The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
Emotions and team projects and
processes
Emotions and
team projects
and processes
Alan R. Peslak
Penn State University, Dunmore, Pennsylvania, USA
251
Abstract
Purpose – To explore the relationships between emotions and overall team processes and task
performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The work begins with a literature review of the major studies
performed on emotions and their affects on teams. This study then specifically surveys a group of
information technology student teams at various stages of a term-long project to determine their level
of feelings in 15 separate emotions at each stage. Also measured are effects of emotions on attitudes
towards team processes. Regression analysis was used to measure the significance of several
hypotheses.
Findings – Overall findings specifically measured the five hypotheses. It was found that team
emotions at the start of the project are more positive than negative. Negative emotions grow more than
positive over the life of the project. Emotions show increased intensity over the life of the project.
Initial emotions did not significantly affect overall team processes. Final emotions somewhat affected
overall team processes.
Research limitations/applications – The small sample size does limit generalizations but the
work can serve as a framework for more extensive and industry situated studies.
Practical implications – The work suggests issues related to the impact and evolution of emotions
on team projects. Practitioners can begin to focus on efforts that can improve emotions and potentially
overall team success.
Originality/value – There is little work done on the evolution of emotions and their effects on team
processes. The paper begins the dialogue on an important aspect of team dynamics.
Keywords Emotional dissonance, Team performance, Team management, Individual psychology,
Team working, Project teams
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Human beings are emotional creatures. In our lives we experience a wide range of
emotions from anger to enthusiasm, from worry to calm. Understanding and
controlling these emotions is important for good decision making, thinking clearly, and
performing at an optimal level (Goleman, 1995). Since emotions are so prevalent and
are key to our performance their influence and development in overall team processes
and performance are worthy of concerted study.
The effect that emotions have on group and team performance has been studied by
past researchers, though there has been little consensus on the exact role that emotions
play in the success or failure of projects. There has been much less research done on
how emotions change through the duration of a project. This study is an attempt to
review the evolution of emotions through the life of a project. Specifically, team
members’ emotions were recorded over 15-week semester-long projects. All projects
included a starting emotional survey and a concluding survey. Many were also
measured mid-way through their projects. Researchers (Glinow et al., 2005; Sy et al.,
2005) have shown that emotions can play a significant role in project success. The
Team Performance Management
Vol. 11 No. 7/8, 2005
pp. 251-262
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590510635143
TPM
11,7/8
objective was to determine how emotions changed through the project so that
measures could be planned to address emotions that negatively impact team
performance. Recording and understanding how emotions evolve can be important to
both researchers and practitioners alike with a goal toward greater overall project
success. In addition, the importance of team processes has been documented. The
interplay of emotions and team processes also holds interest.
252
Literature review
The role of emotions and their effect on team performance has been previously
established by other researchers. Sy et al. 2005) found that a leader’s mood can have a
significant effect on performance of a team. According to the authors:
.
Group members were in a more positive mood if their leader had a positive mood.
.
Group members were in a more negative mood if their leader has a negative
mood.
.
Group members also had more positive affective tone, less negative affective
tone, exerted less effort, and had better coordination when the leader had a
positive mood versus when the leader had a negative mood.
Overall, members were strongly influenced by a leader’s emotions with positive
emotions having a positive effect and negative emotions having a negative effect.
McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) suggest that negative emotions reduce
enthusiasm which then decreases performance. Fisher (2000) found that mood and
emotions were significantly related to job satisfaction. Brown (1995) suggests that
“emotions often block progress” and suggests that emotions must be dealt with in the
workplace. His three recommendations are to recognize and accept emotional
influences, open communications to deal with emotions, and finally allow answers to
emerge from the open emotional dialog. Feyerherm and Rice (2002) found some
positive relationships between a team’s emotional intelligence and its performance.
“Emotional conflict – negative emotions such as frustration, irritation, even anger – is
dysfunctional for team performance” (Glinow et al., 2004). Grossman (2000) found that
leaders with a high regard for emotions, a high emotional quotient (EQ) can make a
team more effective and efficient. Lewis (2000) also found that a negative tone by a
leader’s speech can have a negative effect on the perception of a leader’s effectiveness.
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggest affective experiences, with moods and
emotions, change over time, and satisfaction also fluctuates and depends on affect
states and levels at particular times. Individuals react to the events in their work lives
and these events drive their immediate affective states. These states vary over time.
Alliger and Williams (1993) recognized that moods and emotions changed over time.
They found that the way we experience work affects outcome variables. The authors
found a significant relationship between task enjoyment and goal progress. Kelly and
Barsade (2001) explored the importance of affective influences in groups and found
that there are ways to influence the negative and positive emotions in a group.
Affective influences can be improved by such things as improved environmental
conditions, constructive inter-group conflict resolution methods, and improved
communications technologies. As a result, if negative emotions are experienced
naturally in the evolution of a project, measures can be taken to decrease negative
emotions and improve team performance. Encouragement from leaders, conflict
processes, and project perks can be used to improve negative drift. With regard the
relationship between team processes and team performance, Mathieu et al. (2000) found
that successful team processes have a significant and positive impact on team
performance.
Muchinsky (2000) notes the lack of research on emotions in the workplace and
“implore(s) organizational behavior to cease its neglect of emotions in the workplace.”
This study is a start in answering that call. In measuring emotions on team projects,
most researchers fail to take into account the evolution of emotions over the life of a
project. Sy et al. (2005), Feyerherm and Rice (2002), and McColl-Kennedy and Anderson
(2002) all used a single measurement of emotion for a project. But emotions are
hypothesized to evolve over the life of a project and specific actions to improve
emotions must be tailored to the emotional state experienced at that point in time. Thus
it is extremely useful to study to pattern of emotional evolution over the life of projects.
In order begin the research in this area, this study measures the evolution of
emotions on 18 information technology projects by undergraduate students in a major
university.
Research questions
As a result of the literature review, a series of five hypotheses were formulated to
explore the evolution of emotions in a team as well as the relationships between
emotions and team process satisfaction:
H1. Teams at the start of a project will generally express higher positive emotions
than negative emotions.
H2. Negative emotions will grow more than positive emotions over the life of a
project.
H3. Emotions will show increased intensity over the life of the project.
H4. Initial emotions will not significantly affect team process satisfaction
H5. Final emotions will significantly affect team process satisfaction.
Methodology
The survey process was made up of 55 different team members grouped into 18
different teams from five different undergraduate courses in the fall of 2004. There
were 127 separate measurements of team emotions. Team projects were significant
semester-long projects and groups were made up of two to five individuals. Teams
were surveyed at the start of the project, midway through the project (for most) and at
the project’s conclusion.
To study the impact of emotions on team performance, a list of 15 emotions was
included in the survey. The list was extracted from Shaw (2004) and others. Though no
definitive emotions lists exist, the Shaw source coupled with other relevant emotions
from the literature review provided a comprehensive mix of positive and negative
emotions.
There were a total of 18 teams tested, with two to five members on each. There were
55 individual participants surveyed. The emotions studied and the team process
satisfaction questions are listed in the Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. The survey
Emotions and
team projects
and processes
253
TPM
11,7/8
questions were drawn from the literature review. Factor analysis and scale reliability
used all 127 responses. (In some cases less than 127 were used due to lack of response.)
The demographics of the participants are shown in Tables I and II and suggest a
relatively young and traditional student group. The gender mix is a bit male-biased but
reflects the composition of the classes studied.
254
Results
H1. Team at the start of a project will generally express higher positive emotions
than negative emotions.
Table III is a summary of the means of the degree of each emotion recorded by each
team in the study (by survey). The scale represents 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ somewhat
weakly, 3 ¼ moderate amount, 4 ¼ somewhat strongly, and 5 ¼ very strongly. The
survey 1, 2, 3 represent the initial, mid, and final surveys respectively. Initially, the
Table I.
Age distribution
Table II.
Gender distribution
Table III.
Survey means of all
emotions over time
18-24
25-30
31-40
Total
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative percent
85
39
3
127
66.9
30.7
2.4
100.0
66.9
97.6
100.0
Female
Male
Total
Angry
Apathetic
Calm
Disappointed
Disgusted
Enthusiastic
Frustrated
Irritated
Optimistic
Pleased
Proud
Relieved
Stimulated
Uninspired
Worried
Frequency
Percent
15
112
127
11.8
88.2
100.0
Survey 1 (mean)
Survey 2 (mean)
Survey 3 (mean)
1.18
1.66
3.80
1.70
1.54
3.22
1.64
1.50
3.58
3.14
2.84
2.02
2.82
1.74
2.24
1.82
2.10
3.45
2.35
1.90
3.33
2.08
2.10
3.53
3.55
3.43
3.41
3.16
1.96
2.33
2.14
1.96
3.50
2.75
2.46
3.14
2.57
2.68
3.11
3.32
3.43
4.00
3.04
1.82
2.29
strongest emotions felt were calm and optimistic. Students went into the project
generally feeling positive and confident. By the end of the project however the
strongest emotions were relieved and proud. They generally went into the projects
with positive future-oriented emotions and came out of the experience with positive
result-oriented emotions.
Table IV identifies and sorts these emotions from a negative and positive
perspective. Every negative emotion grew at least somewhat from the initial starting
emotion, though all remained below the 3.0 moderate threshold. Conversely, there were
mixed changes in the positive emotions. Some such as calm, optimistic, and relieved
declined; but others such as relieved grew. All positive emotions remained above the
3.0 moderate threshold. This suggests that for these projects at least, positive emotions
proved to be higher at both the beginning and end of the project, well in excess of the
negative emotions experienced. H1 is supported. Initial positive emotions averaged
3.04 versus negative emotions average of 1.65 and positive emotions were ranked one
to six and eight in the list of 15 surveyed.
Emotions and
team projects
and processes
255
H2. Negative emotions will grow more than positive emotions over the life of a
project.
H3. Emotions will show increased intensity over the life of the project.
Table IV shows that changes have taken place in emotions of the project over time.
This was suggested by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) and others. But even though
these emotions showed changes over the life of the project, it is important to test
whether these changes were statistically significant. Table V illustrates that seven of
the emotions showed significant change over the life of the project, two positive, proud
and relieved and five negative angry, irritated, disappointed, disgusted, and frustrated.
As noted, even though these negative emotions showed significant increase, their
degree of experience all fell below the moderate level. Also, even though five negative
emotions increased over the life of the project and only two positive emotions grew
significantly, the level of growth for the negative emotions averaged only 0.538
Emotion
Calm
Optimistic
Enthusiastic
Pleased
Proud
Stimulated
Worried
Relieved
Uninspired
Disappointed
Apathetic
Frustrated
Disgusted
Irritated
Angry
1
2
3
3.8
3.58
3.22
3.14
2.84
2.82
2.24
2.02
1.74
1.7
1.66
1.64
1.54
1.5
1.18
3.45
3.53
3.33
3.55
3.43
3.16
2.33
3.41
1.96
2.35
2.1
2.08
1.9
2.1
1.82
3.5
3.11
3.14
3.32
3.43
3.04
2.29
4
1.82
2.75
1.96
2.57
2.46
2.68
2.14
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Table IV.
Survey means by positive
versus negative
TPM
11,7/8
256
Table V.
Survey by significant
difference
Emotion
Relieved
Angry
Irritated
Disappointed
Disgusted
Frustrated
Proud
Apathetic
Pleased
Calm
Optimistic
Stimulated
Uninspired
Enthusiastic
Worried
1
2
3
2.02
1.18
1.50
1.70
1.54
1.64
2.84
1.66
3.14
3.80
3.58
2.82
1.74
3.22
2.24
3.41
1.82
2.10
2.35
1.90
2.08
3.43
2.10
3.55
3.45
3.53
3.16
1.96
3.33
2.33
4.00
2.14
2.68
2.75
2.46
2.57
3.43
1.96
3.32
3.50
3.11
3.04
1.82
3.14
2.29
Type
P
N
N
N
N
N
P
N
P
P
P
P
N
P
N
p
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.006
0.010
0.025
0.067
0.131
0.209
0.278
0.332
0.443
0.694
0.866
U/D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
whereas the level of growth experienced by the two positive emotions averaged 1.285.
H2 cannot be supported. There was increase in both positive and negative emotions
over the life of the project. It can be stated though that emotional intensity grew over
the life with seven of the fifteen emotions experiencing a significant increase and none
experiencing a significant decrease. H3 is supported.
H4. Initial emotions will not significantly affect team process satisfaction.
H5. Final emotions will significantly affect team process satisfaction.
In order to study the effect of emotions on team process satisfaction, a series of team
process questions were developed as noted. These are shown in the appendices. The 11
team process questions were then analyzed via scale reliability and confirmatory factor
analysis for a single team process factor. The extraction method was principal
component analysis and one factor was found (Table VI) with an Eigenvalue of 6.065.
All component exceeded 0.5 and the scale reliability resulted in a very high alpha value
of 0.9167 (Peslak and Stanton, 2005).
This factor variable was saved as a measure of team process satisfaction. Multiple
regression analysis was then performed with the team process satisfaction variable as
the dependent variable and the initial and final emotions as independent variables in
separate analyses respectively. Table VII shows the coefficients for each initial emotion
compared to team process satisfaction variable. Only one variable is significant at
p , 0.10 and the overall ANOVA (Table VIII) is not significant at p , 0.10. H4 is
supported. Initial emotions do not have a significant impact on team process
satisfaction.
Initial emotions
Tables IX and X show similar analyses for final emotions. There are several emotions
that are significant at p , 0.10 including disappointment, frustration, enthusiasm, and
pleased. Overall the ANOVA of the equation is significant at p , 0.10 (Table X). H5 is
supported. Final or ending emotions do affect team process satisfaction.
Component 1
Leader
Communic
Creative
Conflict
Roles
Synergy
Time
Resposni
Build
Goals
Tasks
0.754
0.740
0.535
0.632
0.729
0.812
0.805
0.728
0.790
0.806
0.789
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis
Source: Peslak and Stanton (2005)
(Constant)
Angry
Apathetic
Disappointed
Disgusted
Frustrated
Irritated
Uninspired
Worried
Calm
Enthusiastic
Optimistic
Pleased
Proud
Relieved
Stimulated
Unstandardized
coefficients
B
3.996
2 10.152
3.411
2 1.087
2 3.235
7.033
1.807
2 2.689
2 4.354
2.104
2 3.519
1.244
1.177
2 0.831
2 0.738
3.474
Std error
Standardized
coefficients
Beta
t
Sig.
4.568
7.936
0.969
0.499
1.967
3.130
0.885
2.922
3.683
2.111
2.754
0.866
1.004
0.529
0.525
1.888
22.880
1.934
20.933
22.140
4.580
1.352
21.941
22.685
1.486
22.821
1.302
0.996
20.680
20.523
2.363
0.875
2 1.279
3.521
2 2.176
2 1.645
2.247
2.042
2 0.920
2 1.182
0.996
2 1.278
1.436
1.173
2 1.571
2 1.405
1.840
0.474
0.329
0.072
0.161
0.242
0.154
0.178
0.455
0.359
0.424
0.330
0.287
0.362
0.257
0.295
0.207
Note: Dependent variable: teams
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
14.941
0.844
15.785
15
2
17
0.996
0.422
2.359
0.338
Note: Dependent variable: teams
Emotions and
team projects
and processes
257
Table VI.
Component matrix –
team processes
Table VII.
Coefficients of initial
emotions versus team
process satisfaction
Table VIII.
ANOVA of initial
emotions versus team
process satisfaction
TPM
11,7/8
258
Table IX.
Coefficients of final
emotions versus team
process satisfaction
Table X.
ANOVA of initial
emotions versus team
process satisfaction
(Constant)
Angry
Apathetic
Disappointed
Disgusted
Frustrated
Irritated
Uninspired
Worried
Calm
Enthusiastic
Optimistic
Pleased
Proud
Relieved
Stimulated
Unstandardized
coefficients
B
2 2.729
2 0.358
2 1.456
2 1.320
0.424
2 1.513
0.245
2 0.573
1.327
2 0.310
0.960
2 1.172
1.932
0.370
0.836
0.922
Std error
Standardized
coefficients
Beta
t
Sig.
3.605
0.519
0.683
0.332
0.469
0.277
0.309
0.282
0.619
0.320
0.320
0.692
0.566
0.381
0.444
0.344
20.377
21.045
21.297
0.572
22.069
0.267
20.677
1.472
20.271
1.172
21.291
1.581
0.325
0.649
1.073
2 0.757
2 0.691
2 2.131
2 3.976
0.904
2 5.458
0.793
2 2.032
2.143
2 0.969
3.001
2 1.693
3.415
0.971
1.883
2.681
0.528
0.561
0.167
0.058
0.461
0.032
0.511
0.179
0.165
0.435
0.095
0.233
0.076
0.434
0.200
0.115
Note: Dependent variable: teams
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
15.596
0.189
15.785
15
2
17
1.040
9.475E-02
10.974
0.087
Note: Dependent variable: teams
Limitations and discussion
As with any study there were some limitations. This was a pilot study of a group of 18
undergraduate term information technology projects. Though many researchers have
used university students in their studies, the findings may not be fully applicable for
all information technology projects. The work needs to be expanded and confirmed
with a larger sample, as well as within industry with real world projects. Though the
study does include females, there may also be a male gender bias which could influence
results. Overall, though, the study does provide a initial view and framework for the
emotional evolution and impacts on IT projects.
There were three major goals of this study. The first goal was to determine if there
was a level of initial positive emotions at the start of an information technology project.
It was found that initial expectations at the start of a project did indeed reflect positive
emotional states. This holds important implications for researchers and practitioners.
If emotions start out positive, then emotions do not initially get in the way of project
success. Less attention perhaps could be paid to “getting a good start” in an
information technology team environment. The study seems to suggest that the team
begins in a hopeful and constructive mode in its initial stages.
The second goal of the project was to examine how the initial emotional states
evolve over the life of a project. It was theorized that negative emotions would grow
more than positive emotions over the life of a project and that emotional intensity in
general would increase. It was found that more of the negative emotions showed
significant growth over the life of the project but that the positive emotions that did
grow grew substantially more. So there were mixed results for this hypothesis. Many
negative emotions did grow and researchers should examine how and why these
negative emotions grow. Practitioners need to take steps to reduce the negative
emotions’ growth and foster more team positives. Measures such as encouragement
from leaders, conflict processes, and project perks can be taken to decrease negative
emotions and improve team performance (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). The positive
emotions that did grow should be cultivated by practitioners since it has been found
that positive emotions improve team performance. As suggested by Kelly and Barsade
(2001) affective influences can be improved by such things as improved environmental
conditions, constructive inter-group conflict resolution methods, and improved
communications technologies Finally, the emotions that showed no significant change
deserve further study to better understand why they didn’t change.
The final goal of the report was to determine the effect that emotions have on team
process satisfaction. It is suggested that teams with high team process satisfaction will
accomplish their tasks’ goals more successfully and efficiently. It was confirmed that
initial emotions had no significant impact on team process satisfaction. First
impressions are not critical in teams. It was found that the final emotions were
significant factors in team process satisfaction. The emotions of the team as they
evolved during the project did affect team satisfaction and need to be monitored and
cultivated.
Conclusion
This study provides important findings that can help explain the impact and evolution
of emotions during information technology team projects. The work can serve as a
start of an important exploration area for new research. The study can also directly
improve the workings of teams and improve overall project success rates. First, it was
found that team emotions at the start of a project are more positive than negative.
McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) found that negative emotions reduce
performance. Our finding suggests that teams begin projects with higher positive
emotions and should be productive at the start of their projects. Next, our study found
that certain negative emotions grow over the life of a project but that positive emotions
grow as well. The growth of negative emotions should be addressed during the life of
the project. This includes the implementation of affective influences such as rewards,
praise, improved environment, and improved conflict resolution processes as
suggested by Kelly and Barsade (2001). The next finding was that emotional
intensity was found to significantly increase over the life of a project. This confirms the
evolutionary nature of emotions as suggested by Alliger and Wiliams (1993) and Weiss
and Cropanzano (1996). Teams begin their projects in a lower emotional state but their
level of emotional involvement increases throughout the life of the project. Firms
should realize this factor when developing support and infrastructure for teams. Most
teams have strong support at the start of a project when perhaps it is least needed but
receive little support in the middle and later stages of the project when emotions are
Emotions and
team projects
and processes
259
TPM
11,7/8
260
stronger and help may be more worthwhile. Teams should be monitored during the
project and help provided to support positive emotional environments and reduce
negative emotional strains. This suggestion is supported by the last two findings of
this study. First it was found that initial emotions though generally positive have little
impact on the overall team process satisfaction experienced by a group. Lastly, the
data suggest that the evolution of emotions over the life of the project culminating in a
final ending emotion is important in determining team process satisfaction. Team
emotional dynamics as they progress during the life of the project do make a difference
in how a team views itself and its team processes. And team processes play a
significant positive role in team successes (Mathieu et al., 2000). It is thus extremely
important to monitor and support a positive team emotional environment during the
life of a project.
As a result of this preliminary study, there are many opportunities to improve team
success as well as many fertile avenues to pursue for researchers. The author is in the
process of expanding this pilot analysis into a larger real world industry study to
increase the applicability of these preliminary research findings. It is hoped this work
can initiate research to determine the important aspects of team emotions, processes,
and performance.
References
Alliger, G.M. and Williams, K.J. (1993), “Using signal-contingent experience sampling
methodology to study work in the field: a discussion and illustration examining task
perceptions and mood”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 525-49.
Brown, T. (1995), “The emotional side of management”, Industry Week, Vol. 244 No. 9, pp. 30-3.
Feyerherm, A. and Rice, C. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and team performance: the good, the
bad and the ugly”, Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 343-62.
Fisher, C. (2000), “Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction?”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 185-202.
Glinow, M., Shapiro, D. and Brett, J. (2004), “Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional
conflict in multicultural teams”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 578-92.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Grossman, R. (2000), “Emotions at work”, Health Forum Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 18-22.
Kelly, J.R. and Barsade, S.G. (2001), “Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 99-130.
Lewis, K. (2000), “When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to negative emotional
expression of male and female leaders”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21,
pp. 221-34.
McColl-Kennedy, J. and Anderson, R. (2002), “Impact of leadership style and emotions on
subordinate performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 545-59.
Mathieu, J., Heffner, T., Goodwin, G., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. (2000), “The influence of
shared mental models on team process and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 273-83.
Muchinsky, P. (2000), “Emotions in the workplace: the neglect of organizational behavior”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 801-05.
Peslak, A. and Stanton, M. (2005), “Information technology team achievement: an exploratory
factor analysis and development of a team success model (TSM)”, Information Resources
Management Journal (in review).
Shaw, T. (2004) pp. 124-6, “The emotions of systems developers: an empirical study of affective
events theory”, Proceedings of SIGMIS’04, pp. 124-126.
Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R. (2005), “The contagious leader: impact of the leader’s mood on
the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 295-305.
Weiss, H.M. 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, Vol. 18, pp. 1-74.
Emotions and
team projects
and processes
261
Appendix 1. Emotions
Please indicate to what degree you are experiencing each emotion at this point in the project?
1 – Not at all, 2 – Somewhat weakly, 3 – Moderate amount, 4 – Somewhat Strongly, 5 – Very
strongly
Angry
1
2
3
4
5
Apathetic
1
2
3
4
5
Calm
1
2
3
4
5
Disappointed
1
2
3
4
5
Disgusted
1
2
3
4
5
Enthusiastic
1
2
3
4
5
Frustrated
1
2
3
4
5
Irritated
1
2
3
4
5
Optimistic
1
2
3
4
5
Pleased
1
2
3
4
5
Proud
1
2
3
4
5
Relieved
1
2
3
4
5
Stimulated
1
2
3
4
5
Uninspired
1
2
3
4
5
Worried
1
2
3
4
5
Table AI.
TPM
11,7/8
262
Appendix 2. Team Processes Questions
(1) Leadership of the team, either formal or informal, offers clarity with priorities and
instructions to team members. How do you rate the leadership in your team?
(2) Team communication effectively shares project status and periodic goals with team
members. How do you rate communication in your team?
(3) How do you rate the importance of creativity on this team project?
(4) Conflicts within the team should be resolved in an acceptable manner among team
members. How would you rate the way in which your group manages conflicts?
(5) Team roles should be given to the team member whose strengths match the task. How
successful do you think your team was at matching individual roles with team members?
(6) Synergy means that the combined effort is greater than the parts. How do you rate team
synergy in your team?
(7) How do you rate how wisely time is managed on your team?
(8) How would you rate your team’s effort on sharing responsibility?
(9) How well do you feel your team did in the process of team building?
(10) Team goals are an important aspect when managing team projects. How well do you feel
your team sets effective team goals?
(11) Working through team tasks requires problem-solving skills. How would you rate the
problem-solving skills your team has shown?