1
Group-level Emotional Intelligence
Vanessa Urch Druskat
Whittemore School of Business and Economics
University of New Hampshire
McConnell Hall; 15 College Road
Durham, NH 03824
USA
Phone: 603-659-2916 Fax: 603-862-3383
E-mail: vanessa.druskat@unh.edu
Steven B. Wolff
Hay Group
McClelland Center for Research
116 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02116-5712
USA
Phone: 617-425-4525
E-mail: steve@sbwolff.com
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (in press). Group-level emotional intelligence. In N.M.
Ashkanasy & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: in
press. London: Edward Elgar.
We wish to thank Neal Ashkanasy for his inspiration and patience.
2
Abstract
Group-level Emotional Intelligence
This chapter presents a theory explaining how emotional intelligence (EI) can be
manifested at the group level. The theory explains how awareness and management of emotion
in groups can improve group effectiveness by enabling a group to take advantage the positive
and negative emotions experienced by members. We argue that group-level EI is most effective
when it emerges as a set of nine emotionally competent norms that build social capital and that
support group effectiveness.
3
Work tasks are assigned to teams when team member information sharing and interaction
is necessary for optimal performance. Many factors can influence the quality of team member
information sharing and interaction-- one of the most elusive is emotion. In fact, every
interaction between and among team members produces emotion (Kemper, 2000). Moreover,
within the team context, this emotion is contagious; it instantly and unconsciously spreads
among team members and affects subsequent team dynamics (Barsade, 2002; Sy, Côté, &
Saavedra, 2005). For the past five decades, researchers have been showing that emotion
influences the quality of group interactions, the motivation of team members, and team
performance (Boyd, 1964; Edmondson, 1999; Homans, 1950; Kelly, 2004).
Still, little research and theory have addressed how to turn emotion into an asset for a
team. The primary focus of group theorists has been aimed at guarding against the negative
aspects of emotion such as destructive conflict. In the 1970’s and 1980’s group theorists argued
that emotion should be managed by reducing the amount of member interaction during team
decision making processes (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafsun, 1975) and through the use of
strategies such as structuring discussion principles or appointing a “devil’s advocate,” that is, a
person whose mission was to provide the negative feedback or raise the difficult issues so that
members would not fear having to disappoint or anger the group (Delbecq, Van de Ven, &
Gustafsun, 1975; Janis, 1982).
While these strategies are effective at muting emotion in groups, they also reduce the
team’s ability to exploit the constructive benefits of emotion. Negative emotions can preoccupy
the attention of team members, never-the-less, they are commentaries on team member’s honest
concerns and can provide valuable information (Archer, 2004) about the adequacy of team
processes or the correctness of team decisions. Positive emotions can also play a useful role in
4
team environments by engaging members in the team or the task (Bales, 1953; Homans, 1950).
The positive emotions that emerge from caring, respectful, or enjoyable interactions among
members can also lead to the development of bonds that boost cooperation (Dirks, 1999), the
synergistic integration of ideas, and the effectiveness of group processes (Dirks, 1999; Hackman,
1987). However, little theory or research have examined how teams can best take advantage of
both negative and positive emotion in the team environment and use it to improve performance
(Reus & Liu, 2004).
In this chapter, We present a working theory developed by my colleague Steve Wolff and
me to propose how awareness and management of emotion in groups can be used to harness the
positive side of emotion and produce “process gains”(Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Process gains are
defined as boosts to a team’s productivity due to high quality interaction processes in the team
(Steiner, 1972). We argue that process gains are the result of “emotionally competent group
norms” that build social capital and improve task focused behaviors and interactions. Our theory
is an extension of theory on emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2001; J. D. Mayer, 2001) and its
application in team environments (Huy, 1999). So, we begin by defining the construct of
emotional intelligence and discussing how researchers have conceptualized its application in
team environments.
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is one of the most intriguing yet controversial concepts
emerging from psychology in the last few decades. When it first emerged, the concept received
immediate attention because social scientists, educators, managers, and the general public all saw
face validity and utility in the idea of a form of intelligence that combines emotion and cognitive
reasoning. Although beyond the scope of this chapter, it is worth noting that the controversy over
5
EI stems mostly from the abrupt speed with which it entered the literature, which was due to its
almost instant popularity. Additional theory and research are necessary to sort out problems that
grew out of that such as the lack of a consistent definition, the quality of EI measures, and
whether EI measures tap into something new that personality and cognitive intelligence tests
don’t already provide (Murphy, 2006). Never-the-less, a growing amount of theory and research
on EI links it to behaviors relevant in team environments (Druskat, Sala, & Mount, 2006).
In terms of definition, EI involves thinking and acting intelligently about emotion.
Specifically, it requires the ability to recognize and differentiate ones own emotions and
emotions in others, to understand how these specific emotions influence behavior, and to
anticipate and manage one’s own and other’s behavioral reactions to specific emotions. Those
who study EI agree that, like cognitive intelligence, (IQ) it is defined by a set of abilities. The
exact abilities that define EI are debated by theorists whose theories differ in seemingly slight
but important ways (Druskat et al., 2006; J. D. Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Recently,
strong empirical support was found for a 6-factor model supporting six distinct EI abilities
including: (a) emotional self-awareness; (b) awareness of others’ emotions; (c) emotional selfregulation; (d) management of others’ emotions; (e) emotional expression; and (f) emotional
reasoning (Palmer, Gignac, Ekermans, & Stough, in press).
The first two abilities, emotional self-awareness and awareness of others’ emotions
involve recognizing or perceiving one’s own feelings and those of others in their facial
expressions, voice tones or postures, and then accurately labeling them. The second two abilities,
emotional self-regulation and management of others’ emotions are seen when one is able to calm
oneself or others’ down during stressful times, or when one anticipates and avoids stress before it
occurs. Alternatively, it can involve cheering oneself or others up when needed—the critical
6
attribute is the ability to manage the emotion. The fifth ability, emotional expression is the ability
to accurately express the emotion one feels. The sixth ability, emotional reasoning involves the
ability to accurately analyze emotions such as when they arise, their typical trends, and their
typical outcomes.
Research consistently shows that when work requires social interaction, EI abilities are
positively linked to high performance (Druskat et al., 2006). This makes sense because emotions
are primarily social phenomenon (Leach & Tiedens, 2004; McCarthy, 1989). The emotional
system is triggered by events occurring outside of our physical bodies and frequently these
events are connected to social interactions and social relationships, as seen in the case of greed,
anger, rage, or tenderness (McCarthy, 1989). The stronger the mutual dependence, that is
interdependence, among individuals the more likely they are to invoke emotions in one another
and the more inextricably linked are their emotions (Clark, Fitness, & Brissette, 2004),
producing “shared emotions” (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). In team environments, interdependence
among members is usually high because members need one another to complete their work.
Decades of research provides ample evidence that emotion is a central and inevitable part of life
in work teams (Bales, 1953; Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Tuckman, 1965).
Two features of EI make it particularly relevant to the productive use of emotion in team
environments. First, as mentioned above, emotions are commentaries on concerns (Archer, 2004)
and can be early indicators of problems in teams. Thus, attention to member emotions can enable
a team to recognize problems before they evolve into larger problems. Second, EI enables one to
regulate and manage destructive emotions. Given that conflict is a natural part of group life
(Deutsch, 1973), this ability would likely be useful for tempering destructive conflict in a team.
In sum, EI could be an asset in team environments because it has the potential to enable team
7
members to notice and understand one another’s emotions, manage destructive emotions,
recognize emotions as commentaries and feedback, and use emotion information to improve
team processes, decisions, and outcomes.
Emotional Intelligence in Team Contexts
The clear association between EI and behavior that might be productive in team contexts
has led theorists and researchers to examine its application in work teams. This application has
been characterized and examined through the use of three different approaches. The most
common approach is to measure each team member’s EI and to average the scores to compile a
team EI score. The assumption is that the higher the average score, the more emotionally
intelligent the team (Day & Carroll, 2004; Feyerhem & Rice, 2002; Frye, Bennett, & Caldwell,
2006; Offermann, Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal, & Sass, 2004).
A second approach to examining team EI is through the use of a specialized measure
focused on behavior in team contexts. This approach was initiated by Peter Jordan and his
colleagues who developed the “Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile” (WEIP) to assess
individual emotional intelligence expressed in a team context (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, &
Hooper, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004). The items in the WEIP ask members to rate the extent to
which they can do things such as “explain the emotions they feel to team members,” “overcome
anger that is felt toward a team member,” etc. A second version of the survey, the Peer-WEIP,
asks team members to assess whether their teammates exhibit these EI abilities in the team. For
both the WEIP and the Peer-WEIP, team EI is measured as the average level of individual EI in a
team. Teams with members who score higher on EI are considered to be more emotionally
intelligent.
8
Finally, some theorists, including my colleagues and I, define team emotional intelligence
as a group-level (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Gnatt & Agazarian, 2004; Reus & Liu, 2004) or even
organization-level construct (Gnatt & Agazarian, 2004; (Huy, 1999). We argue that just as
emotion in an organizational context occurs at multiple levels (Ashkanasy, 2003), emotional
intelligence can occur at multiple levels. In fact, teams (or organizations) are well-known to be
“greater than the sum of their individual parts” (Tziner & Eden, 1985). In other words, behavior
in teams is not random and do not occur in a vacuum; behavior is influenced by the surrounding
context and the range of behaviors considered acceptable within the team (Morgeson &
Hofmann, 1999). A team’s emergent norms and culture interact with and can easily prevail over
the abilities or behaviors of individual members. Research has consistently revealed that other
than task ability, individual member characteristics are weak predictors of team processes and
outcomes (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Vraa, 1974). Thus, we argue that if emotional intelligence is
to have a significant influence in a team, it must exist as something more than an individual team
member ability that may or may not make a difference-- it must exist as a norm or expectation
about how team members should behave in a team. Understanding how EI can exist as a grouplevel norm requires understanding how group norms emerge.
Research and theory provide evidence of a four phase process that occurs as norms
emerge (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Feldman, 1984; Festinger, 1954). In the first phase,
members come together and base their behavior and expectations on their prior experience in
similar situations. Thus, for EI behaviors to emerge as norms, some members need to arrive with
the abilities required for emotional intelligence and a belief that behaving in emotionally
intelligent ways will serve the group.
9
The second phase starts as soon as team members begin to interact. It involves a series of
actions, observations, and reflections through which members begin to create and make sense out
of common experiences that start shaping their expectations (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985).
According to Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory, the ambiguity experienced in this
phase causes members to turn to one another to compare behaviors and gauge the acceptability
of their behaviors and beliefs in the team.
In phase three of the norm development process, members start challenging the emerging
expectations and patterns of behaviors and begin voicing alternative preferences (Bettenhausen
& Murnighan, 1985). It is important to note that norms develop only for those behaviors and
attitudes which are viewed as important by most group members (Hackman, 1976). Thus, in this
phase, if Group EI norms are emerging, they are likely to be challenged and must eventually get
supported by a majority of group members if they are to endure. Alternatively, if Group EI
norms have not emerged, this is a critical time period for group members to make interventions
in support of them.
We propose five forces that can leverage the importance of emotionally intelligent
behavior in the eyes of the group majority. These involve the influence of: (1) external team
leaders, (2) informal team leaders, (3) courageous followers who aren’t necessarily treated as
informal leaders in the team, (4) training, and (5) organizational culture. The first three involve
interventions by individuals that believe in the importance of emotionally intelligent behavior
and champion the relevance of emotion to team processes and outcomes. Training programs
provided early in a group's development can advocate developing emotionally intelligent norms
and have the added advantage of enabling members to build the skills and abilities needed to
10
support such norms (Hackman, 1976). Finally, an organizational culture that supports
emotionally intelligent behavior can support the emergence of emotionally intelligent norms.
In phase four, members start behaving according to group expectations instead of those in
which they entered the team (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Deviations from norms are
sanctioned. Group norms have been discussed as the most invisible, but most powerful form of
influence in teams (Feldman, 1984).
Defining Emotionally Intelligent Group Norms.
But clearly group norms cannot sanction a team member to develop EI abilities. In other
words, most groups cannot simply insist that their members display abilities they may not have
such as awareness of their own emotions or empathy for other members’ emotions. Therefore,
while our model grows out of the theory of emotional intelligence, it involves a set of nine
emotionally competent norms that sanction behavior that, while not emotionally intelligent in
and of itself, leads to awareness and management of emotion in the team environment.
Awareness and management of emotion are selected because they are central ability dimensions
in most theories of EI (Bar-On, Handley, & Fund, 2006; Goleman, 2001; Salovey & Mayer,
1990). Importantly, these behaviors can be demonstrated by any team member, regardless of a
member’s own level of EI.
We formally define group emotional competence (GEC) as the ability of a group to create
norms that sanction member awareness and/or regulation of the emotion in a way that builds,
rather than depletes, what we refer to as group social capital. In turn group social capital leads to
group effectiveness. Below, we define group social capital. First we define and discuss GEC.
A distinguishing feature about the group context is that it elicits and embodies emotion at
multiple levels (i.e., individual, group, inter-group), all of which can significantly influence
11
member behavior and group outcomes (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). Thus, GEC must evoke
emotionally competent behavior at multiple levels: (1) awareness of and regulation of the
emotion of individual members, (2) awareness and regulation of group-level emotion, and (3)
awareness and regulation of the emotion expressed by relevant groups and individuals external to
the group.
Group Member Emotion.
GEI norms must support behavior that attends to the emotional needs of each individual
member. Thus as can be seen in Figure 1, the first dimension of GEC focuses on awareness and
management of emotions in individual team members. Thus, it must create a balance between
attending to and understanding individual member emotions with managing or regulating them
so as to induce desirable member behavior in the team that won’t break trust. We propose the
first two dimensions of GEC to be: (1) group awareness of members (i.e., member feelings,
needs, and concerns), and (2) group management of members. We also suggest five specific
norms that would support these dimensions: interpersonal understanding (Druskat, 1996), caring
orientation (Kahn, 1996; Wolff, 1998), and confronting members who break norms (Druskat,
1996; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991).
------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------Group awareness of members. This GEC dimension represents group norms that
encourage team members to learn and recognize the needs, feelings, preferences, and resources
of the other members’. The group provides a culture within which members interact and form
relationships. Understanding of the spoken and unspoken feelings, interests, concerns, strengths
12
and weakness of group members allows one to better understand one another's day-to-day
behavior and contributions to the group. This enables an individual to support a fellow group
member where needed, validate members by recognizing and utilizing their strengths, and by
being respectful of their feelings, all of which have been shown to build relationships (Wolff,
1998). We propose a norm of "interpersonal understanding" as representative of a norm that
encourages group members to understand each other.
Group regulation of members. This dimension of GEC represents two norms that
influence group member response to emotion and encourages building respectful relationships.
There is great tension in groups between creating norms that ensure predictable group member
behavior, and at the same time creating leeway to allows members a sense of control and enables
them to speak their mind and experience their individuality. Theorists have argued that,
paradoxically, the more a group allows its members to exert their individuality, the more its
members will be open to placing their individualism aside for the good of the group (Smith &
Berg, 1987). Group regulation of members must walk the fine line between encouraging desired
behavior and promoting individuality.
To promote both desired behavior, and the honest expression of emotion, group norms
need to encourage members to speak-up when a member does something considered
unacceptable. Research suggests that in successful teams, rather than avoiding conflict members
speak up when another member steps out of line or breaks norms (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967;
Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). We propose a norm of "confronting members who break norms" as
representing group norms that encourage honest discussion of behaviors that are thought to be
unacceptable to group members.
13
As group members speak up and interact in general, it is important to communicate
positive regard, appreciation, and respect. This illustrates to members that their presence and
contribution are valued. In a study of 67 work groups, Wolff (1998) found that "caring
behaviors" such as validating group members, attention to members, empathy, and support
contributed to group effectiveness by increasing members' sense of safety, cohesion and
satisfaction, which in turn, facilitated member engagement in the task. Kahn (1998) argues that a
caring orientation builds workplace relationships that provide a "secure base" for individuals,
which allows them to take risks that facilitate personal learning and development. Caring does
not necessitate close personal relationships, it requires communicating care and respect. We
propose a norm of "caring orientation" to represent the norms that guide individual team
members to treat each other with care and respect.
Group Emotion
LeBon (1977) was the first to propose that emotion in a group context can create a
powerful force that overwhelms individual differences in emotion and creates a collective group
character. At the core of LeBon's controversial theory was the proposition that there exists a
group-level construct greater than the sum of its individual parts (Barsade & Gibson, 1998).
GEC norms focused on group-level emotion must encompass a category of behaviors that seek to
become aware of group-level emotion and to manage or regulate it. We propose two dimensions
of GEC under this category: (1) group self-awareness, and (2) group self-management.
Group self-awareness. Self-awareness involves two complementary processes. First, to
become self-aware, the group must look inward to examine its emotions, needs, processes, and
preferences. Second, the group must look outward to collect information that allows it to assess
the effectiveness of its current state. Research shows that groups vary with respect to the degree
14
that they encourage these processes (Druskat, 1996). Druskat (1996) found that high-performing
teams were much more likely than average teams to seek evaluative information and to use the
information to discover their strengths and weaknesses. We propose that a norm of "team selfevaluation” would ensure that a team collect information and reflect on it to build its selfawareness.
Group self-management. Group self-management represents the set of group norms that
influence the ability of the group to face emotionally challenging situations and respond in a
productive manner. This dimension complements group self-awareness by increasing the group’s
ability to cope with the emotions that emerge from generating self-awareness and by guiding the
group's emotional response in a productive direction.
Group self-regulation increases the group's ability to cope with emotionally challenging
situations in three ways. First, the perceived emotional threat can be reduced through positive
interpretations of the situation surrounding the emotion eliciting event. Many situations are
ambiguous and their meaning is derived through group member interaction and discussion.
Creating positive, optimistic interpretations of events helps to reduce the negative emotions
associated with the event (Cooperrider, 1990; Miller & Yeager, 1993), and thus, increases a
group's ability to cope with the event. We propose a group norm labeled "creating an optimistic
environment" that influences the group to think positively about the challenges it faces.
Second, a team’s ability to work with emotion can be built by the provision of resources
that enable the group to process and utilize the emotion as information. Organizations and groups
have cultures that vary widely on their willingness to encourage and support expression and
discussion of emotional states (Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998). When norms discourage
emotional expression and discussion, the emotion does not disappear; it frequently emerges as
15
dysfunctional behavior, e.g., unproductive conflict or self-deception and avoidance of potentially
threatening situations (Fineman, 1993; Holmer, 1994). Levy argues that culture provides
resources for processing emotion (Levy, 1984). In a group setting this would encompass norms
that encourage expression of emotion, provide time for it, and a language for efficient discussion.
We propose the norm of "creating resources for working with emotion" as representing a group's
facilitation of emotional expression and discussion through providing the above resources.
Third, a group's capacity to cope with emotional arousal can be influenced through norms
that directly guide behavior. Druskat (1996) found that highly effective teams took control of
difficult situations. For example, one team that was experiencing frequent equipment
breakdowns took the situation into their own hands. Rather than wait for the maintenance crew
to make repairs, they watched the mechanics repair the problem and the next time repaired the
problem on their own. Other highly effective teams designed their own parts rather than tolerate
equipment that hindered their performance. These actions increase the sense of control over the
environment, which reduces the emotional challenge of the situation. We propose the norm of
"proactive problem solving" to represent norms that encourage taking proactive action in dealing
with situations that would otherwise lead to negative emotion.
Cross-Boundary Emotion
Groups in organizations are not islands. Their work involves interacting with and meeting
the needs of stakeholders outside of the team. Indeed, Ancona and her colleagues have long
argued that the cross-functional, cross-boundary communication required for smooth group
functioning is a primary team responsibility (Ancona, 1990; Gladstein, 1984). Thus, the third
dimension of GEC involves an awareness of the feelings, needs, and concerns of individuals and
stakeholders and relevant groups in the external boundary. We propose two dimensions of GEC
16
related to cross-boundary emotion: (1) group social awareness, and (2) group social skills. Two
group norms support this dimension of GEC: Organizational awareness (Druskat, 1996;
(Ancona, 1990) and building relationships with stakeholders (Ancona, 1990; Argote, 1989).
Group social awareness. Group social-awareness represents norms that encourage a
group to be aware of its context as well as the needs, feelings, preferences, and resources of other
individuals and groups with which it interacts or that it considers its stakeholders. Research
shows that an effective group is awareness of the social and political system of which it is a part
(Druskat, 1996). This boundary-spanning activity allows the group to gather information and
resources that it can use to more effectively accomplish its task (Yan & Louis, 1999). We
propose a norm of "organizational awareness" to represent the group's encouragement of
attending to and understanding the organizational system of which it is a part.
Group social skills. Understanding the organizational system, however, is insufficient for
developing relationships with other groups and individuals. Group social skills represent norms
that encourage building relationships with stakeholders. It is through the development of
constructive relationships that a group can convert its awareness into influence and the
engagement of external resources.
In a study examining group boundary management, groups who did not engage in
cross-boundary activities—labeled isolationists—performed significantly worse than those who
did (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Druskat (1996) also found that highly effective groups built
good relationships with other groups. We propose a norm of "building relationships with
stakeholders" to represent a group's focus on building constructive relationships with other
groups and relevant individuals.
Constructive Emotion in Groups
17
Emotionally competent group norms enable a group to take advantage of both negative
and positive emotion in the team environment. We argue that by building awareness and
management of emotion they enable process gains in groups through their facilitation of “group
social capital.” Social capital represents the value added by the structure and quality of
relationships held by an individual or social unit (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Unlike other
forms of capital (e.g., financial or human), social capital is jointly held by the parties in
relationship, yet, “like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the
achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible" (Coleman, 1988): 98).
We propose that GEC norms lead to the development of four dimensions of social capital
which are all rooted in emotion: Trust, group identity, group efficacy, and networks. These
dimensions of social capital each boost group processes in unique ways.
Trust
Trust involves the willingness to make oneself vulnerable to the actions of others
because of the belief and expectation that those actions will be favorable to one’s interests (R. C.
Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Theorists have defined trust as growing out of affect and
friendship (i.e., stemming from reciprocal interpersonal care and concern), and/or out of
calculus-based cognitions (i.e., I trust that you can and will do what you say) (Rousseau, Sitkin,
Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Despite its form, the experience of trust and its ongoing evolution are
dependent on positive behavioral exchanges between parties. If such exchanges are continuous,
trust can grow from a level of trustworthy impressions to a deeper level of unconditional trust.
Jones and George (Jones & George, 1998) propose three conditions necessary for the
development of unconditional trust in a group setting: (1) confidence in each other's values and
18
trustworthiness, (2) favorable attitudes toward each other, and (3) positive affect in the context of
the relationship.
The individual-focused GEC norms characterizing both emotional awareness and
regulation of member behavior support group members in feeling understood, respected, and
cared for while enforcing predictable and fair behavior. Together they help build trust by
facilitating trustworthiness, favorable attitudes toward one another, and positive affect (Jones and
George, 1998).
Group Identity
A second form of social capital is group identity, which involves a perception of oneness
with a group because of the feeling that the group represents oneself (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
The concept of group identity grows out of social identity theory, which contends that
individuals define their self-concepts through their associations with social groups (Tajfel, 1982).
It has been argued that individuals are motivated to identify with specific groups because they
fulfill a desire for affiliation (Kelman, 1958) and because that affiliation enhances one’s selfesteem (Turner, 1975).
Thus, we argue that group identity groups out of the group member-focused dimension
of GEC, which involves awareness and management of member behavior, and the group-focused
dimension, which involves group self-awareness and group self-management. The individually
focused norms create a sense of being understood, respected and cared for while reinforcing the
rules or conditions of group membership. The group focused norms ensures that members will be
proud to belong to that particular group.
19
Group Efficacy
Group efficacy involves the collective belief within a group that the group can perform
effectively (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). Group efficacy grows out of group member
interactions focused on the acquisition, organization, and exchange of information about each
other, and about the group’s task context, process, and past performance (Gibson, 1999). Such
interactions permit the development of a shared sense of the group’s potential for success.
We argue that group efficacy develops from group-focused GEC norms that promote
group self-awareness and group self-management including: team self-evaluation, creating
resources for working with emotion, creating an optimistic environment, and proactive problem
solving. These GEC norms support group efficacy through two paths. The first is through
assessment, which as discussed above is a prerequisite for group efficacy beliefs. Lindsley and
colleagues argue that assessment facilitates group efficacy by enabling timely self-correction and
adjustment (Lindsley et al., 1995). The second path is through a focus on the future and taking
control of that future, both of which are evident in norms such as creating an optimistic
environment, and proactive problem solving
Network Ties
Network ties are relational bonds developed with individuals or groups outside of the
group’s boundary. Theory and research indicate that network ties can be instrumental through
their ability to provide resources including information and influence (Burt, 1997). Through the
GEC norms of organizational awareness and building relationships with stakeholders, a group is
able to tap into the emotional issues and priorities faced by stakeholders and to address those
priorities.
20
Conclusions and Future Directions
Our conception of group-level emotional intelligence proposes that a group's ability to
develop norms that support emotionally intelligent behavior influences its ability to generate
social capital, which is beneficial because it boosts team processes and team effectiveness (i.e., it
creates process gains). This conception of Group EI holds numerous implications for research
and practice. First, our theory suggests that researchers embark on a renewed and more thorough
examination of the role of emotion in groups so that the constructive side of emotions is more
clearly documented and supported. As a starting place, we present specific norms and causal
connections that we propose enables a group to use awareness and management of emotion to
facilitate positive outcomes.
Our model has several implications for managers. First, we provide a clear direction that
involves two main destinations: Group-level emotional intelligence and social capital. We
suggest that managers work to develop the emotional intelligence of their group members, and to
develop GEC norms in their work groups. We also suggest that mangers keep the purpose for
GEC in full view: The development of social capital. Second, we provide a detailed map for
getting to those destinations that outlines the dimensions of GEC, group behaviors to support
those dimensions, and the elements of social capital.
In sum, we believe emotions in group contexts are relevant to creating conditions that
build team effectiveness. Moreover, we believe groups play a role in creating their own context
by choosing and constructing social norms that prescribe how members will treat one another
and work together. By incorporating norms that build group-level emotional intelligence, groups
can create self-reinforcing spirals of heedful interrelating, strong emotional attachments,
effective task processes, and group effectiveness.
21
References
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in the organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
Archer, M. S. (2004). Emotions as commentaries on human concerns. In J. H. Turner (Ed.),
Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research on Human Emotions (Vol. 21, pp. 327356). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Argote, L. (1989). Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 131-140.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotion in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F. Dansereau
& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Multi-level issues in organizational
behavior and strategy (Vol. 2, pp. 9-54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales & E. A.
Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111-161). New York: The Free Press.
Bar-On, R., Handley, R., & Fund, S. (2006). The impact of emotional intelligence on
performance. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and
22
performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 3-19).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed
groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62-78.
Barsade, S. B. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion in groups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. In D.
Gruenfeld (Ed.), Composition (Vol. 1, pp. 81-102). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive
decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3), 350-372.
Boyd, R. D. (1964). Emotional control as a factor in productivity of small interaction groups.
Journal of Social Psychology, 64(2), 275-285.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
339-365.
Clark, M. S., Fitness, J., & Brissette, I. (2004). Understanding people's perceptions of
relationships is crucial to understanding their emotional lives. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), Emotion and Motivation (pp. 21-46). Malden: MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of organizing.
In S. Srivastva, D. L. Cooperrider & Associates (Eds.), Appreciative management and
leadership: The power of positive thought and action in organizations (pp. 91-125). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to
predict individual performance, group performance, and group citizenship behavior. Personality
& Individual Differences, 36(6), 1443-1458.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafsun, D. (1975). Group techniques for program
planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi process. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455.
Druskat, V. U. (1996). A team competency study of self-managed manufacturing teams.
Unpublished Dissertation, Boston University.
Druskat, V. U., Sala, F., & Mount, G. (Eds.). (2006). Linking Emotional Intelligence and
Performance at Work. Mahwah: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard
Business Review, 79(3), 81-90.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 47-53.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Feyerhem, A. E., & Rice, C. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good,
the bad and the ugly. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 343-362.
24
Fineman, S. (1993). Organizations as emotional arenas. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in
organizations (pp. 9-35). London: Sage.
Frye, C. M., Bennett, R., & Caldwell, S. (2006). Team emotional intelligence and team
interpersonal process effectiveness. Mid-American Journal of Business, 21(1), 49-56.
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group
effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138-152.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Gnatt, S. P., & Agazarian, Y. M. (2004). Systems-centered emotional intelligence: Beyond
individual systems to organizational systems. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 147-169.
Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-based theory of performance. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.),
The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 27-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holmer, L. L. (1994). Developing emotional capacity and organizational health. In R. H.
Kilmann, I. Kilmann & Associates (Eds.), Managing ego energy: The transformation of personal
meaning into organizational success (pp. 49-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of
Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.
25
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional
intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.
Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195-214.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving:
Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195-218.
Kahn, W. A. (1996). Secure base relationships at work. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead,
long life the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 158-179). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kelly, J. R. (2004). Mood and emotion in groups. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
Emotion and Motivation (pp. 95-112). Malden: MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99-130.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of
attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
Kemper, T. D. (2000). Social models in the explanation of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 45-58). New York: Guildford Press.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.
Leach, C. W., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2004). Introduction: A world of emotion. In L. Z. Tiedens & C.
W. Leach (Eds.), The Social Life of Emotions (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Levy, R. I. (1984). Emotion, knowing, and culture. In R. A. Sweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.),
Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 214-237). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
26
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy performance spirals: A multilevel
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645-678.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and
emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43,
429-469.
Mayer, J. D. (2001). A field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas & J. D.
Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life (pp. 3-24). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology
Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelligence.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 396-420). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 709-734.
McCarthy, E. D. (1989). Emotions are social things: An essay in the sociology of emotions. In D.
D. Franks & E. D. McCarthy (Eds.), The sociology of emotions: Original essays and research
papers (pp. 51-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Miller, A. R., & Yeager, R. J. (1993). Managing change: A corporate application of rationalemotive therapy. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 11(2), 65-76.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs:
Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 249-265.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of
British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165-186.
27
Murphy, K. R. (Ed.). (2006). A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and
how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Offermann, L. R., Bailey, J. R., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Seal, C., & Sass, M. (2004). The relative
contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and team performance.
Human Performance, 17(2), 219-243.
Palmer, B., Gignac, G., Ekermans, G., & Stough, C. (in press). A comprehensive framework for
emotional intelligence. In R. J. Emmerling, V. K. Shawel & M. K. Mandel (Eds.), Emotional
intelligence: Theoretical and cultural perspectives. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Reus, T. H., & Liu, Y. (2004). Rhyme and reason: Emotional capability and the performance of
knowledge-intensive work groups. Human Performance, 17(2), 245-266.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Sy, T., Côté, S., & 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, 90(2), 295-305.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambrige University
Press.
28
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384-399.
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup
behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34.
Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the
whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 85-93.
Vraa, C. W. (1974). Emotional climate as a function of group composition. Small Group
Behavior, 5(1), 105-120.
Wolff, S. B. (1998). The role of caring behavior and peer feedback in creating team
effectiveness. Unpublished Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
Yan, A., & Louis, M. R. (1999). The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level:
Buffering, spanning and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 52(1), 25-47.
29
FIGURE 1: Dimensions of Group Emotional Competence and GEC Norms
GROUP EMOTIONAL
COMPETENCE NORMS
DIMENSIONS OF GROUP
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE
GROUP SOCIAL
CAPITAL
INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED
• Interpersonal Understanding
Group Awareness of Members
• Confronting Members Who
Break Norms
• Caring Behavior
Group Management of Members
GROUP-FOCUSED
• Team Self-Evaluation
• Creating Resources for
Working with Emotion
• Creating an Optimistic Env.
• Proactive Problem Solving
Group Self-Awareness
Group Self-Management
CROSS-BOUNDARY-FOCUSED
• Organizational Awareness
Group Social Awareness
• Building Relationships with
Stakeholders
Group Social Skills
• TRUST
• GROUP IDENTITY
• GROUP EFFICACY
• NETWORKS