et al.,
2002), whilst one study detailed a meta-review of the relationship between individual
difference factors (deep-level team composition variables) and team performance that
included ve EI studies with disparate measures (Bell, 2007). The seven remaining
studies used measures of EI that were based on, or derived from Mayer et al.s (2002)
four ability conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (Ayoko et al., 2008; Day and
Carroll, 2004; Feyerherm and Rice, 2002; Llarda and Findlay, 2006; Jordan et al., 2002;
Jordan and Troth, 2004; Jordan and Ashkanasy, 2006). Only three of these studies
specically examined relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and team
effectiveness variables at the individual level, although each used a different approach
to measurement. In a study involving 164 employees from the nancial services
industry, Feyerherm and Rice (2002) used an early ability-based measure, the
Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer et al., 1997) and found a positive
correlation between the team leaders ability to understand emotion and the teams
customer service performance based on team ratings. However, they also reported a
negative relationship between the team leaders emotional intelligence, and managers
rankings of overall team performance. Using aggregated measures of team members
ability EI, they also found positive relationships with ability EI at the team level, and a
measure of team performance. Day and Carroll (2004) examined the relationships
between EI abilities and citizenship behaviours amongst 246 undergraduate students
formed into 47 work groups. Using the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002), they found no
signicant relationships between individual level measures but did nd signicant
positive relationships between participants ratings of the groups civic virtue (and
sportsmanship) and nearly all their individual EI ability scores. Llarda and Findlay
(2006) also looked at EI at the individual level, and investigated the relationship
between emotional intelligence and the propensity for teamwork measured by the team
player inventory (Kline, 1999). Based on a sample of 134 individuals working in teams
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
9
in a variety of industries, the authors collected data using a survey that contained a
self-report measure of emotional intelligence. This was derived from Salovey and
Mayers (1990) four ability conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (the SUEIT:
Palmer and Stough, 2001). The authors found that the total EI score accounted for a
further 4 per cent variance in the propensity for teamwork, after the 22 per cent they
found for personality.
The remaining studies differ in that they all used a team level ability measure of
emotional intelligence, the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Prole (WEIP: Jordan
et al., 2002), which uses self and peer report responses to assess EI abilities rather than
a performance-based test. Jordan et al. (2002) using the WEIP-3, conducted a study
involving 448 undergraduate students formed into 44 teams as part of a management
and communication skills course. They initially found a statistically signicant
relationship between team average EI scores and goal focus, but the relationship with
process effectiveness was not signicant. They then divided teams into two groups
containing the 15 highest and 15 lowest average EI scores respectively, and looked at
the relationship between team EI scores and measures of team effectiveness (goal focus
and process effectiveness) obtained through independent ratings of written team logs.
They found that whilst teams with high emotional intelligence initially performed
better than those with low emotional intelligence, the low emotional intelligence teams
eventually raised their performance to match that of the high EI teams after a ten-week
period. The authors suggested that factors such as dominant team members with
higher skills or increased familiarity within the team may have led to the
improvements in team effectiveness found. Jordan and Troth (2004), using a later
version of this team EI measure (the WEIP-6), conducted a further study involving 350
students formed into 108 teams and investigated the relationship between team EI and
team performance based on performance in a team survival situation exercise. They
found that teams with higher levels of average emotional intelligence performed better
than those with lower levels, although statistically signicant results were only found
for the scale that captured individuals ability to deal with their own emotions and not
with the scale relating to individuals ability to deal with others emotions. They also
showed some positive relationships between team EI and the use of differing conict
resolution approaches (competing or collaborative) within teams.
More latterly Jordan and Ashkanasy (2006) reported the results of a study that
involved 140 students formed into 35 teams, that were enrolled in a business
communication course. Using measures of team EI and team effectiveness similar to
those reported in Jordan et al. (2002) above, they found a statistically signicant, albeit
weak correlation between the peer assessed measure of EI and team effectiveness.
However they failed to demonstrate a relationship between the self assessed measure
of EI (from the full sample) and team effectiveness. Finally, the most recent of this
group of studies examining team emotional intelligence used a shortened version of the
empathetic concern subscale, and the management of ones own and others emotional
states subscale contained in the WEIP-3, as indicators of a teams emotional climate
(Ayoko et al., 2008). Based on an investigation of 660 employees from 122 teams, the
authors found that team EI was related to less relationship and task conict and less
conict intensity within teams.
The results from the studies above show a number of statistically signicant and
positive relationships between team level measures of emotional intelligence and a
TPM
16,1/2
10
range of team effectiveness measures. However in a number of instances, scales
associated with the WEIP failed to demonstrate signicant relationships with
measures of team effectiveness (Jordan et al., 2002; Jordan and Troth, 2004; Jordan and
Ashkanasy, 2006). Similarly, both positive (Llarda and Findlay, 2006) and negative
results (Feyerherm and Rice, 2002) were obtained for relationships between individual
levels of ability EI and team effectiveness or performance criteria. A possible
explanation for these mixed ndings, may well be found in the different ways team
effectiveness has been both conceptualised and measured in these studies. In a review
of much of the team effectiveness literature to date, Marks et al. (2001) suggested that
team effectiveness arises from episodes of team performance, which are temporal
cycles of goal directed activity. They argue that the nature and importance of team
processes change over this temporal cycle time and that differing team processes
become more critical in particular phases. As a result, team data gathered over time
and aggregated into a summary index of effectiveness in order to test process-outcome
relationships, potentially can miss important relationships.
They propose a taxonomy comprising three sets of team processes categorised as
transition, action and interpersonal processes. Transition processes include activities
such as goal specication and strategy formulation, whilst coordination and team
monitoring and backup behaviours are seen as important action processes. Both affect
and conict management are among the interpersonal processes the team uses to
manage interpersonal relationships. The nature of team processes therefore changes,
as teams move back and forth between action and transition phases. Particular team
processes therefore become more salient to team effectiveness at different phases of
team activity. This being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that emotional
intelligence may be far more relevant to some teamwork processes rather than others.
Further, that its importance to team effectiveness lies in the particular contribution it
offers to team processes that are associated with particular phases of team activity. In
order to better understand the EI- team effectiveness link then, we need to gain a much
clearer picture of the relationships between EI and the differing team processes that are
important during particular team activity phases.
Examining relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and team
processes
Much previous research in the area of team effectiveness has resulted in a number of
input-process-output models that have sought to capture a range of team processes
mediating team effectiveness and performance (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Guzzo and
Dickson, 1996). Constituting many of these team processes are specic cognitive,
verbal and behavioural activities undertaken by team members in the pursuit of
collective goals (Marks et al., 2001). These activities are themselves inuenced by the
many inputs to the team such as organisational support, team size and diversity, the
knowledge and skills of team members as well as their attitudes and aspects of
individual difference. It follows then, that one approach to elucidate the potential role
that emotional intelligence abilities play in team effectiveness, is to examine
relationships more directly between emotional intelligence abilities and the differing
sets of transition, action, and interpersonal team processes that have been identied as
key to team effectiveness. Here emotional intelligence abilities are posited to have
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
11
direct effects on a number of these specic teamwork processes as well as interaction
effects.
Direct effects
EI and transition team processes
Transition teamwork processes are seen as comprising:
.
mission analysis and planning;
.
goal specication; and
.
strategy formulation (Marks et al., 2001).
The recognition that emotion can inuence problem solving, decision making and
creativity (George, 2000; Prati et al., 2003) suggests that emotional intelligence may
play a signicant role in team processes associated with strategy formulation such as
task planning and role allocation and those associated with goal specication. Sy and
Cote (2004) have suggested that individuals higher in emotional intelligence are better
able to align various goals and clarify roles and responsibilities as they are better able
to manage the stress and frustration often arising from complex goal setting. They are
also able to act to better prevent the allocation of misaligned goals through greater
emotional sensitivity to others. Jordan et al. (2002) have previously demonstrated
support for a relationship between emotional intelligence and goal setting at the team
level. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. Emotional intelligence will be positively associated with transition team
processes.
EI and action team processes
Action team processes include:
.
monitoring progress towards goals;
.
systems monitoring;
.
team monitoring and backup behaviour; and
.
co-ordination (Marks et al., 2001).
Emotional intelligence abilities that offer individuals an enhanced awareness of the
affective state of team colleagues may play critical roles in team monitoring. Firstly, in
enabling members to consider how to respond to others personal concerns and needs,
which may be important in determining how and when tasks should be allocated
amongst different team members. Using information about how team members are
feeling can also inuence decisions about when to spend more time in showing concern
for team members, as well as in deciding appropriate timescales for team members to
complete tasks and goals. Those better attuned at picking up emotional cues and
understanding why emotions may have arisen, can use this emotional knowledge to
plan for either improving team situations or remedying team problems. This then leads
to the following hypothesis:
H2. Emotional intelligence will be positively associated with action team
processes.
TPM
16,1/2
12
EI and interpersonal team processes
Interpersonal team processes include:
.
conict management;
.
motivation and condence building;
.
affect management (Marks et al., 2001).
Emotional intelligence abilities have been suggested as contributing to relationship
oriented behaviours associated with attentiveness, showing consideration to other
team members and encouraging others (Feyerherm and Rice, 2002). A number of
studies have previously found relationships between team level measures of EI and
better conict management strategies in team settings (Ayoko et al., 2008; Jordan and
Troth, 2004). Team members who engage in affect management can also motivate and
energise others (Vakola et al., 2004). An increased sense of control over ones own
emotional state and adaptive coping behaviours, combined with the ability to inuence
the emotional states of others, should provide individuals with greater condence and
willingness to discuss feelings more openly (Baumeister et al., 1994; Jordan et al., 2002)
both of which promote a supportive team climate (Edmondson, 1999). This gives rise to
the following hypothesis:
H3. Emotional intelligence will be positively associated with interpersonal team
processes.
Interaction effects
EI and collectivist orientation
Recognising emotional intelligence as a set of cognitive abilities implies that a degree
of individual effort is required on the part of the individual in order to for these abilities
to be successfully utilised (Mayer et al., 2004). Drawing upon a general theory of
performance as a function of both ability and motivation, Rode et al. (2007) found that
emotional intelligence explained incremental variance in only one of two measures of
interpersonal effectiveness. However the interaction of both emotional intelligence and
conscientiousness (as a trait indicator of motivation) added additional unique variation
in both measures of interpersonal effectiveness, as well as a measure of academic
performance. In a similar vein, the relationship between emotional intelligence and
teamwork behaviours associated with team processes might also be moderated by an
individuals motivational disposition towards teamwork. Collectivist orientation is a
values disposition that has previously found to be associated with team behaviours,
such as individual inputs to the team (Driskell and Salas, 1992) and with co-operative
team behaviours and negotiation behaviour at the group level (Eby and Dobbins, 1997;
De Dreu and Boles, 1998). Previously, Shamir (1990) showed a relationship between
collectivist orientation and the amount of effort expended by individuals in a team. Eby
and Dobbins (1997) have also shown that higher efcacy for teamwork and positive
past experience in teams were related to an individuals self report collectivism. An
individuals collectivist orientation may therefore be indicative of their degree of
motivation for working in teams. Based on the above, interaction effects are therefore
expected between emotional intelligence abilities and an individuals collectivist
orientation. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
13
H4. The relationships between emotional intelligence and action, transition and
interpersonal team processes are likely to be stronger for those individuals
with a higher collectivist orientation.
The study and methods
A total of 68 students (51 male and 17 female), forming 13 randomly assigned teams of
four to six members comprised the sample for this study. All students were enrolled on
a core Organisational Behaviour Course as part of their study on a Master of Business
Administration degree programme. The average age of participants was 30.7 years (SD
6.1) and ages ranged from 23-47 years. As with many MBA programmes today in the
UK, these students represented a wide variety of differing cultural backgrounds as
follows: British/European 36 per cent (25); Chinese/Taiwanese, 26 per cent (18); Indian,
18 per cent (12); Japanese 7 per cent (5), and Arabic 12 per cent (8).
These teams were required to produce a team report within a 14-week period
detailing how they would undertake a specic change management intervention in
order to improve an organisations performance of their own choosing. Each team was
encouraged to use a range of data sources and undertake their own primary research as
part of the team project. The time team members spent together varied on a weekly
basis between approximately 0.5 and two hours per week over the 14-week period, in
addition to them undertaking individual team tasks agreed in their teams.
Procedure
A pencil and paper performance-based test of emotional intelligence was administered
to all individuals participating in the study, just prior to them beginning their
teamwork projects and being allocated into teams. Fourteen weeks later, members of
each team rated each team member in their team excluding themselves, on the extent to
which they demonstrated teamwork behaviours consistent with transition, action and
interpersonal team processes using a specically designed questionnaire. Team
members were asked to rate as honestly as possible and told responses would be
subsequently anonymised. Those completing ratings for all team members received an
additional credit towards the nal grade they received for the course.
Measures
.
Emotional intelligence. The 141-item MSCEIT V2.0 (Mayer et al., 2002) was used
to measure emotional intelligence. The tests items correspond to the four
branches of emotional abilities: perceiving emotion (B1); using emotion to
facilitate thought (B2); understanding emotions (B3); and managing emotions
(B4). Answer sheets were then scored by the test publishers using consensus
scoring norms. Scores reect the degree of t between participants responses
and those obtained from a normative sample of over 5000 individuals. Scores are
then standardised in relation to the normative sample with a mean of 100 and
standard deviation of 15. Previously reliabilities for each of the scales have been
reported as 0.90, 0.76, 0.77 and 0.81 for each of the four branches in order and 0.91
for the full scale (Mayer et al., 2002). Reliabilities for each of these scales obtained
in this study were found to be satisfactory at 0.85 (B1), 0.82 (B2), 0.72 (B3), 0.71
(B4) and 0.75 for the total EI scale.
TPM
16,1/2
14
.
Collectivist orientation. Collectivist orientation was measured using Eby and
Dobbins (1997) slightly modied version of Wagner and Mochs (1986)
three-item value subscale of their Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) measure.
Sample items include: I prefer to work with others in a team rather than to work
alone; and I like it when team members do things on their own, rather than
working with others all the time. Individuals rated themselves using a
seven-point Likert scale where 1 completely disagree and 7 completely
agree. Eby and Dobbins (1997) previously obtained an internal consistency of
0.68 for this scale similar to 0.69 obtained here. Although just under the
minimum 0.70 reliability value normally expected, such values are deemed
acceptable in initial exploratory studies such as this one (Hair et al., 2005).
.
Transition, action and interpersonal team processes: based upon the work of
Marks et al. (2001) there are three categories of team processes that are generic to
all work teams and associated with team effectiveness. An instrument for
measuring specic teamwork behaviours associated with these sets of team
processes in project teams was constructed (Appendix 1). Participants were then
asked to rate each of their team members on the extent to which they
demonstrated teamwork behaviours associated with each category of team
processes using a seven-point Likert scale. In order to maximize validity,
respondents were told that their responses would be condential. A total of 303
ratings relating to the 68 individuals taking part in the study were collected. A
separate mean rating score for each item contained within each team process
category was then calculated. Scores for each set of team processes was then
obtained by summing relevant behavioural items and then obtaining the mean
score for each scale. Details of scale validation are provided below.
.
General mental ability. General mental ability has been found to be a good
predictor of individual job performance (Ree and Earles, 1992; Schmidt and
Hunter, 1992), team-related behaviours including leadership (Atwater and
Yammarino, 1993; Taggar et al., 1999) and performance on a teamwork test
(Stevens and Campion, 1999). A measure of general mental ability was therefore
used as a control variable in the study. General mental ability has been found to
be associated with achievement and higher grades obtained in courses (Kuncel
et al., 2004) and educational attainment scores have been previously used as
indicators of GMA in a number of studies (Brackett et al., 2004; Kellett et al.,
2002) Students grade point average scores (GPA) obtained at the end of their
degree programme were therefore used in the study as an indicator of general
mental ability.
Procedure for validation team process scales
In order to ground behavioural items associated with the three team processes in a
student project context, project reports from 162 students detailing personal reections
on actual experiences of project team effectiveness behaviours were obtained from an
independent sample of postgraduate management students. These had been collected
over a two-year period prior to this study being undertaken. The process began with
initially identifying and coding all behaviours that were recorded as associated with
team effectiveness in these personal project reports. Next, behaviours were combined
into wider behavioural categories that appeared to most closely correspond to those
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
15
associated with the transition, action and interpersonal sets of team processes as
indicated by the empirical literature (Marks et al., 2001). This provided an initial pool of
92 items. These items were further screened to omit items that were more closely
associated with team rather than individual level characteristics or where overlap or
similarity in meaning was apparent, reducing the number of items to 46. Face validity
of these items was then further investigated with a focus group of 20 students drawn
from this initial sample. This left a nal pool of 33 behavioural items associated with
the following team processes:
.
Transition: goal specication (two-items), strategy formulation and planning
(four-items).
.
Action: team monitoring and back up behaviours (11-items), co-ordination
(two-items).
.
Interpersonal: conict management (ve-items), motivation and condence
building (two-items), affect management (seven-items).
All 33 items were then organised into a instrument which was then distributed a year
later to a second independent sample of 62 postgraduate management students. These
had participated in 15 separate project teams of four to six members over one semester.
At the end of this period, these students were all requested to rate each of their team
members on the extent to which they had demonstrated each of the 33 separate team
behaviours using a seven-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree, 7 Strongly
agree). Completed instruments were then returned directly to the researcher. A total of
308 separate ratings were obtained. Exploratory factor analysis was then undertaken
using principal components with a varimax rotation. The ratio of observations to items
was 308:33 or 9.3:1, which is considered satisfactory for factor analysis (Nunnally,
1978; Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985). The rotation converged in twelve iterations
resulting in a three factor solution, accounting for 66.95 per cent, 9.10 per cent and 4.53
per cent of the variance, all with eigen values greater than 1. The factor loadings are
presented in Table I. Items were retained for factors were weights were greater than
0.40 and where there was no cross loading. These items were found for the most part to
be consistent with the teamwork behaviours captured within each of the three-team
process categories. The exception being that one item from one of the original action
process scale loaded on to the interpersonal team process scale (Item 33 Table I). This
item related to open communication and was not seen as theoretically inconsistent with
action team behaviour processes and therefore retained on this scale. Items in each of
these factors were then retained to comprise three scales to capture individual
teamwork behaviours associated with the three team processes. These were
subsequently labelled as:
(1) transition team behaviours (six items);
(2) action team behaviours (six items); and
(3) interpersonal team behaviours (six items).
Items for each of these scales are reported in the appendix. Each of these scales showed
high levels of internal consistency with alpha coefcients of 0.92, 0.90 and 0.87
respectively. These items were then incorporated into a nal instrument that was given
TPM
16,1/2
16
Items
Transition
processes (I)
Interpersonal
processes (II)
Action
processes (III)
Goal specication
1. This team member helped to set clear goals for
the group in order to complete the groupwork
assignment 0.775 0.221 0.357
2. This team member showed commitment to the
teams goals and what it was trying to achieve 0.650 0.284 0.359
Strategy formulation and planning
3. This team member helped to plan the workload
for the group in order to complete the groupwork
assignment 0.680 0.206 0.562
4. This team member helped to clarify team
standards and expectations of team members in
order to complete the groupwork assignment 0.788 0.302 0.205
5. This team member helped to clarify team
members roles and work allocation in order to
complete the groupwork assignment 0.794 0.259 0.212
6. This team member set tasks for the team and
themselves in order to complete the groupwork
assignment 0.803 0.274 0.227
Team monitoring and back-up
7. This team member helped the team to take time
to reect on progress and decisions made in the
team 0.600 0.241 0.544
8. This team member sought to understand team
members strengths and weaknesses 0.538 0.519 0.538
9. This team member helped to clarify what
different team members were saying in the team 0.444 0.572 0.585
10. This team member helped others to express their
opinions and views in the team 0.616 0.462 0.540
11. This team member provided support and
assistance to other members of the team 0.398 0.279 0.612
12. This team member sought ideas and information
from other members of the team 0.469 0.411 0.384
13. This team member was willing to share
information and ideas with other members of the
team 0.394 0.320 0.477
14. This team member was eager to work with other
team members 0.294 0.383 0.747
15. This team member kept others informed of the
progress they were making and what they were
doing relevant to getting the group assignment
done 0.362 0.398 0.577
16. This team member regularly helped to
summarise the progress the team had made and
what the next steps were 0.289 0.348 0.742
17. This team member helped to keep the team on
track in pursuing its objectives and getting work
done 0.553 0.339 0.650
(continued)
Table I.
Varimax-rotated loadings
on a three-factor solution
of teamwork behaviours
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
17
to student team members in the current study to complete at the end of the team
project.
Data analyses
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 15. Initial tests consisted of
performing conrmatory factor analyses on the team process scales used. Next
Items
Transition
processes (I)
Interpersonal
processes (II)
Action
processes (III)
Co-ordination
18. This team member helped to set timescales for
the group to work within in order to complete the
groupwork assignment 0.732 0.150 0.392
19. This team member helped to set times for when
the team should meet 0.445 0.245 0.467
Conict management
20. This team member helped the team to set ground
rules for how the team would function and work
together 0.562 0.614 0.377
21. This team member helped to bring any problems
the team was experiencing out into the open 0.237 0.567 0.537
22. This team member helped the team to negotiate
any differences or problems that arose. 0.349 0.665 0.155
23. This team member looked for compromise on key
areas of disagreement 0.338 0.690 0.109
24. This team member sought consensus on
decisions within the team 0.491 0.543 0.171
Motivation/condence building
25. This team member provided constructive
feedback to team members contributions. 0.479 0.510 0.439
26. This team member sought to energise others
when team spirit was low. 0.497 0.598 0.126
Affect management
27. This team member helped to create a supportive
team climate 0.336 0.645 0.264
28. This team member helped to maintain good
relations within the team 0.446 0.465 0.337
29. This team member encouraged other team
members to feel part of the team 0.342 0.694 0.318
30. This team member showed respect for different
team members views and opinions in the team 0.550 0.598 0.442
31. This team member was open to criticism and
feedback on their ideas and approach to how the
team should work and accomplish its goals 0.227 0.741 0.324
32. This team member listened attentively to what
others had to say in the team 0.384 0.735 0.296
33. This team member encouraged free and open
communication within the team. 0.375 0.306 0.787
Note: n 308 Table I.
TPM
16,1/2
18
bivariate correlations enabled initial exploration of relationships between variables in
the study. The nal set of analyses involved regressing each of the three sets of team
process behaviours in turn against emotional intelligence measures, collectivist
orientation and the interaction between emotional intelligence and collectivist
orientation. Investigations were undertaken by entering GPA in the rst step, followed
by the four EI branch scores and total EI score in the second step, followed by
collectivist orientation in the third step, and the interaction term in the nal step. The
interaction term was created from combining centred total EI and collectivist scores in
order to minimize the risk of multicollinearity often found in moderator analyses
(Cronbach, 1987).
Results
Initial conrmatory factor analysis of the team process scales showed items loading on
to each factor as expected with the exception of item 12 (Appendix) showing loadings
of 0.41 on the transition scale in addition to loadings of above 0.65 on the expected
action scale. However to maintain theoretical consistency these items were retained.
Reliabilities for each scale were deemed good with Cronbach alpha scores of 0.96, 0.95
and 0.95 for the transition, action and interpersonal process behaviour scales
respectively. Table II summarises the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and
correlations among all the variables used in the study. All four branches of emotional
intelligence show signicant positive correlations between each other supporting the
notion that they are complementary although independent dimensions of an overall
ability construct of emotional intelligence. The ability Perceiving emotions (B1) was
also found to have a signicant and positive association with transition team processes
(r 0:04*). Other signicant, albeit more moderate relationships can be observed
between mental ability (GPA) and both the ability understanding emotions (r 0:25*)
and transition team processes (r 0:25*). Previously the understanding emotions
branch of the MSCEIT has also been found to correlate moderately with verbal
intelligence (Lopes et al., 2003). The signicant but again moderate correlation between
this branch of ability EI and GPA would seem to offer some support as GPA
representing an indicator of general intelligence. It is interesting to note that no
signicant correlations were found between the EI measures used and collectivist
orientation, suggesting that these constructs are rooted in independent cognitive and
personality dimensions respectively. The using emotions to facilitate thinking (B2) and
managing emotions (B4) were also found to have signicant correlations with
Interpersonal team processes (r 0:18*) and (r 0:04*) respectively. Finally, the
three categories of teamwork processes were all signicantly correlated with each
other.
Results from the regression analyses to test the hypothesized relationships are
presented in Table III. After controlling for general mental ability, The Perceiving
Emotions (B1) branch of Emotional Intelligence was signicantly related to Transition
team processes (b 0:79, p , 0:05, DR
2
0:03) offering some partial support for H1.
None of the individual branches of emotional intelligence nor the total EI score were
signicantly related to Action team processes providing no support for H2. The using
emotions to facilitate thinking (B2) branch of emotional intelligence was signicantly
related to interpersonal team processes (b 0:30, p , 0:05, DR
2
0:06) as was the
managing emotions (B4) branch of emotional intelligence (b 0:44, p , 0:05,
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
19
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
M
e
a
n
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
.
G
P
A
5
9
.
1
2
5
.
7
2
.
P
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
(
B
1
)
9
0
.
5
0
1
6
.
2
3
2
0
.
0
1
3
.
U
s
i
n
g
(
B
2
)
9
0
.
6
3
1
8
.
7
3
0
.
1
0
0
.
6
1
*
*
4
.
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
(
B
3
)
8
6
.
7
6
1
5
.
9
8
0
.
2
5
*
0
.
3
6
*
*
0
.
5
0
*
*
5
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
(
B
4
)
8
8
.
7
1
1
5
.
3
8
0
.
1
9
0
.
3
3
*
*
0
.
4
9
*
*
0
.
4
6
*
*
6
.
T
o
t
a
l
E
I
8
4
.
2
7
1
7
.
7
3
0
.
1
4
0
.
8
0
*
*
0
.
7
9
*
*
0
.
7
3
*
*
.
6
9
*
*
7
.
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
5
.
2
5
0
.
9
6
2
0
.
1
7
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
1
2
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
0
2
0
.
0
1
8
.
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
1
0
.
9
0
0
.
2
5
*
0
.
0
4
*
2
0
.
1
1
0
.
0
8
2
0
.
0
4
2
0
.
0
7
0
.
1
0

9
.
A
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
4
0
.
9
4
0
.
1
7
2
0
.
0
7
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
3
2
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
7
0
.
8
0
*
*
1
0
.
I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
5
.
4
6
0
.
9
5
2
0
.
0
3
2
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
8
*
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
4
*
2
0
.
0
7
0
.
0
8
0
.
7
9
*
*
0
.
6
3
*
*
N
o
t
e
s
:
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
;
*
*
p
,
0
.
0
1
;
C
r
o
n
b
a
c
h

s
a
l
p
h
a
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
o
n
d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
w
h
e
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
;
n

6
8
Table II.
Means, standard
deviations, Cronbachs
alphas, and
intercorrelations among
variables
TPM
16,1/2
20
A
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
b
R
2
D
R
2
F
b
R
2
D
R
2
F
b
R
2
D
R
2
F
S
t
e
p
1
G
P
A
0
.
2
9
0
.
4
3
*
*
0
.
0
6
2
0
.
0
1
S
t
e
p
2
P
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
B
1
)
0
.
5
4
0
.
7
9
*
*
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
3
2
.
5
1
*
0
.
1
2
U
s
e
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
B
2
)
2
0
.
0
6
2
0
.
0
7
0
.
3
0
*
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
6
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
B
3
)
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
1
2
M
a
n
a
g
e
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
B
4
)
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
1
0
.
4
4
*
T
o
t
a
l
E
I
*
1
.
1
6
*
1
.
3
5
0
.
1
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
2
5
.
6
4
*
S
t
e
p
3
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
0
S
t
e
p
4
T
o
t
a
l
E
I

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
.
1
3
1
.
0
3
n
s
2
0
.
2
2
2
0
.
1
0
N
o
t
e
s
:
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
s
e
d
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
u
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
;
R
2
i
s
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
;
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
;
*
*
p
,
0
.
0
1
;
n

6
8
Table III.
Results of hierarchical
regression analysis of
teamwork processes
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
21
DR
2
0:02) providing partial support for H3. Contrary to expectations, there were no
interaction effects found between collectivist orientation and emotional intelligence
and any of the sets of team processes studied, providing no support for H4.
Discussion
Emotional intelligence was found to explain direct and unique variance in two of the sets
of team processes considered to play an important role in team effectiveness, those
identied as Transition and Interpersonal team processes. However only three
individual branches of EI were found to be of any signicance, and these differed in each
instance. Emotional abilities in the four-ability model are thought to be temporally
ordered. This suggests that relationships between particular emotional ability branches
and differential behaviours are generally more likely to be found for those emotional
abilities that are more temporally antecedent in underpinning the behaviour in question
(Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). In relation to Transition processes, a positive
association was found onlyfor the emotional ability, PerceivingEmotions inOneself and
Others. This is consistent with previous empirical research that has found positive and
signicant relationships between team level measures of ability EI and goal focus
(Jordan et al., 2002). It is also theoretically consistent with the view that the use of
emotional information can contribute to better cognitive analysis of the issues and
subsequent prioritisation of planning and tasks that the team faces (Salovey et al., 2000;
Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Zajonc, 1998). The failure to nd any signicant relationships
between transition processes and the other EI abilities, suggests that this particular
emotional ability is the most important in contributing to team behaviours that are
associated with this phase of team activity. An individuals ability to perceive and
accurately appraise emotions is the most signicant in enabling them to subsequently
use and act on this emotional knowledge. It is their active recognition and then
consideration of their own and others emotional states in the team, that then contributes
to higher quality goal setting and task planning. It suggests that those team members
with greater levels of sensory awareness are able to engage far more effectively in those
team behaviours such as setting tasks and timescales that are associated with how the
team task is to be achieved. Although general mental ability was also found to be
important during this phase of teamactivity, the ability to perceive emotions accounted
for an additional 3 per cent in variance to how well team members engaged in the
necessary team behaviours associated with this aspect of team effectiveness.
The two emotional abilities, Using emotions to facilitate thinking and Managing
emotions in oneself and others, were found to be the most signicant in supporting
team members to engage in interpersonal teamprocesses. These together accounted for
8 per cent of variance, whilst general mental ability was not found to be signicant.
This suggests that these different emotional abilities can help explain differences in the
extent to which team members engage in interpersonal team processes that contribute
to this particular aspect of team effectiveness. Given previous ndings that have found
relationships between EI ability measures and managing conict (Ayoko et al., 2008;
Jordan and Troth, 2004), and theoretical arguments relating to the contribution of these
emotional abilities in supporting a positive team climate (Koman and Wolff, 2008),
these ndings are again consistent with the literature.
The failure to nd any signicant relationships between any of the emotional
intelligence abilities and action team processes was unexpected. Previous theoretical
TPM
16,1/2
22
arguments put forward earlier would suggest that emotional abilities might be
expected to contribute to individuals undertaking more effective monitoring and
performing team back up behaviours. There are a number of potential explanations for
this. Firstly, is seems likely that the range of teamwork behaviours that were
categorised under this team process are not all inuenced by emotional intelligence
abilities. For example, keeping team members informed of progress and checking
performance against targets might require environmental and team scanning abilities
that are not dependent signicantly on being able to use emotional information. By
contrast, offering support and assistance to team members when needed and
encouraging open communication, may depend far more on the use of emotional
information. Grouping these different behaviours together as part of an overall
measure of team action processes, may therefore have confounded the possibility of
demonstrating any signicant relationships here. However leaving measurement
issues aside, it may well be that the relationship between EI abilities and transition
processes could be moderated by other factors.
Devine (2002) proposed a taxonomy of teams suggesting that the determinants of
team effectiveness are likely to vary dependent upon team type. Team type is
inuenced by seven specic context variables including the fundamental work cycle,
temporal duration and task structure of teams. The teams examined here can be
categorised as commissions (special projects) according to Devines classication. This
recognises that the team only exists for the duration of a particular mission. Typically
these teams worked within a brief work cycle where there was far less opportunity for
team members to engage in transition behaviours. There was also limited expectation
that team members will necessarily work together, again minimizing future
opportunities for exchange or reciprocity (Blau, 1964). The investment in the task
outcome is also likely to differ signicantly compared to other workplace teams (Higgs
et al., 2005). Such conditions could potentially moderate any EI effects in relation to
transition team processes. It might also be the case that team level rather than
individual level effects are more likely to be found here. Previously Day and Carroll
(2004) similarly found no relationships between EI abilities using the MSCEIT and
group citizenship behaviours (behaviours that might be seen as constituting part of
team transition behaviours) although did nd team level effects. Similarly, Bell (2007)
found stronger effects for team level deep level characteristics (such as personality and
values) and team performance, then individual level characteristics. This would
suggest then, that there is a need to examine relationships between EI abilities and
these three sets of team processes at both individual and team levels in future studies.
The failure to nd any interaction effects between Emotional Intelligence and
Collectivist Orientation was also unexpected. Previously Rode et al. (2007)
demonstrated interaction effects between the personality trait of conscientiousness
and total EI ability scores in their study of interpersonal skills. Since collectivist
orientation has been shown to be related to motivational factors for teamwork,
interaction effects might well be expected. A possible explanation for these ndings
may be due to collectivist orientation referring to a general, context free, orientation
toward working in groups rather than an affective reaction to a particular team. The
measures of team processes used in this study, captured individual behaviours as they
related to a specic team experience, and assessed as such by team colleagues.
Elsewhere Alavi and McCormick (2004) have commented on the limitations associated
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
23
with the operationalisation of the collectivism construct in measures such as that used
here. In particular, as failing to recognise the multidimensionality of construct, and that
collectivism may be conditional on the team context. They argue that team members
beliefs regarding their independence from and with team mates, will exert signicant
effects irrespective of the need to work interdependently. Further that team members
collective orientation will also differ depending upon whether they have joined a group
voluntarily or been compelled to do so. Given that the measure used here was both
context free and collected just prior to individuals joining very heterogeneous teams,
collectivistic orientation may not have been satisfactorily captured.
Implications and future research
These ndings add to the growing body of literature suggesting emotional intelligence
may be an important aspect of individual difference amongst team members that can
contribute to team effectiveness. The study has shown particular emotional abilities to
be associated with two categories of team processes. Those associated with transition
and interpersonal team processes, but not action team processes. The ndings suggest
that the relationship between emotional intelligence and team effectiveness is not
nearly as straightforward as some authors might suggest (Prati et al., 2003). First, an
ability to perceive emotions was found to be the most signicant aspect of emotional
intelligence that contributes to team processes during the teams transition phase. By
contrast, the emotional abilities, using emotions to facilitate thinking and managing
emotions, are those, which contribute to team members performing behaviours that
are necessary for team interpersonal processes. How effective a team is, depends upon
how well team members are able to perform behaviours associated with particular
processes during different phases of team activity. To the extent that these phases
represent distinct temporal cycles of activity, individuals with more developed
emotional abilities in these areas are likely to make a more signicant contribution at
these times. This may have signicant implications for assisting team leaders with the
allocation of roles and responsibilities within a team.
Instruments such as the MSCEIT, that assess each of these emotional abilities can
identify those teammembers who may showstrengths in particular emotional abilities.
Individuals who demonstrate particularly high levels of sensory awareness associated
with perceiving emotions may be drawn upon to play more signicant roles during
times in which the team is in a transition stage with its focus on goal setting and task
planning. By contrast, individuals who show more developed abilities in managing
emotions might be deployed to play more signicant roles to support the teams
interpersonal team processes. The ndings also suggest that team leaders can consider
more targeted developmental activities that focus on specic emotional abilities. To
date, there remains limited empirical evidence supporting the actual development of
emotional abilities through for example training activities (Clarke, 2006a). There
remain a number of problems in determining the best ways in which these emotional
abilities may be improved, not least concerning the appropriate design and duration of
any intervention. However there is evidence for example that individuals abilities in
perceiving emotions can improve through training (Elfenbein, 2006). Team-based
learning interventions undertaken in the workplace may also help individuals to use
their emotions more effectively to inform their thinking (Clarke, 2006b; Clarke, in press;
Moriarty and Buckley, 2003). A better understanding of the differential roles that
TPM
16,1/2
24
emotional abilities play in performing necessary team processes thus enables more
efcient and targeted interventions to be developed.
The ndings here also have implications for future research. First, the study has
shown that blanket assertions regarding the signicance of emotional intelligence for
team effectiveness are far too simplistic. We need to develop more sophisticated
frameworks regarding how EI relates to specic cognitive, verbal and behavioural
teamwork activities. This then can help us better to understand when EI may be more
important in differing phases of team activity. Studies that examine relationships
between emotional intelligence and composite measures of team effectiveness, may
well miss important relationships if there is not sufcient attention paid to the
relevance of different team phases at different times. Team effectiveness measures that
for example, overly capture team action behaviours, may fail to show any signicant
relationships. More studies are now needed that seek to explore the relationships
between these EI abilities and sets of team processes within differing team contexts.
The ndings here suggest that the inuence of EI during team transition phases may
be moderated by other variables. Where individuals have a greater stake in team
outcomes, or where there are far longer work cycles or team durations, EI abilities may
exert more signicant effects on team action processes. Future studies should seek to
identify how differing team conditions inuence the salience of emotional intelligence
for performing team behaviours associated with differing team phases of activity. In
particular the moderating effects of team task, team tenure and work cycle patterns
would appear major points of focus. Given that positive relationships are found
between particular EI abilities and team process behaviours at differing phases of team
activity at the individual level, the possibility of mean levels of such abilities exerting
more pronounced effects on these processes at the team level should also be
investigated.
Limitations
Although as an aspect of individual difference it is intuitive to consider that differences
in emotional abilities may account for variations in particular teamwork behaviours
associated with team processes, it is possible that prociency in such teamwork
behaviours might lead to these emotional abilities becoming better developed. Studies
that seek to examine how these teamwork behaviours vary with emotional intelligence
over time, would therefore provide clearer insights into the direction of causality here.
The relatively small sample size also means that the statistical power of tests may have
been affected. However the study does show that signicant effects can be found even
in smaller team populations. Nevertheless, the size of the sample precluded a wider
spread of EI scores, which here tended to be concentrated towards the lower end of the
range. This is likely to have inuenced the size of effects found. Furthermore it is
always problematic in attempting to generalise to wider team settings when using
student samples. However the development of a specic measure of teamwork
behaviours derived from student work groups was an attempt in part to isolate those
teamwork behaviours that are particularly relevant for the domain of team processes
considered relevant to the performance of the specic team task required. In so doing,
the study generated a more bounded set of team behaviours from which to test
relationships with emotional intelligence abilities. To the extent that other teams share
similar characteristics, most notably where individual team members come together
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
25
naturally (team members randomly assigned) and are self-organised to work on a
complex and meaningful task (an assessed team produced research-based report)
within a nite period (14 weeks) then the ndings here have greater external validity.
It should also be noted that in order to minimise common method bias, measures
were taken at different time points and from multiple sources. Emotional intelligence
measures were taken from individuals at the beginning of the 14-week team project
alongside measures of collectivist orientation. Teamwork behaviour measures by
contrast, were taken at the end of this period from team member ratings. The use of
peer report measures of teamwork behaviours attempted to overcome the biases
sometimes found with self-report measures. However they still may suffer limitations
through likeability, similarity or negative affect biases (Spector, 1994). The fact that all
team members were providing ratings on each other, might also have inuenced
individuals to give inated ratings. The use of more objective measures of teamwork
behaviours such as through expert ratings of observations of teamwork would
improve the validity of teamwork behaviour measures in future studies. In addition,
although the study did control for general mental ability, increasing research showing
relationships between personality dispositions and teamwork suggests that future
studies should attempt to include personality measures in order to more clearly
identify the additional variation in teamwork behaviours attributed to emotional
intelligence. It should also be noted that whilst using GPA scores as a measure of
general mental ability has some support in the literature, these scores tap a much more
narrow range of general mental ability such that the full range of mental ability will
not have been completely controlled for. Finally, it should be noted that although not
extensive, the studys sample was nonetheless very culturally diverse. As yet our
understanding of the inuence culture may have on EI is very limited, although a few
studies to date certainly suggest cultural differences in for example how individuals
may manage their emotions in similar situations (see for example Clarke and Salleh, in
press). Elsewhere it has also been suggested that the instrument used here to measure
EI may have a Western cultural bias (Salleh, 2009). It is possible then that cultural
factors may have inuenced the scores obtained for EI in this study and therefore the
signicant relationships with team processes that were observed.
Conclusions
Previous studies examining relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and
team effectiveness dimensions have found mixed results. Identifying how emotional
intelligence is associated with specic team processes associated with differing phases
of team activity can help us to identify more clearly the boundary conditions under
which EI might operate. This study found different emotional abilities to have direct
relationships with both transition and interpersonal team processes. Emotional
intelligence abilities were not however associated with action team processes.
Particularly signicant is the key nding that emotional intelligence abilities account
for greater variation in interpersonal team processes than any other team process.
Although intuitively common sense, this is the rst study that has demonstrated this
empirically. It suggests that emotional intelligence is likely to be of far more
importance in those teams where interpersonal team processes are far more
paramount. From a theoretical perspective the ndings here support the argument
advanced earlier for a more considered analysis of the role EI may play in teams.
TPM
16,1/2
26
Whilst on a practical level the results suggest that the selection of team members based
on their strengths in particular emotional abilities, could offer a more targeted means
for achieving increased effectiveness in teams during differing phases of team activity.
Future research should now begin to examine how differing team context factors may
moderate the relationships found here. Important avenues to explore include how and
if cultural differences inuence the signicance of emotional intelligence for differing
team processes, as well as how differing types of teams (eg product development
versus production) may place greater emphasis on those team processes where EI
appears signicant. Other studies seeking to examine team processes might also
generate further validation data in relation to the team process scales developed here.
References
Alavi, S. and McCormick, J. (2004), Theoretical and measurement issues for studies of collective
orientation in team contexts, Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 111-27.
Arrindell, W.A. and Van der Ende, J. (1985), An empirical test of the utility of the observation to
variables ratio in factor and components analysis, Applied Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 165-78.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1993), Personal attributes as predictors of superiors and
subordinates perceptions of military academy leadership, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 5,
pp. 645-68.
Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hartel, C.E.J. (2008), The inuence of emotional intelligence climate
on conict and team members reactions to conict, Small Group Research, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 121-49.
Bar-On, R. (1997), Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical Manual, Multi-Health
Systems, Toronto.
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. and Tice, D.M. (1994), Losing Control: How and Why People
Fail at Self Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Bell, S.T. (2007), Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance:
a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 595-615.
Beyerlein, M. (Ed.) (2000), Work Teams: Past, Present and Future, Kluwer Academic, Boston,
MA.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyzatis, R.E. and Goleman, D. (2002), The Emotional Competence Inventory, The Hay Group,
Boston, MA.
Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003), Convergent, discriminate and incremental validity of
competing measures of emotional intelligence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 147-1158.
Brackett, M.A., Mayer, J.D. and Warner, R.M. (2004), Emotional intelligence and its relation to
everyday behaviour, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1387-402.
Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N. and Salovey, P. (2006), Relating emotional
abilities to social functioning: a comparison of performance and self-report measures of
emotional intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4,
pp. 780-95.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from
the shop oor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90.
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
27
Clarke, N. (2006a), Emotional intelligence training: a case of caveat emptor, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Clarke, N. (2006b), Developing emotional intelligence through workplace learning: ndings from
a case study in healthcare, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 447-65.
Clarke, N. (in press), The impact of a training programme designed to target the emotional
intelligence abilities of project managers, International Journal of Project Management.
Clarke, N. and Salleh, M. (in press), Emotions and their management during a merger in Brunei:
the impact of national culture, International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Cronbach, L. (1987), Statistical tests for moderator variables: aw in analysis recently
proposed, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 415-7.
Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.S. (2004), Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to
predict individual performance, group performance and group citizenship behaviours,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1443-58.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Boles, T. (1998), Share and share alike or winner takes all? The inuence
for social value orientation on the choice and recall of heuristics in negotiation,
Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 253-76.
Devine, D.J. (2002), A review and integration of classication systems relevant to teams in
organisations, Group Dynamics, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 291-310.
Driskell, J.E. and Salas, E. (1992), Collective behaviour and team performance, Human Factors,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 277-88.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M.J. and Slaski, M. (2003), Emotional intelligence: content, construct and
concurrent validity, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 405-20.
Eby, L.T. and Dobbins, G.H. (1997), Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and
group-level analysis, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 275-95.
Edmondson, A. (1999), Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-83.
Elfenbein, H.A. (2006), Learning in emotion judgements: training and the cross-cultural
understanding of facial expressions, Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 21-36.
Feyerherm, A.E. and Rice, C.L. (2002), Emotional intelligence and team performance: the good,
the bad and the ugly, The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 343-62.
George, J.M. (2000), Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-55.
Guzzo, R.A. and Dickson, M.W. (1996), Teams in organisations: recent research on performance
and effectiveness, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 307-38.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Hartel, C.E.J., Gough, H. and Hartel, G.F. (2006), Service providers use of emotional
competencies and perceived workgroup emotional climate to predict customer and
provider satisfaction with service encounters, International Journal of Work Organisation
and Emotion, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 232-54.
Higgs, M.J., Pewina, U. and Ploch, J. (2005), Inuence of team composition and task complexity
on team performance, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11
Nos 7/8, pp. 227-50.
TPM
16,1/2
28
Jordan, P.J. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2006), Emotional intelligence, emotional self-awareness and
team effectiveness, in Druskat, V.U., Sala, F. and Mount, G. (Eds), Linking Emotional
Intelligence and Performance at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 145-64.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2004), Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotional
intelligence and conict resolution, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-218.
Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J. and Hooper, G.S. (2002), Workgroup emotional
intelligence scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal
focus, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-214.
Kellett, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. and Sleeth, R.G. (2002), Empathy and complex task performance:
two routes to leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 523-44.
Kline, T.J.B. (1999), The team player inventory: reliability and validity of a measure of
predisposition toward organisational team-working environments, Journal of Specialists
in Group Work, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 102-12.
Koman, E.S. and Wolff, S.B. (2008), Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team
leader, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Kuncel, N.R., Hezlett, S.A. and Ones, D.S. (2004), Academic performance, career potential,
creativity and job performance: can one construct predict them all?, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 148-61.
Larkey, L.K. (1996), Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 463-91.
Llarda, E. and Findlay, B.M. (2006), Emotional intelligence and propensity to be a teamplayer,
E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Emotional Intelligence, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 19-29.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Strauss, R. (2003), Emotional intelligence, personality and the
perceived quality of social relationships, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 641-58.
Lopes, P.N., Brackett, M.A., Nezlek, J.B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I. and Salovey, P. (2004), Emotional
intelligence and social interaction, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30 No. 8,
pp. 1018-34.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
co-operation in organisations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-76.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (1997), Emotional IQ Test, (CD ROM), Virtual
Knowledge, Needham, MA.
Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D. and Barsade, S.G. (2008), Human abilities: emotional intelligence,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 507-36.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2002), Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT), Multi Health Systems, Toronto.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2004), Emotional intelligence: theory, ndings and
implications, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 197-215.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. and Sitarenios, G. (2001), Emotional intelligence as a
standard intelligence, Emotion, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 232-42.
Moriarty, P. and Buckley, F. (2003), Increasing team emotional intelligence through process,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 98-110.
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
29
Mueller, J.S. and Curhan, J.R. (2006), Emotional intelligence and counterpart affect induction in a
negotiation, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 110-28.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
OConnor, R.M. and Little, I.S. (2003), Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence:
self-report versus ability-based measures, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35
No. 8, pp. 1893-902.
Offerman, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Seal, C. and Sass, M. (2004), The relative
contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and team
performance, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219-43.
Palmer, B.R. and Stough, C. (2001), Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test: Interim
Technical Manual, Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Hawthorn.
Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2001), Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation
with reference to established trait taxonomies, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15
No. 6, pp. 425-48.
Petrides, K.V., Furnham, A. and Frederickson, N. (2004), Emotional intelligence,
The Psychologist, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 574-7.
Prati, L.M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G.R., Ammeter, A.P. and Buckley, M.R. (2003), Emotional
intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes, International Journal of
Organisational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Rapisarda, B.A. (2002), The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and
performance, International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-80.
Ree, M.J. and Earles, J.A. (1992), Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance, Current
Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 86-9.
Rode, J.C., Mooney, C.H., Arthaud-Day, M.L., Near, J.P., Baldwin, T.T., Rubin, R.S. and Bommer,
W.H. (2007), Emotional intelligence and individual performance: evidence of direct and
moderated effects, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 399-421.
Salleh, M. (2009), Emotions and emotional intelligence during merger, unpublished doctoral
thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, imagination, Cognition and
Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B.T., Detweiler, J.B. and Mayer, J.D. (2000), Current directions in emotional
intelligence research, in Lewis, M. and Haviland-Jones, J.M. (Eds), Handbook of Emotions,
2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 504-22.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1992), Causal modeling of processes determining job
performance, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 89-92.
Shamir, B. (1990), Calculations, values and entities: the sources of collectivistic work
motivation, Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 313-32.
Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.E. (1999), Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance: the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions,
Group and Organisation Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-90.
Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a
controversial method, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.
Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1999), Stafng work teams: development and validation of a
selection test for teamwork settings, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 207-28.
TPM
16,1/2
30
Sy, T. and Cote, S. (2004), Emotional intelligence: a key ability to succeed in the matrix
organisation, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 437-55.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R. and Saha, S. (1999), Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:
antecedents and outcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 899-926.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I. and Nikolaou, I. (2004), The role of emotional intelligence and
personality variables on attitudes towards organisational change, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 88-110.
Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004), Emotional intelligence: a meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and nomological net, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 71-95.
Wagner, J.A. and Moch, M.K. (1986), Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure, Group
and Organisation Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 280-303.
Weinberger, L.A. (2002), Emotional intelligence: its connection to HRD theory and practice,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 215-43.
Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druskat, V. (2002), Emotional intelligence as the basis of
leadership emergence in self managing teams, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 505-22.
Wolff, S.B., Druskat, V.U., Koman, E.S. and Messer, T.E. (2006), The link between group
emotional competence and group effectiveness, in Drusksat, V.U., Sala, F. and Mount, G.
(Eds), Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 223-42.
Zajonc, R.B. (1998), Emotions, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook
of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 1, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, pp. 591-632.
Further reading
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 823-50.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), Is there a big ve in teamwork?, Small Group
Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 555-99.
Appendix. Teamwork process behavioural scale items
Transition process items
.
This team member helped to set clear goals for the group in order to complete the
groupwork assignment.
.
This team member showed commitment to the teams goals and what it was trying to
achieve.
.
This team member helped to clarify team standards and expectations of team members in
order to complete the groupwork assignment.
.
This team member helped to clarify team members roles and work allocation in order to
complete the groupwork assignment.
.
This team member set tasks for the team and themselves in order to complete the
groupwork assignment.
.
This team member helped to set timescales for the group to work within in order to
complete the groupwork assignment.
Emotional
intelligence and
team processes
31
Action processes
.
This team member provided support and assistance to other members of the team.
.
This team member was willing to share information and ideas with other members of the
team.
.
This team member was eager to work with other team members.
.
This team member kept others informed of the progress they were making and what they
were doing relevant to getting the group assignment done.
.
This team member regularly helped to summarise the progress the team had made and
what the next steps were.
.
This team member encouraged free and open communication within the team.
Interpersonal processes
.
This team member helped the team to negotiate and differences or problems that arose.
.
This team member looked for compromise on key areas of disagreement.
.
This team member helped to create a supportive team climate.
.
This team member encouraged other team members to feel part of the team.
.
This team member was open to criticism and feedback on their ideas and approach to how
the team should work and accomplish its goals.
.
This team member listened attentively to what others had to say in the team.
About the author
Nicholas Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at the University of
Southampton School of Management where he teaches and researches in the areas of workplace
learning and emotional intelligence, particularly in the context of teams and teamwork.
Previously he has occupied both practitioner and managerial roles within health and social care
organisations. Nicholas Clarke can be contacted at: n.r.clarke@soton.ac.uk
TPM
16,1/2
32
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints