Copyright eContent Management Pty Ltd. Journal of Management & Organization (2009) 15: 452469.

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
P ETER J J ORDAN
Centre for Work Organization and Wellbeing, Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Australia

Emotional intelligence in teams:

S ANDRA A L AWRENCE Centre for Work Organization and Wellbeing, Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Australia ABSTRACT
Research reveals that emotional intelligence is an important factor in predicting performance in teams. In this article, we initially outline a theoretical model for examining emotional intelligence in teams. Using this model, we test a short version (16 items) of the self-report Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP). Evidence from three studies supports this model. Two samples of 620 and 217 employees support the hypothesized structure of the WEIP-S. Four distinct constructs were derived: Awareness of own emotions; Management of own emotions; Awareness of others emotions; and Management of others emotions. The WEIP-Short Version (WEIP-S) scale, therefore, is based on abilities that are vital during the interaction of team members. Data from 99 employees provide evidence of testretest stability for the WEIP-S across three time periods. Limitations and potential uses in management research for this short-version scale are discussed.
Keywords: emotions; emotional intelligence; emotional awareness, emotional management, teams; measurement

he importance of emotions in work settings has been established (Ashforth & Humphrey 1995; Jordan & Troth 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano 1996). Emotional intelligence, a multi-dimensional construct that links emotion and cognition with the aim of improving human interactions (Mayer & Salovey 1997), has been linked to improved workplace behaviour (Aritzeta, Swailes & Senior 2007) and in particular team behaviour (Druskat

& Wolff 2001) and team performance (Jordan & Troth 2004). Mayer and Salovey (1997) developed a model of emotional intelligence as a set of emotion processing abilities that together contribute to improving social interactions. The four related emotion processing abilities are a) awareness of own and others emotion, b) emotional facilitation, c) emotional understanding and d) management of own and others emotions (Mayer
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

452

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

& Salovey 1997). While other models of emotional intelligence vary from this construct (e.g. Cooper & Sawaf 1997; Goleman 1995), the common point they share is a focus on emotional awareness and emotional management as core abilities. Given that emotion plays a prominent role in the workplace (Ashforth & Humphrey 1995; Ashkanasy 2003) and that possessing emotional intelligence is an advantage in a context often requiring interpersonal communication (Ashkanasy, Hartel & Zerbe 2000; Kelly & Barsade 2001), it is surprising to find that few measures of emotional intelligence examine contextually specific abilities used by employees in the workplace (Jordan, Ashton-James & Ashkanasy 2006). Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004), in their meta-analysis of the research evidence on emotional intelligence, note that the construct is in the early stage of construct development and measurement, and identify the need for more refined measures. Additionally, we argue that to maximise response rates and survey completions in organisational surveys, workplace-relevant measures of emotional intelligence should be valid, but as short as possible to minimize disruption to employees. In this article, we examine both the theoretical need for, and assessment of, a parsimonious model of emotional intelligence in work teams. Our aim is to produce a theoretically driven and psychometrically sound short measure that is indicative of behaviours that constitute emotional intelligence in a team setting and hope that this measure will enhance future research between EI and behaviour/performance in teams. Initially, we outline a theoretical model for examining emotional intelligence in teams and review existing workplace-relevant measures of emotional intelligence. Using this model, we then develop and test a short-version (16 items) of the self-report Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP) on work-based samples in three studies. We conclude the article by examining the limitations and potential uses in management research for this short-version scale.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ABILITIES IN WORK TEAMS

The comprehensive theoretical framework developed by Tannenbaum, Beard and Salas (1992) contends that team performance (i.e. quality, quantity, outputs) is influenced by team input characteristics (individual characteristics, work structure, team characteristics, task characteristics), team processes and organizational and situational characteristics. Using Tannenbaum et al.s (1992) team effectiveness framework, our article develops a theoretical model and argues that emotional intelligence is a team input characteristic. Emotional intelligence comprises four abilities, emotional awareness (own and others), emotional management (own and others), emotional understanding (understanding emotional cycles and progressions) and emotional facilitation (generating emotions) (Mayer & Salovey 1997). Mooney, Holahan and Amason (2007) argue that emotional interaction is essential at a group level to enhance relationships in those groups. In terms of understanding how emotional intelligence works in teams, we focus on abilities relating to dealing with your own emotions and abilities relating to dealing with other peoples emotions (see Figure 1). In both the theoretical development of emotional intelligence (George 2000; Mayer & Salovey 1997) and in empirical studies (e.g. Jordan & Troth 2004), researchers have indicated that it is important to distinguish between abilities related to dealing with self (own emotions) and abilities relating to how we deal with others (others emotions). Previous research has shown clear differential effects for the focus on own and others emotions (see Jordan & Troth 2004). The abilities relating to own emotions involve intra-personal abilities including emotional self-awareness, while the abilities relating to deal with others draws on interpersonal abilities such as communication abilities and conflict resolution abilities (Gardner 1983).
453

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

Emotional Awareness Self Focus of Attention Others Awareness of Own Emotions

Abilities

Emotional Management Management of Own Emotions

Awareness of Others Emotions

Management of Others Emotions

F IGURE 1: A

MODEL OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ABILITIES IN TEAMS

Emotional awareness and emotional management abilities have important consequences for performance within teams, helping to maintain effective and appropriate relationships with fellow workers (Jordan & Troth 2004), contributing to better information exchange and decision-making in teams (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin 1999) and facilitating functional conflict resolution, rather than dysfunctional conflict resolution in teams (Jehn & Mannix 2001; Jordan & Troth 2004). In the next section, we examine these abilities in more detail to reveal how each contributes to better performance within a team context. We simultaneously reveal potential methods for measuring these abilities through self report by asking respondents to reflect on their behaviour in teams, rather than on their general preferences or attitudes.

dence has emerged which demonstrates a link between emotional self awareness and the ability to respond to emotional cues (Lane, Reiman, Axelrod, Yun, Holmes & Schwartz 1998) Emotional self-awareness has been identified as contributing to leadership effectiveness (Sosik & Megerian 1999) and predicting team performance (Jordan & Ashkanasy 2006). Silvia (2002) has demonstrated that high emotional self-awareness acts as a damper on individuals experience of intense emotions, no matter whether these are positive emotions or negative emotions. In other words, those individuals with high emotional self-awareness will experience more moderate emotional reactions in response to intense emotion triggering situations and, therefore, can communicate more effectively with their team members (Wolff, Pescosolido & Druskat 2002).

Awareness of own emotions

Awareness of own emotions involves being in touch with our moment-to-moment feelings. Awareness of own emotions is often revealed in an individuals ability to discuss and disclose the emotions they are experiencing (Pennebaker & Francis 1996). We contend that emotional awareness can be measured by asking respondents to reflect on the extent to which they are able to discuss and disclose their emotions. Research evi454

Management of own emotions

The management of own emotions involves an individuals ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Mayer & Salovey 1997). This has often been manifested in the individuals ability to hold back on immediate reactions and delay judgements and then to express them in a more considered manner. The advice to think and then act and admonishments to count to 10 before
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

replying and listening techniques such as pause, breathe and relax then respond are all attempts at managing emotions by expressing feelings and thoughts in an appropriate way when communicating. Researchers have shown a clear link between the experience of intense emotion and lowered cognitive functioning (Drevets & Raichle 1998). On this basis, delaying immediate responses is a clear indication of emotional management ability and we contend that asking respondents to reflect on their behaviour in delaying emotional reactions and forming more considered responses (including emotional content) is a method of measuring emotional self-management. Emotional self-management has been identified as an important ability for employees. The expression of emotions in the workplace is a stress-relieving action (Folkman & Lazarus 1988) and is appropriate if the expression of emotion does not affect relationships. Mumby and Putnam (1992) argue that the expression of emotion is only productive if emotional expression is constrained to protect relationships. In teams, emerging situations such as differences over values or goals, frustrations with problems, short timeframes for task performance, or the entry of new members into the group, evoke emotions that need controlling (Weiss & Cropanzano 1996). Mischel and DeSmet (2000) note that self-regulation is an important ability in resolving conflict. We argue that the self-regulation of emotions contributes to better team performance. For instance, a team member who expresses anger or frustration at another employee may jeopardize future working relationships (Mumby & Putnam 1992). Indeed, Jordan and Troth (2004) demonstrated that emotional selfmanagement was a key predictor of team performance for a short-term problem solving exercise.

skill is most commonly manifested in peoples ability to read faces and body language. While Ekman (1971) argues that emotion is most accurately read by examining the face, de Meijer (1989) contends that the use of body language provides accurate information for assessing emotions. We argue that asking a respondent to reflect on their ability to read faces and body language is a method for measuring the awareness of others emotions. Extensive research has been conducted on reading facial expressions (Ekman 1971; Izard, Wehmer, Livsey & Jennings 1965) and body language (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero 2003) with a view to improving interpersonal interactions. Recognizing and analysing the sequence of emotions that emerge from ones perceptions is an important tool in overcoming negative responses to emotions (Mischel & DeSmet 2000). In order to address negative emotions, one first needs to be able to accurately read the emotion and distinguish between emotions to effectively respond to the emotion expressed (Jordan, Lawrence & Troth 2006). Elfenbein, Polzer and Ambady (2007) found that the ability of a team to recognize teammates emotions significantly influenced team performance as measured by the goal achievement of the teams and team cohesiveness approximately one year later.

Management of others emotions

A more controversial ability in teams is the ability to manage other team members emotions. In some circumstances, emotions of other team members need to be managed to ensure that working relationships are maintained. For instance, immediately responding to an anger episode from a fellow employ can result in retaliation which may exacerbate the situation. On the other hand, managing this emotion by allowing the employee to vent and release the anger and then calming them down to discuss the situation can result in a resolution of the anger episode. Research has shown that employees who manage anger episodes in the workplace have a positive
455

Awareness of others emotions

Recognizing emotional displays by others and detecting false expressions of emotion is a fundamental ability involved in successfully dealing with other people (Mayer & Salovey 1997). This

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

impact on relationships in that workplace (Fitness 2000). Encouraging positive emotions such as enthusiasm may result in positive emotional contagion amongst workers, which, in turn, increases the positive interactions between team members (Barsade 2002) and has implications for motivation (Christie, Jordan, Troth & Lawrence 2007). We argue that a way of measuring the ability to manage others emotions is to ask respondents to reflect on their behaviour in creating a positive environment and their ability to use emotional contagion to encourage the teams with whom they work (Kelly & Barsade 2001).

Summary
In summary, we expect that individuals who have better emotional awareness and emotional management abilities will be more effective contributing to their teams (Druskat & Wolff 2001), through their improved ability to communicate with their fellow team members and their ability to ensure an effective emotional tone appropriate to the work that needs to be completed. To achieve this effective emotional tone, the individuals need to focus both on themselves (own emotions) and on reacting effectively with their fellow team members (others emotions). In the next section we outline how this model can be measured using self report.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN WORK TEAMS

MEASURING

The rationale for developing a short measure of emotional intelligence in teams is based on theoretical and practical grounds. From a theoretical perspective, a short measure simplifies the understanding of the emotional intelligence abilities that can be useful in teams into a two by two explanatory framework (focus of attention: own, others; and ability: awareness, management) and conforms to the theoretical framework of team effectiveness developed by Tannenbaum et al. (1992). Researchers argue the need for both parsimonious theory and measures (Morrell 2004). In considering the practical issues around survey administration, both researchers and practitioners are constantly looking for shorter, more parsimonious measures. The length of these questionnaires, in particular, enhances the risk that responses will be indifferent or incomplete, which in turn, threatens the validity of results drawn from such data (Periatt, LeMay & Chakrabarty 2004). Thus a valid, reliable and easy to use short measure of emotional intelligence in teams would contribute a valuable practical resource to researchers and managers. We note that the creation of short forms of existing scales have been seen as a valuable contribution to the discipline (e.g. Guppy et al. 2004; Rammstedt & John 2007). We also note that this shortened format complements other popular and widely used self report measures in this field (e.g. Law, Wong & Song 2004).

We propose to develop a short measure of emotional intelligence in teams that reflects four broad self-reported emotional intelligence abilities that manifest as behaviours in work teams: Awareness of own emotions (as revealed in their ability to discuss and disclose emotions); Management of own emotions (based on their ability to delay or withhold strong emotional reactions); Awareness of others emotions (as revealed by the ability to read faces and body language) and finally, Ability to manage others emotions (based on the ability to positively influence others emotions).
456

Workplace measures of emotional intelligence

A number of the emotional intelligence measures used in organizational behaviour research do have factors that approximate the Mayer and Salovey (1997) ability model of emotional intelligence (e.g. emotional self-awareness and management of emotions, as opposed to traits or preferences; see Mayer, Caruso & Salovey 2001). A full review of these measures can be found in Jordan (2007). Of these measures, we have chosen to base our short measure on the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP: Jordan, Ashkanasy,
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

Hartel & Hooper 2002) for two reasons. First, other measures have been developed as unidimensional constructs with no differentiation of subscales (e.g. Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT): Schutte et al.1998). For instance, the SREIT contains 33 items with a Cronbachs alpha of .89 (Schutte et al. 1998) that provides a single measure of emotional intelligence based on Mayer and Saloveys framework. As outlined above, we argue that it is important to assess the contribution of each emotional intelligence ability on interpersonal behaviours and performance within teams. Second, other measures assess general abilities and skills and the results of the tests are then extrapolated to specific research contexts (e.g. MSCEIT: Mayer et al. 2001; Wong & Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS): Law, et al. 2004). Thus, for example, the ability to read facial expressions is taken to indicate that an employee behaviourally uses this ability (awareness of others emotions) in the workplace. We argue that it is important to assess abilities as expressed as actual behaviour in a specific context (in this case the team) and, therefore, we require a measure that can identify the specific abilities that are actually being used in those particular contexts. This approach is supported by Mischel and Shoda (1998), who argue that actual behaviour is a product of both personal attributes (e.g. personality and abilities) and the context in which those behaviours emerged. Moreover, the episodic and situationally specific nature of emotions (Ortony, Clore & Collins 1988) provides a framework for measuring emotional abilities within particular contexts, particularly in business settings where emotions can be used both to engender and to decrease performance (Ashforth & Humphrey 1995). Aligned with the Mayer and Salovey (1997) framework for emotional intelligence, the WEIP (Jordan et al. 2002) is a complex measure of selfreported individual emotional intelligence within a team context. From an original item pool of 52, the final measure consists of 27 items. Items

assess the behavioural use of particular emotional intelligence abilities in a team context. Scoring can be performed to produce either a single score of individual emotional intelligence, 2 broad scales (Ability to deal with own emotions, Ability to deal with others emotion), or 7 subscales (Awareness of own emotions; Ability to discuss own emotions, Ability to use own emotions to facilitate thinking; Ability to recognize others emotions, Ability to detect false displays of emotion, Empathy; and Ability to manage others emotions). The WEIP has been a valid and reliable measure, particularly within student sample populations. Jordan and colleagues validated the measures subscale factor structure using exploratory factor analysis and provided evidence of convergent validity with trait mood and concurrent validity with self-monitoring, empathy, creative thinking and emotional control (Jordan et al. 2002). Further, there is evidence of predictive validity with other-rated team process performance and other-rated team goal focus (Jordan et al. 2002), positive team behaviours and course grade (Sue-Chan & Latham 2004), career advancement (Donohue & Stevensen 2006), and a positive relationship between leaders and followers emotional intelligence scores (Kellett, Humphrey & Sleeth 2006). Reliability statistics reported for the WEIP demonstrate adequate internal consistency for the scale overall ( = .86 to .93), the two broad scales ( =.76 to .85) and the 7 subscales ( =.58 to .85; Jordan et al. 2002; Moriarty & Buckley 2003; Sue-Chan & Latham 2004). Subsequent refinement of the WEIP (WEIP6; Jordan & Troth 2004) increased the number of items to 30 (using the original item pool) to improve the reliability of the measure and the number of subscales was reduced to 5 (Empathy was removed and Ability to detect false emotions was merged with the Ability to recognize others emotions) to reflect the redevelopment of the emotional intelligence model in Mayer and Salovey (1997). Following this refinement, the 5 subscales became: Ability to recognize own emo457

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

tions, Ability to discuss own emotions, Ability to manage own emotions; Ability to recognize others emotions, Ability to manage others emotions (WEIP-6; Jordan & Troth 2004). Jordan & Troth (2004) reported adequate reliability statistics for the scale overall ( =.80), the two broad scales (Ability to deal with own emotions, = .79, Ability to deal with others emotion, = .80) and the 5 subscales ( = .71.80). The WEIP and WEIP-6, in particular, are useful measures as they assess (in part) dimensions of emotional intelligence by both ability (awareness, management) and focus of attention (own, others). As we argue above, our framework examines abilities in relation to the individuals themselves and their abilities in dealing with other team members as this differentiation allows us to examine both intra-personal and interpersonal abilities in a team context (Gardner 1983). Moreover, as the measures assess emotional intelligence behaviours used in team contexts, they are aligned with our argument that it is important to examine the effects of emotional intelligence abilities in particular contexts (e.g. within teams) to more accurately understand processes that are occurring within these contexts. However, both the WEIP and WEIP-6 could not be viewed as short measures. Researchers such as Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann (2003) have expressed the advantage of short measures that can be used in longer research surveys and be easily converted to a self-scoring format for self-development purposes. Our aim, therefore, is to use a selection of the behaviourally-based ability items listed in the revised WEIP-6 (Jordan & Troth 2004) to develop a new short-version of the scale: the WEIP-Short (WEIP-S). Scale evaluation of the inventory is presented in Study 1, followed by two validation tests: scale replication in Study 2 and testretest reliability in Study 3. All three studies use data obtained from working populations and the measures structural validity was assessed using the statistically rigorous method of confirmatory factor analysis.
458

STUDY 1: SCALE DEVELOPMENT

VERSION

EVALUATION

OF THE

WEIP-SHORT

The initial survey used 25 items selected from the 30 item WEIP-6 (Jordan & Troth 2004), using a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) for each item that conforms to the theoretical model described earlier in this article (Figure 1). In this instrument, there were 5 items relating to ability to discuss own emotions (Own Aware; e.g. I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members), 8 items relating to the ability to control emotional responses (Own Manage; e.g. I respect the opinions of team members, even when I think they are wrong), 7 items relating to the ability to recognize others feelings (Other Aware; e.g. I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling) and 5 items relating the ability to positively influence others emotional states (Other Manage; e.g. My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team). Each of the 25 items had prima facie validity conforming to the theoretical model of emotional intelligence in teams (see Figure 1). The instructions to respondents read: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your feelings when working in your team. When thinking about your team, please think of your immediate work unit. A self-report format was adopted for two reasons. First, this format is relatively simple to complete (15 minutes). Secondly, as a measure that has been designed to examine behaviours within a specific context (i.e. the respondents work team), we considered that self-report based on the reflections of the respondent behaviours is a reasonable method to assess the respondents abilities within that context (see also Jordan et al. 2002). The method of questioning for this instrument asks respondents to recall specific actual behaviours they have exhibited while working in their teams, rather than providing responses to preferred behaviours. While there
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

may be an amount of ego protection and social desirability in the responses, we dont anticipate this would be any more than for any other questionnaire that asked respondents to reflect on their behaviour or emotions (e.g. PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegan 1988).

Method
Participants and procedure
A survey containing the WEIP and several measures of employee attitudes and organizational climate was distributed through a large public sector organizations internal mail system to 640 participating staff and returned via a postage-paid return envelope. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. From this sample (Sample 1), 620 respondents completed usable surveys (response rate 97%). This high response rate was achieved through gaining the full commitment of senior management of the organization and a process of advertising the project prior to the survey going out. We also attribute the high return rate to the fact that the survey was administered as a part of a training course in which all employees participated. Of the respondents, 299 (48.2%) were male, the mean age was 40 years, ranging from 18 to 66 years, with 578 (93.2%) being fulltime employees. Four hundred and forty-nine (72%) respondents worked in administrative roles, 44 (7%) in technical roles, 87 (14%) in professional roles and 15 (2%) in senior managerial roles. The average size of the teams that respondents worked in was 10 employees. Analysis of the demographics reveals this is a representative sample for the organization.

Results
Construct validity tests via confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to evaluate the emotional intelligence scale and to evaluate subsequent revisions to the measure. Model comparisons were also conducted to verify that the four-factor structure, based on the modified solution, was the best representation of the data. Data screen-

ing for respondent errors and omissions was conducted prior to analysis. Missing data for any scale item were random (less than 2%; Cohen & Cohen 1983). Missing data were replaced by values estimated by the Expectation-Maximization (EM) imputation method in SPSS 10.0.5 (see Kline 1998). All model estimations in this paper were conducted on covariance matrices, using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) procedure in EQS 6.1 (Bentler & Wu 2005). Fit indexes and cutoff values used when conducting confirmatory factor analyses adhered to recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999). The fit indexes used in all analyses were the CFI, IFI, NFI, NNFI, RMSEA and the SRMR. Hu and Bentler (1999) argue that for analyses using the ML method, good model fit is demonstrated when the CFI, IFI and NNFI are close to .95, the RMSEA is close to .06 and the SRMR is close to .08. Examination of the data revealed some evidence of univariate skewness and kurtosis for single items relating to own manage, other aware and other manage. Corrected test statistics (the Satorra-Bentler rescaled chi-square statistic and the CFI Robust) are therefore reported when assessing model fit involving those constructs, in order to control for the degree of non-normality of the data (Kline 1998). Anderson and Gerbings (1988) recommended two-step procedure was used to conduct the confirmatory factor analyses. Step One consisted of separately assessing the fit of the four emotional intelligence constructs. Step Two of the analysis involved assessment of these measurement models together, represented as four correlated factors, where each factor represented a distinct emotional ability (see Table 1). Analysis of the a priori measurement models for Awareness of Own Emotions (Own Aware) and Management of Own Emotions (Own Manage) revealed an acceptable (the RMSEA only reached mediocre levels; Brown & Cudeck 1993) and poor fit of the model, respectively (see Table 1). An examination of the factor loadings for the two models also revealed non-significant load459

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

TABLE 1: I NVENTORY
Source Own Aware Own Manage b Other Aware b Other Manage b Combined Model b Modified Combined Model
a b

EVALUATION CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS a

Models A priori Modified A priori Modified A priori A priori

2
39.80 33.28 128.85 32.77 53.00 39.15 548.21 271.33

p
< .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

df
5 2 20 9 14 5

2
6.52 96.08*** -

df
3 11 -

CFI .97 .97 .90 .97 .96 .96 .92 .95

IFI .97 .97 .90 .97 .96 .96 .92 .95

NFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR .96 .97 .88 .95 .95 .95 .88 .92 .94 .91 .85 .94 .95 .92 .91 .94 .11 .12 .09 .07 .07 .10 .05 .05 .03 .03 .05 .04 .04 .04 .05 .05

< .001 203

98 276.88*** 105

n = 620. *** p < .001 Robust statistics reported for 2 and CFI.

ings. Alternatively, analysis of the a priori measurement models for Awareness of Others Emotions (Other Aware) and Management of Others Emotions (Other Manage) items revealed a good and acceptable fit of the model, respectively. From the results above, respecification was necessary on both the Own Aware and Own Manage models to attain better fit. Respecification decisions were based both on content (face validity) and statistical considerations (standardized residuals, Cronbachs alpha statistics and Wald and LM tests). Deleting problem indicators is the preferred solution for poor fitting models (Anderson & Gerbing 1988). On this basis, one indicator was dropped from the Own Aware measurement model and two from the Own Manage measurement model. The modified measurement model for Own Aware did not statistically improve fit, as compared to the a priori measurement model (2 (3) = 6.52, p > .05; see Table 1). However, the model now only had significant, moderately high factor loadings and as this model demonstrated acceptable fit (Anderson & Gerbing 1988; Browne & Cudeck 1993; Hu & Bentler 1999), it was retained as a more viable solution than the a priori model. The modified measurement model for Own Manage revealed a substantially improved fit, as compared to the a priori measurement model (2 (11) = 96.08, p < .001) and given the combined fit indices, factor loadings and reliability, was deemed to demonstrated good fit.
460

Step Two of the analysis involved assessment of the Step 1 final measurement models together, represented as four correlated factors, where each factor represented a distinct emotional ability and responses to the relevant inventory items represented the factor indicators (see Table 1; Anderson & Gerbing 1988). This model was consistent with our conceptualization of emotional abilities and how they are interrelated. Analysis of the model revealed a mediocre fit. The SRMR and RMSEA both reached .06, however, the CFI, IFI, NFI and NNFI did not reach the .95 cutoff. Respecification was conducted in order to improve the fit of the model. On this basis, six indicators were dropped, two from the Own Manage factor, three from the Other Aware factor and one from the Other Manage factor. The resulting 16-item modified, combined measurement model revealed a substantially improved fit as compared to the a priori model (2 (66) = 206.74, p < .001). Analysis of the modified combined model (see Table 1), combined with an examination of factor loadings and Cronbachs alphas (see Table 2), revealed a good overall fit. Table 2 presents construct labels, items, standardized coefficient factor loadings and Cronbachs alpha coefficients for the modified inventory. Table 3 describes the means, standard deviations and correlations for the WEIP-S subscales. The four emotional intelligence constructs have moderate correlations with one another (see Table 3). To verify that the four-factor structure,
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
TABLE 2: S TANDARDIZED
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS AND FINAL INVENTORY ITEMS (WEIPS)

CRONBACH S

ALPHA COEFFICIENTS FOR

Subscale labels and items

Standardized coefficient factor loadings .77 .87 .66 .76

Cronbachs alpha coefficients .85

Awareness of Own Emotions (Own Aware) 1. I can explain the emotions I feel to team members. 2. I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members. 3. If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better. 4. I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience. Management of Own Emotions (Own Manage) g 5. I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong. 6. When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my frustration. 7. When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of a disagreement before I come to a conclusion. 8. I give a fair hearing to fellow team members ideas. Awareness of Others Emotions (Other Aware) 9. I can read fellow team members true feelings, even if they try to hide them. 10. I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling 11. When I talk to a team member I can gauge their true feelings from their body language. 12. I can tell when team members dont mean what they say. Management of Others Emotions (Other Manage) m 13. My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team. 14. I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down. 15. I can get fellow team members to share my keenness for a project. 16. I can provide the spark to get fellow team members enthusiastic.
Note: All factor coefficients significant at p < .001.

.77 .66 .70 .62 .71 .81 .81 .78 .68 .62 .81 .71 .68 .70 .79

consistent with our conceptualization, was the best representation of the items in the WEIP-S, all possible alternative models were estimated based on an item-set derived from the modified combined solution (see Mathieu & Farr 1991). The models included a one-factor, 3 two-factor and 6 three-factor dimensions. The two-factor models represented all possible parings of the
TABLE 3: STUDY 1 MEANS,
Variables 1. Own Aware 2. Own Manage 3. Other Aware 4. Other Manage
a

four emotional ability dimensions. Similarly, the three-factor models represented all possible threeway combinations of the four dimensions. The evaluation of these models and the chi-square difference tests conducted to compare all of the alternative models to the four-factor solution, are shown in Table 4. Results from the alternative model estimations and chi-square difference tests
WEIPSa
4

STANDARD DEVIATIONS , CORRELATIONS AND INTER -ITEM RELIABILITIES FOR

M 4.14 5.32 4.45 4.71

SD 1.15 .79 .93 .88

1 (.85) .38*** .53*** .58***

2 (.77) .43*** .46***

(.81) .54***

(.81)

n = 620. *** p < .001. Inter-item reliabilities in brackets.

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

461

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

clearly defended a four-factor structure for the team-based emotional skills. The four-factor solution in each case was significantly better (p < .001) than any other of the alternative models presented and the difference in CFI ranged from .05 to .19. Respondents did distinguish between the emotional abilities they perceived they utilized in work teams. Further, the model comparison analysis substantiates the notion that there are four conceptually distinct emotional abilities that participants utilize in team-based work.

ple 2), taken from a general population. The modified 16-item, four-factor model derived in Study 1 was replicated using Sample 2 data to verify the construct validity and reliability of the four dimensions of the WEIP-S.

Method
Participants and procedure
Data for this study were collected in a national web survey. Participants were recruited via advertisements in national and local print and radio media and were asked to complete the survey anonymously and voluntarily. As such the data in this analysis are drawn from a convenience sample. Two hundred and seventeen working respondents provided usable responses to all items in the web survey. Of these, 63 (29%) were male, 154 (71%) were female and their mean age was 36 to 40 years, ranging from under 20 to over 65. Ninety-nine (46%) had tertiary qualifications; 76 had completed graduate studies (35%); 26 had completed a diploma, certificate or apprenticeship training; and 16 (7%) had completed high school. Respondents worked in a broad spectrum of industries (e.g. but not limited to, manufacturing, wholesale trade, finance & insurance, education, health & community services) and the mean

WEIP-S

VALIDATION

To provide further evidence of the construct validity of the WEIP-S, we conducted additional analyses including a model replication analyses in Study 2 (using a general working population sample), and test-retest reliability in Study 3 (using a sample from a single organization).

STUDY 2: REPLICATIVE CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYES

To assess whether the analysis results are a pervasive phenomenon and not an artefact of the particular sample used during data collection (see DeVellis 1991), the confirmatory factor analyses were repeated on data using the 25 WEIP item instrument obtained from a second sample (SamTABLE 4: R ESULTS
Models 4-factor: OwnA OwnM OthA OthM
c

OF EMOTIONAL ABILITIES MODEL COMPARISONS USING INVENTORY EVALUATION MODIFIED MODEL ITEMS a

2
271.33 599.77 546.86 507.21 526.85 488.25 482.35 810.68 761.44 759.17 952.76

p
< .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

df
98 101 101 101 101 101 101 103 103 103 104

2b
328.44*** 275.53*** 235.88*** 255.52*** 216.92*** 211.02*** 539.35*** 490.11*** 487.84*** 681.43***

df
3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 6

CFI .95 .85 .87 .88 .87 .88 .89 .79 .80 .80 .75

CFI
.09 .07 .06 .07 .06 .05 .15 .14 .14 .19

IFI .95 .85 .87 .88 .87 .89 .89 .79 .80 .81 .75

NFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR .92 .83 .84 .85 .85 .86 .86 .77 .78 .78 .73 .94 .82 .84 .85 .85 .86 .86 .75 .77 .77 .71 .05 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .11 .10 .10 .12 .05 .08 .07 .06 .07 .07 .06 .09 .08 .08 .09

3-factor: (OwnA/OwnM) OthA OthM 3-factor: (OwnA/OthA) OwnM OthM 3-factor: (OwnA/OthM) OwnM OthA 3-factor: OwnA (OwnM/OthA) OthM 3-factor: OwnA (OwnM/OthM) OthA 3-factor: OwnA OwnM (OthA/OthM) 2-factor: (OwnA/OwnM) (OthA/OthM) 2-factor: (OwnA/OthA) (OwnM/OthM) 2-factor: (OwnA/OthM) (OwnM/OthA) 1-factor: (OwnA/OwnM/OthA/OthM)
a b c

n = 620. Critical 2 (df = 3, p < .001) = 16.27, 2 (df = 5, p < .001) = 20.52, 2 (df = 6, p < .001) = 22.46 OwnA = Own Aware, OwnM = Own Manage, OthA = Other Aware, OthM = Other Manage

462

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

number of years respondents had worked in their organization was 6 years. One hundred and fiftytwo respondents were employed in full-time employment (70%); 24 (11%) were employed in full-time contract positions; and 41 (19%) were employed in part-time or casual positions.

Results
Data screening for respondent errors and omissions was conducted using the previously stated procedure. As was the case for the Sample 1, some of the individual items showed evidence of univariate skewness and kurtosis. When assessing the combined four-factor model, corrected test statistics (the Satorra-Bentler rescaled chi-square statistic and the CFI Robust) were reported to control for this non-normality. The analysis assessing the modified 16-item, four-factor model revealed comparable results to the evaluation analysis of Sample 1. The four-factor measurement model revealed a good fit (see Table 5). The CFI, IFI and NNFI reached or was close to .95, the SRMR and RMSEA were both below cutoff values, the factor loadings were moderately high and each scale had a moderate or high level of reliability (see Table 6). Again, although the NFI was below .90, the measurement model shows good overall fit, given the combined results.
TABLE 5: I NVENTORY
Models Combined 4-Factor Model Constrained Combined Model
a b

As for the inventory evaluation analyses, the four emotional skill constructs have moderate correlations with one another (see Table 6). Rather than conducting model comparison analyses, a simpler test of discriminant validity amongst the factors in the measurement model was conducted. In such an analysis, the correlations between the four factors were fixed at 1.0 and a chi-square difference test was used to compare the constrained and unconstrained models (Bagozzi & Phillips 1982). The test revealed that the modified measurement model fitted the data significantly better than the constrained model (2 (6) = 24.04, p < .001). Thus, respondents distinguished amongst the emotional skills they utilized in work teams. Accordingly, a four-factor structure measuring the proposed emotional skill constructs was deemed appropriate.

STUDY 3: TESTRETEST

RELIABILITY

The purpose of Study 3 was to investigate whether the four emotional intelligence constructs in the WEIP-S demonstrated stability over time.

Method
Participants and procedure
A survey containing WEIP-S items was distributed to 560 employees at three points in time, 4 months apart as a part of their normal mail distribution.

REPLICATION CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ab

2
151.54 175.58

p
< .001 < .001

df
98 104

2b
24.04***

df
6

CFI
.02

CFI .95 .93

IFI .95 .93

NFI .87 .84

NNFI RMSEA SRMR .94 .92 .05 .06 .06 .20

n = 217. Critical 2 (df = 6, p < .001) = 22.46 Robust statistics reported for 2 and CFI.
STANDARD DEVIATIONS , CORRELATIONS AND INTER -ITEM RELIABILITIES

TABLE 6: S TUDY 2 M EANS ,

Variables 1. Own Aware 2. Own Manage 3. Other Aware 4. Other Manage
a

WEIPS a
4

M
4.40 5.66 4.87 4.97

SD
1.31 0.86 1.15 1.13

1 (.86) .45*** .37*** .48***

2 (.76) .35*** .46***

(.86) .46***

(.86)

n = 217. *** p < .001. Inter-item reliabilities in brackets.

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

463

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

The employees worked at the organization used to collect data in Study 1, but were not part of the Study 1 sampling frame. The surveys were completed voluntarily and anonymously by the staff and returned to the researcher by mail via a postage-paid return envelope. Three hundred and twenty-five respondents (58%) completed surveys at Time 1, 263 (47%) respondents completed surveys at Time 2 and 227 (41%) respondents completed surveys at Time 3. Combined, 99 respondents completed usable surveys across all three time periods, reflecting an 18% response rate. Of these respondents, 58 (59%) were male with a mean age of 40 years, ranging from 18 to 62 years. Eighty-one (82%) were full-time employees with 63 (64%) in administrative roles, 7 (7%) in technical roles, 10 (10%) in professional roles and 4 (4%) in senior managerial roles. Again, the average size of the teams that respondents worked in was 10 employees.

.02 to .19, the standard deviation difference for a particular construct ranged from .01 to .09. None of the means for a construct were significantly different from one another. All Cronbachs alphas for the four constructs ranged from .73 to .88, with an average reliability of .82. Across time periods, the matched construct variable correlations ranged from .47 to .66 with a mean of .59. The alphas and bivariate variable correlations suggest a moderate to high level of internal consistency. Testretest reliabilities between the three time periods were moderate to high and reflective of good levels of stability across time for the WEIP-S constructs. These findings provide evidence of the reliability and, by extension, the construct validity of the WEIP-S.

SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

Results
Table 7 demonstrates the consistency of the WEIP-S across three points in time. The mean difference for a particular construct ranged from

In this article, we developed a model demonstrating the types of emotional intelligence abilities that may be useful in teams. We also have outlined three studies aimed at validating a shortversion of the WEIP, an inventory that measures self reported emotional awareness and manageAND TEST RETEST RELIABILITY

TABLE 7: S TUDY 3 D ISTRIBUTIONAL PROPERTIES , RELIABILITIES CALCULATIONS FOR THE WEIP-S CONSTRUCTS
M (SD )
Own Aware Time1 Time2 Time3 Own Manage Time1 Time2 Time3 Other Aware Time1 Time2 Time3 Other Manage Time1 Time2 Time3
n = 99.

TestRetest Reliability Time 1&2 .76 Time 1&3 .80 .81 Time 2&3

Cronbachs Alpha .88 .87 .87 .74 .77 .73 .85 .85 .84 .80 .84 .83

4.03 4.22 4.16 5.40 5.30 5.28 4.50 4.61 4.59 4.57 4.70 4.59

(1.21) (1.27) (1.18) (.76) (.78) (.73) (1.00) (1.04) (1.01) (.93) (.97) (.96)

.67

.64 .77

.71

.77 .83

.78

.79 .82

464

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

ment abilities within team settings. The final WEIP-S inventory consists of 16 items, 4 items for each of the four emotional abilities. Evidence of construct validity was provided for the final inventory though a series of tests, using different samples: scale evaluation, discriminant validity, construct replication across samples, reliability and testretest stability. In Study 1, the derived 16-item scale demonstrated acceptable to good model fit for each of the emotional intelligence constructs and a good fit for the combined model consisting of all four self reported emotional abilities. Comparison with all possible alternative models in Study 1 confirmed that our conceptualization of four, distinct self reported emotional abilities best represented the data. The replication study (Study 2) also confirmed a four-factor solution for the WEIP-S. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the results also indicate that there is some empirical overlap (and therefore conceptual overlap) between the constructs, as evidenced by moderate bi-variate correlations in Tables 3 and 6. Internal consistency reliability statistics for the resulting four self reported emotional abilities constructs were moderate to high across all three studies. Moreover, in Study 3, the four constructs demonstrated testretest stability over three time periods.

this self report measure has shown the importance of distinguishing between abilities relating to self (intrapersonal abilities) and abilities relating to how we deal with others (interpersonal abilities). Although the emotional intelligence construct is still in early theoretical development, the idea of measuring abilities in relation to own emotions and abilities in relation to others emotions there has not been broadly articulated before. Figure 1 contributes to this understanding. In terms of practical applications, WEIP-S provides a short, easy to use public domain self report, workplace-based measure of emotion intelligence that can be utilized to assess other team based behaviours and attitudes. This measure, which relies on a reflection method to collect self reported behaviourally-based responses to items, enables the WEIP-S to be used for staff development purposes. The format also enables the instrument to be extended from its current self-reporting format to a peer-reporting format.

LIMITATIONS

AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY AND PRACTICE

As noted earlier, the rationale for developing a short measure of emotional intelligence in teams was a based on theoretical and practical grounds. From a theoretical perspective, this article has contributed to understanding the way in which emotional intelligence abilities may be used in teams and conforms to the theoretical framework of team effectiveness developed by Tannenbaum et al. (1992). The WEIP-S devised in this paper demonstrated further evidence for the conceptualization of emotional intelligence abilities within team settings as distinguished by both focus of attention (own, others) and ability (awareness, management). In particular, the development of

The first and most obvious limitation of the present study is that the WEIP-S data relies on selfreport. There is a debate over the best method of assessing emotional intelligence with significant criticism of measures that use a self-report format (see Mayer et al. 2001; Roberts, Zeidner & Matthews 2001). This criticism is based on the assertion that if emotional intelligence is really intelligence, then it needs to be tested as other intelligences are tested, using ability testing and not self-report. In response to this criticism, we note that the WEIP-S uses a format in which respondents are asked for responses based on a reflection of their behaviours while working in their team, rather than for behavioural preferences. While this method of questioning may be effected by social desirability and ego protection responses, we argue that as a self-development tool it is entirely appropriate for individuals to reflect on their situational behaviour. As noted earlier, there is evidence that the WEIP can predict performance and that it can differentiate
465

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

between different types of performance (e.g. team and individual; Jordan & Troth 2004). This suggests that it is a useful measure for tapping into some human potential in terms of emotion and how we conceptualise emotion when working with others. Both Damasio (1994) and Calne (1999) have pointed out that both intelligence and emotion are required to generate behaviour. The aim of the research program outlined in this article is not to resolve the issue of self report and ability testing in emotional intelligence, but rather to offer a theoretically driven and psychometrically sound short measure that is indicative of emotional intelligence being used in a team setting. A potential limitation of Study 2 is that a convenience sampling method was used to collect the data. While this type of sampling prevents us from drawing conclusions about the generalizability of these data, we collected these data for a replication study to provide evidence of the stability of the WEIP-S between groups and the obtained data from this sampling method did provide us with a reasonably heterogeneous sample. Respondents worked in a broad spectrum of industries (e.g. manufacturing, wholesale trade, finance & insurance, education, health & community services) and, therefore, it could be argued that the sample was more heterogeneous than the sample in Study 1, where the participants were drawn from a single and possibly culturally homogeneous, organization. The present research is only the beginning of a larger program to confirm the predictive potential for this short measure of emotional intelligence abilities in teams. In the current article, we have not presented evidence of the convergent validity, concurrent validity or predictive validity of the short version of the WEIP. Further research is required to establish that the dimensions of the WEIP-S can be discriminated from both conceptually similar and divergent constructs. Such evidence will provide further support for our claim that the WEIP-S is a valid and reliable measure of emotional intelligence. We also note that the short version of the WEIP will enable results to
466

be compared to a peer assessment measure currently in development. Research has shown that shorter questionnaires have more potential to improve the accuracy of peer-self evaluations (Jordan & Ashkanasy 2006; Rammstedt & John 2007) and the WEIP-S allows us to take advantage of its shorter format to test it against peer reports of an individuals behaviour. As mentioned above, the WEIP- S requires extensive testing on its predictive validity in applied settings. Researchers can examine the efficacy of the WEIP-S for predicting both task and contextual performance in teams, at multiple levels of analysis. One area of research that needs more examination at the individual level of analysis, for example, is the idea that teams may require different emotional intelligence abilities depending on the type of work to be completed by the team. For instance, are different emotional intelligence abilities required for creative research and development teams when compared with sales teams? The WEIP-S will be useful in extending this research.

CONCLUSION
In this article we have developed and tested a short measure of emotional intelligence that can be used to measure the emotional intelligence of members of teams. Our findings provide initial support for the WEIP-S as a valid and reliable self report measure of emotional intelligence that assesses emotional intelligence on 4 dimensions: Awareness of Own Emotions, Management of Own Emotions, Awareness of Others Emotions and Management of Others Emotions. We anticipate that this measure will be useful to researchers examining the impact of emotional intelligence on team attitudes, team behaviours and team performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was supported by grants from the Australian Research Council. The authors would like to thank Jane Murray for her work in collecting the data used in Studies 1 and 2.
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin 103: 411-423. Aritzeta A, Swailes S and Senior B (2007) The team role self-perception inventory: Development, validity and applications for team building, Journal of Management Studies 44: 96-118. Ashforth BE and Humphrey RH (1995) Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal, Human Relations 48: 97-125. Ashkanasy NM (2003) Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective, in Dansereau F & Yammarino FJ (Eds) Research in multi-level issues, vol 2: Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy, pp 9-54, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK. Ashkanasy NM, Hrtel CEJ and Zerbe WJ (Eds) (2000) Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Bagozzi RP and Phillips LW (1982) Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 459-489. Barsade SG (2002) The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior, Administrative Science Quarterly 47: 644-675 Bentler PM and Wu EJC (2005) EQS 6 1 Structural equation modelling software for windows Multivariate Software Inc, Encino, CA. Browne MW and Cudeck R (1993) Alterative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen K A & Long J S (Eds) Testing structural equation models, pp 136-162, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Calne DB (1999) Within reason: Rationality and human behavior, Pantheon Books, New York. Christie A, Jordan PJ, Troth AC and Lawrence SA (2007). Testing the links between emotional intelligence and motivation. Journal of Management & Organization 13: 212 226. Cohen J and Cohen P (1983) Multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed) Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ. Cooper RK and Sawaf A (1997) Executive EQ, Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations, Grossett/Putnam, New York. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes, error: Emotion, reason and the human brain, Grossett/Putnam, New York. de Meijer M (1989) The contribution of general features of body movement to the attribution of emotions, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 13: 247-268.

References

DeVellis RF (1991) Scale development: Theory and applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Donohue R and Stevensen L (2006) July The relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement and the mediating role of transformational leadership ACREW Conference Tuscany: Italy Drevets WC and Raichle ME (1998) Reciprocal suppression of regional cerebral blood flow during emotional versus higher cognitive processes: Implications for interactions between emotion and cognition, Cognition and Emotion 12: 353-386. Druskat VU and Wolff SB (2001) Building the emotional intelligence of groups, Harvard Business Review 79: 80-91. Ekman P (1971) Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion, in J Cole (Ed ), Nebraska symposium on motivation, pp 207-283, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. Elfenbein HA, Polzer JT and Ambady N (2007) Team emotion recognition accuracy and team performance in Hrtel CEJ, Ashkanasy NM and Zerbe WJ (Eds) Research on Emotion in Organizations: Functionality, Intentionality and Morality, 3: 87-119. Fitness J (2000) Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors co-workers and subordinates, Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 147-162 Folkman S and Lazarus RS (1988) The relationship between coping and emotion: Implications for theory and research, Social Science and Medicine 26: 309-317. Gardner H (1983) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, Basic Books, New York. George JM (2000) Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence, Human Relations 53: 1027-1055. Goleman D (1995) Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ, Bantam, New York. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ and Swann WB Jr (2003) A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains, Journal of Research in Personality 37: 504 538. Guppy A, Edwards JA, Brough P, Peters-Bean KM, Sale C and Short E (2004) The psychometric properties of the short version of the Cybernetic Coping Scale: A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis across four samples, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77: 39-62. Hu L & Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1-55. 467

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence Izard CE, Wehmer CM, Livsey W and Jennings IR (1965) Affect awareness and performance in Tomkins SS & Izard CE (Eds) Affect, cognition and personality pp 2-41, Springer, New York. Jehn KA and Mannix EA (2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal 44: 238-251. Jordan PJ (2007) Emotional intelligence at work: A review of research. In Glendon, I Myors, B & Thompson B (Eds), Advances in organisational psychology: An Asia-Pacific perspective. pp. 355-370, Australian Academic Press, Brisbane, Australia. Jordan PJ and Ashkanasy NM (2006) Emotional intelligence, emotional self-awareness and team effectiveness, in Druskat, VU Sala, F & Mount GJ (Eds) Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work pp 145-164, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Jordan PJ, Ashkanasy NM, Hrtel CEJ and Hooper GS (2002) Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus, Human Resource Management Review 12: 195-214. Jordan PJ, Ashton-James CE and Ashkanasy NM (2006) Evaluating the claims in Murphy K R (Ed) A Critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed?, pp 189210, Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ. Jordan PJ, Lawrence SA and Troth AC (2006) The impact of negative mood on team performance, Journal of Management & Organization 12: 131-145. Jordan PJ and Troth AC (2004) Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution, Human Performance 17: 195-218. Jordan PJ and Troth AC (2006) Emotions and coping with conflict: An Introduction, Journal of Management & Organization 12(2): 98-100. Kellett JB, Humphrey RH and Sleeth RG (2006) Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders, The Leadership Quarterly 17: 146-162. Kelly JR and Barsade SG (2001) Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86: 99-130. Kline RB (1998) Principals and practice of structural equation modelling, The Guilford Press, New York. Lane RD, Reiman EM, Axelrod B, Yun LS, Holmes A and Schwartz GE (1998) Neural correlates of levels of emotional awareness: Evidence of an 468 interaction between emotion and attention in the anterior cingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10: 525535. Law KS, Wong CS and Song LJ (2004) The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies, Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 483-496. Mathieu JE and Farr JL (1991) Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 127-134. Mayer JD, Caruso DR and Salovey P (2001) Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability scales, in Bar-On R and Parker JDA (Eds), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home, school and in the workplace, pp 320-342, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Mayer J and Salovey P (1997) What is emotional intelligence? in Salovey P and Sluyter D (Eds) Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators pp 3-31, Basic Books, New York. Mayer JD, Salovey P and Caruso DR (2000) Competing models of emotional intelligence, in Sternberg R (Ed) Handbook of intelligence pp 396-420, Cambridge, New York. Mischel W and DeSmet AL (2000) Self-regulation in the service of conflict resolution in Deutsch M & Coleman PT (Eds) The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, pp 256-275, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Mischel W and Shoda Y (1998) Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions, Annual Review of Psychology 49: 229258. Mooney AC, Holahan PJ and Amason AC (2007) Dont take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict, Journal of Management Studies 44: 733-758. Moriarty P and Buckley F (2003) Increasing team emotional intelligence through process, Journal of European Industrial Training 27: 98-110. Morrell K (2004) Decision-making and business ethics: The implications of using image theory in preference to rational choice, Journal of Business Ethics 50: 239-252. Mumby DK and Putnam LA (1992) The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality, Academy of Management Review 17: 465-486. Ortony A, Clore GL and Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions, Cambridge University Press, New York
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S) Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM and Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity conflict and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 1-28. Pennebaker JW and Francis ME (1996) Cognitive: emotional: and language processes in disclosure, Cognition and Emotion 10: 601-626. Periatt JA LeMay SA & Chakrabarty S (2004) The selling orientation-customer orientation (SOCO) scale: Cross-validation of the revised version, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 24: 49-54. Rammstedt B and John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German, Journal of Research in Personality 41: 203-212. Roberts RD, Zeidner M and Matthews G (2001) Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions, Emotion 1: 196-231. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Hall LE, Haggerty DJ, Cooper JT, Golden CJ and Dornheim L (1998) Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences 25: 167-177. Silvia PJ (2002) Self-awareness and emotional intensity, Cognition and Emotion 16: 195-216. Sosik JJ and Megerian LE (1999) Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions, Group and Organization Management 24: 367-390. Sue-Chan C and Latham GP (2004) The situational interview as a predictor of academic and team performance: A study of the mediating effects of cognitive ability and emotional intelligence, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12: 312-320. Tannenbaum SI, Beard RL and Salas E (1992) Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments, in K. Kelley (Ed) Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology, pp 117-153, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science. Van Dyne L, Ang S and Botero IC (2003) Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs, Journal of Management Studies 40: 1359-1392. Van Rooy DL and Viswesvaran C (2004) Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net, Journal of Vocational Behavior 65: 71-95. Watson D, Clark LA and Tellegan A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 1063-1070. Weiss H and Cropanzano R (1996) Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work, Research in Organizational Behavior 18: 1-74. Wolff SB, Pescosolido AT and Druskat VU (2002) Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams, Leadership Quarterly 13: 505-522. Received 7 August 2008 Accepted 15 July 2009

N O W
The Leading Way of Changing Meaning (2007) By Sandra Sytsma In studying leading as a way of changing meaning, this research documents a journey of inner exploration amongst five self-nominated leaders in education. ISBN: 978-1-921214-26-4

A V A I L A B L E
Awakening-Struggle: Towards Buddhist Critical Social Theory (2004) By Robert Hattam The ground-breaking book offers the first extensive comparison of critical theory with socially-engaged Buddhism. ISBN: 978-1-876682-57-6

Following Vygotsky to a Learner-Centred School (2006) By Robert G Grandin The author describes his experiences in attacking the problem of individuality in learning. ISBN: 978-1-876682-96-5

SoulWork: Finding the Work You Love, Loving the Work You Have (2007) By Deborah P Bloch, Lee J Richmond Relates career to spiritual themes, and provide advice and support to people in working through their personal choices. ISBN: 978-0-9775742-3-0

eContent Management Pty Ltd, PO Box 1027, Maleny QLD 4552, Australia Tel.: +61-7-5435-2900; Fax. +61-7-5435-2911; subscriptions@e-contentmanagement.com www.e-contentmanagement.com

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

469

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.