Emotional Intelligence Competencies in the Team and Team Leader: a Multi-level
Examination of the Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Team Performance
Elizabeth Stubbs Koman, Ph.D.
Steven B. Wolff, DBA.
The Stubman Group, LLC
The Hay Group
&
116 Huntington Ave.
U.S. Navy
Boston, MA 02116
2025 Tartar Ave
617-425-4525
Virginia Beach, VA 23461-1924
E-mail: steve@sbwolff.com
Elizabeth.Koman@navy.mil
* Research based on the dissertation research of Elizabeth Stubbs (Stubbs, 2005)
* The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not the U.S. Navy
2
Abstract
Purpose of Paper
This research examines the relationships among team leader
emotional intelligence competencies, team level emotional
intelligence, and team performance.
Design/ Methodology
It is argued here that team leader’s emotional intelligence
(EI) will influence the development of group level emotional
intelligence (GEI), which was measured by a team’s
emotionally competent group norms (ECGN). Secondly, it is
hypothesized that the presence of ECGNs will positively
influence group effectiveness. Data were collected from 422
respondents representing 81 teams in a military organization.
Findings
Results show that team leader emotional intelligence is
significantly related to the presence of emotionally
competent group norms on the teams they lead, and that
emotionally competent group norms are related to team
performance.
Research
Limitations of this research include a narrow sample with
Limitations/Implications the teams not being highly interdependent.
Practical Implications
This research provides implications for practice in three
primary areas: 1) development and sustainment of
emotionally intelligent managers and leaders, 2)
development and sustainment of emotionally intelligent
work groups, and 3) establishment of organizational leaders
at all levels to foster and support emotional competence
throughout the organization
What’s original/value of
This research contributes to the field by offering support for
the effects team leader’s emotional intelligence has on the
teams they lead as well as by showing team level emotional
intelligence affects team performance. This study adds to the
body of literature in what is considered a relatively new area
of study. The four key contributions of this research are: (1)
this research shows that leader’s behaviors are important at
the team level, (2) this research further validates Wolff and
Druskat (forthcoming) ECGN theory by lending support for
the ECGNs as well as offers alternative clustering ideas for
the norms, (3) ECGNs were shown to be related to
performance, and lastly (4) this research extends the
knowledge base about emotions in groups.
paper
3
Introduction
Emotional Intelligence competencies have been shown to be significantly related
to individual performance (Boyatzis, 1982) both in cognitive tasks where the individual
is under stress and in tasks where individuals are interdependent on one another (see
Druskat & Jordan, forthcoming, for a review). At the team level, the study of emotions
and the effects of emotions on team performance is a relatively new avenue of research.
Since teamwork is an inherently social activity, emotions play an important role in team
effectiveness. Druskat and Wolff (1999, 2001a, 2001b) proposed a model of emotional
intelligence at the group level. Groups develop a set of behavioral norms labeled
emotionally competent group norms (ECGN) that guide the emotional experience in the
group. The degree to which a group develops these norms has been linked to team
performance (Druskat, Messer, Koman & Wolff, 2003). Understanding the factors that
lead to the development of ECGNs would be beneficial for team development.
The purpose of this research is to assess the relation between team leader
emotional intelligence competencies and the emergence of emotionally competent norms
in a team. Specifically, the present research examines the relationship between emotional
intelligence of a leader, the group level emotional intelligence (GEI), and how both of
these levels of emotional intelligence affect performance of the team.
Definitions
Team/Group
Like Cohen and Bailey (1997), whose work is based on Hackman (1987) and
Alderfer (1977), we define a team as “a collection of individuals who are interdependent
4
in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are
seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems
and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries” (Cohen & Bailey,
1997, p. 241). The scope used in this research consisted of groups of individuals who
worked together toward a common output, thus we refer to them as teams throughout the
paper.
Team effectiveness
Team effectiveness is a multidimensional construct (Goodman, 1979; Hackman,
1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990). The term team effectiveness entails both meeting customer
specifications and being able to work together effectively in the future (Hackman, 1987).
This view ensures that the team is not focused on customer satisfaction to the exclusion
of concern with the well being of the team and its members, or vice versa.
Defining Emotional Intelligence for the Present Study
While there are varying definitions of emotional intelligence, there is agreement
in the literature that EI includes an individual having an awareness of and an ability to
regulate their emotions. Salovey and Mayer’s theory of EI focuses on the emotional
abilities that link emotion and individual cognition, where Goleman and Boyatzis’s
theory focus on social and emotional competencies (Jordan & Troth, 2004; Matthews,
Zeidner & Roberts, 2002). This study utilizes the emotional intelligence theory advanced
by Boyatzis and Goleman. This EI theory has evolved into four overarching clusters of EI
skills: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management
(Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis, Goleman & Rhee, 1999). The four clusters represent a
5
recognition and regulation cluster for both the individual (self) and social competencies
(other). Table 1 identifies the competencies in each cluster and their definitions.
------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------------
To examine the relationship between a team leader’s emotional intelligence and
the development of group-level emotional intelligence, we used the above mentioned EI
competencies. For a more robust discussion of the clusters and each competency see
Stubbs (2005).
Defining Emotional Intelligence at the Team Level
Druskat & Wolff (1999) identified the existence of emotionally competent group
norms (ECGNs) “that influence and manage the emotional process in a way that builds
emotional capacity and develops social capital and leads to effectiveness” (p. 9). These
group norms are an indication of the group’s emotional intelligence and can help to
determine if a group of individuals functions as a high-performing team (Goleman,
Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). Wolff and Druskat state that each of the ECG norms is related
to the individual, group or cross-boundary (external) level. Within each of the three
levels, there is at least one norm that is an awareness norm and one that is a regulation
norm (see Table 2 for a definition of the norms). In this study, we use the following
definition for group-level emotional intelligence: The ability of a team to generate
operating norms that increase awareness of emotion and management of behavior in ways
that have positive emotional consequences.
6
------------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
-------------------------------------------
The Relation between Team Leader Emotional Intelligence and Group Emotional
Intelligence
Team leaders are responsible for the success of the teams they lead. As such, they
are not only responsible for their own emotions, but also for the emotions of the team
they lead and the clients of the team (Rafaeli & Worline, 2001). To influence and move
people, one must possess the knowledge and skills of emotional competencies (Boyatzis,
Stubbs & Taylor, 2002). Boyatzis (1982) defines such competencies as “the underlying
characteristics of a person that lead to or cause effective and outstanding performance.”
With teams being social in nature, it is logical that emotional intelligence would be an
important factor in team leader effectiveness; and it has been shown to be important for
the success of managers and leaders (George, 2000; George & Bettenhausen, 1990;
George, 1995; Gardner & Stoug, 2002).
Scholars have argued and shown that team leaders influence the processes,
behaviors, norms, and climate of the team they lead (Kimberly 1980; Schein 1992;
Dickson, et al., 2001; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). However, there has been a limited
amount of research linking team leadership to performance. The empirical work that has
been conducted has found that leadership has effects on team motivation, efficacy, and
performance (Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; George, 2000; Schein, 1985; Dickson, et al.,
2001); primarily through the development of the team’s climate (Piloa-Merlo et al.,
2002).
7
Goleman (2001) and Williams (1994) suggested that leaders who are emotionally
intelligent are essential to developing a climate where employees are encouraged to
perform to the best of their ability. When the leader is helping the team develop its
norms, the climate that is developed maintains a consonance with the team leader’s
individual personality (Dickson, et al., 2001, p. 201). If the norms developed reflect the
team leader’s personality, it could be argued that the emotional intelligence norms
developed on the team would reflect the emotional intelligence competencies of the team
leader. This research will examine the effect that 18 EI competencies have on the
presence of GEI, and the effect of GEI on team performance (see Figure 1).
------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------------------
Hypothesis 1: The level of team leader EI is positively related to the presence of
Emotionally Competent Group Norms.
Emotional Intelligence and Teams
Although there is a substantial body of literature on individual emotion and on
emotional intelligence, there is mixed evidence regarding the effects of emotional
intelligence in teams and work groups (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004).
Feyerherm & Rice (2002) found that the higher the team leader’s emotional intelligence,
the worse the team performed, however, they did find a positive correlation between the
team leader’s ability to understand emotion and the performance on the customer service
metric (p.354). Whereas Jordan & Troth (2004) and Offerman, Bailey, Vasilopoulos,
8
Seal & Sass (2004) found that teams with higher levels of EI performed better than teams
with lower levels of EI. When assessing the team’s EI, all three research teams
(Feyerherm & Rice; Jordan & Troth; Offermann et al.) used measures that assessed each
individual team member’s emotional intelligence. The current study varies from previous
research in that we used a team-level measure to assess the team’s overall emotional
intelligence.
GEI has been shown to be significantly related to performance (Stubbs & Messer,
2002; Druskat, Messer, Koman & Wolff, 2003). This research will further validate the
findings that GEI effects team performance through the testing of the relationship
between the ECGNs and team performance (Stubbs & Messer, 2002; Druskat, Messer,
Koman & Wolff, 2003;).
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between ECGN presence and team
effectiveness.
Method
The objective of this research was to assess the relationship between individual
emotional intelligence competencies, team level emotional intelligence, and team
effectiveness. This field study was a cross sectional examination of the EI and GEI
norms that were present in teams and team leaders in a military organization.
Sample & Procedure
A military sample was used. In each of two commands, both aircrew teams and
maintenance teams participated. The maintenance teams served as direct support for the
aircrew teams. A total of 349 aircrew and maintenance team members participated
9
representing 81 aircrew and maintenance teams. Additionally, 70 team leaders and 73
managers (team leaders supervisors) rated team leaders’ emotional intelligence, 13% of
the team leaders were women and 70% were men1. About 600 team members were asked
to participate with 349 (58%) completing surveys. All participation was voluntary and
everyone was given the opportunity to decline participation.
Final team level data analysis was completed on a sample of 275 men and 50
women. There were 55 officers and 294 enlisted personnel who participated. On average,
participants had been members of their teams for 14.6 months, and a member of the
military for 74.8 months. Each team had a mean of 6.8 team members (Range = 3-11;
Median = 6.5). Any team where the number of respondents was less then 50% of the
total number of team members was not included in the analysis. The final sample
consisted of 64 teams where the response rate represented at least 50% of the team
members.
Aircrew team leaders were officers (n = 9)2 and maintenance team leaders were
senior enlisted personnel (n= 49). Team leaders had been involved with their teams for 124 months, with the average being 10.6 months. Average military tenure was 210 months
(17.5 yrs; range of 60-300 months).
All participants in this study were either a team leader or member on a
functioning military team. This population was used because the nature of military work
requires the use of teams (Prapavessis & Albert, 1997; Orasanu & Backer, 1996; Zaccaro,
1
Twelve participants did not indicate their gender
2
Not all participants indicated their rank
10
Gualtieri & Minionis, 1995). The teams that participated in this study were direct mission
support aircrew teams as well as maintenance teams that support the aircrew teams. The
aircrew teams are tasked to perform operational military flights on a regular basis. The
teams are composed of a mission commander, two pilots, and individuals performing
avionics type tasks. The maintenance teams are tasked to support the aircrew teams by
performing needed maintenance on the aircraft. The team of maintainers are specialized
mechanics who work together on one specific portion of the aircraft, ie, engine,
propellers, avionics, etc. Participant’s lives depend on their team members, and their
support teams. All teams that participated have a direct role in mission accomplishment,
and are able to see the results of their teamwork.
Measures
Team Leader Emotional Intelligence
To assess team leader emotional intelligence, the emotional competence inventory
(ECI-2) was administered. The ECI-2 uses 360-degree feedback methodology to assess
the emotional competencies of individuals (Wolff, 2006). The ECI-2 was developed by
Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman with the help of the Hay Group (McClelland,
1973; Boyatzis, 1982; Goleman, 1998; Boyatzis and Sala, 2004). The ECI-2 has an
overall average internal consistency coefficient of 0.78 and the self-ratings have an
overall average internal consistency coefficient of 0.63 (Wolff, 2006). The ECI-2 has
been used in various venues, in particular, in assessing the relationship between an
individual’s emotional intelligence and their leadership behaviors (McClelland &
Boyatzis, 1982; Cavallo & Brienza, 2002; Boyatzis & Sala, 2004).
11
The ECI-2 consists of 72 questions that assess 18 EI competencies. Participants
rated frequency of use of each item on a one-to-five Likert scale ranging from never (1)
to consistently (5). If an item was not applicable or the respondent did not feel they could
accurately assess the ratee on a particular item, there was a space marked “don’t know”
so participants were not forced into an answer. The ECI-2 is a proprietary instrument;
information on the scales can be obtained from the Hay Group. Each team leader in the
final sample had 2 -14 raters rate their behaviors, with an average of 4.34 ratings
completed for every team leader, excluding the self-rating.
Cronbach’s alpha internal reliabilities were assessed for each scale. Most scales
had acceptable reliabilities, with their alphas close to or above 0.70 (see Vogt, 1999),
with the exceptions of emotional self-control, initiative, and conflict management.
Reliabilities were: accurate self assessment,  = .75; emotional self awareness,  = .75;
self-confidence,  = .73; achievement orientation,  = .69; adaptability,  = .77;
emotional self-control,  = .42; initiative,  = .16; optimism,  = .78; transparency,  =
.70; empathy,  = .83; organizational awareness,  = .63; service orientation,  = .83;
change catalyst,  = .60; conflict management,  = .33; developing others,  = .83;
influence,  = .74; inspirational leadership,  = .87; teamwork and collaboration,  = .67.
The majority of the theorized scales were found to have acceptable reliabilities. Since
overall individual emotional intelligence is being examined, we decided to drop the three
competencies with low reliabilities. This leaves 15 competencies, which still provides a
good indication of overall emotional intelligence that will allow us to test our hypotheses.
We next tested the theoretical factor structure of the EI scales using AMOS 6.
We examined each theoretical cluster (self-awareness, self-management, social
12
awareness, and relationship management) separately due to the large number of variables.
The results showed that the theorized factor structure did not produce a good fitting
model. Although all values of RMSEA were acceptable (.07 - .085), all but one NFI and
RFI were below the acceptable .9 level (.73-.88).
Group Emotional Intelligence
Team level emotional intelligence was assessed using the Group Emotional
Intelligence measure developed by Druskat and Wolff and later refined based on work by
Hamme (2003). Team member participants self rated their team’s behavior according to
each of the nine ECG norms measured by the instrument. The ECGN scales are
comprised of 57 questions, representing nine team norms. The nine scales were
comprised of 5-8 questions, with one to three items in each scale reversed scored.
Respondents rated each item on a one-to-seven Likert scale ranging from very inaccurate
(1) to very accurate (7). Interpersonal understanding was measured with six items, e.g.,
"On our team we make an effort to understand one another’s attitudes and views."
Confronting members who break norms was measured with six items, e.g., "In our group,
we let members know if they do something considered unacceptable." Caring behavior
was measured with eight items, e.g., “We let members know that we value their
contributions.” Team self-evaluation was measured with seven items, e.g., "On our team
we often discuss what is helping or hurting our performance.” Creating resources for
working with emotion was measured by six items, e.g., “When there is tension in our
group, we acknowledge or talk about it”. Creating an affirmative environment was
measured with five items, e.g., “When something goes wrong, we look at it as a challenge
rather than an obstacle”. Proactive problem solving was measured with six items, e.g.,
13
"In our team we work hard to anticipate problems that might occur.” Organizational
understanding was measured with seven items, e.g., "We understand how our work
contributes to the company’s goals." Building external relationships was measured with
six items, e.g., "We build relationships with teams that can help make a difference in our
performance."
Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliabilities were assessed for each GEI
scale. All scales had acceptable reliabilities, with their alphas close to or above 0.70 (see
Vogt, 1999): interpersonal understanding,  = .83; confronting members who break
norms,  = .67; caring behavior,  = .82; team self-evaluation,  = .75; creating
resources for working with emotion,  = .75; creating an affirmative environment,  =
.70; proactive problem solving,  = .75; organizational understanding,  = .73; building
external relationships,  = .71.
To test the proposed relationships, individual participant responses were
aggregated to create a mean score for the entire team. The questions were written at the
group level in order to capture group-level constructs, not individual attributes (Earley,
1999; Rousseau, 1985). This enabled the aggregation of the data to assess the norms
present at the group level (Earley, 1999; Langfred, 2000). For all norms, intraclass
correlations (James, 1982) indicated that within group variance was less than the between
group variance; with the variance being significantly greater for seven of the nine norms.
Building external relationships and proactivity in problem solving were near significant
(Stubbs, 2005).
14
Using AMOS 6, we tested the theoretical factor structure of the GEI norms
looking at each level separately due to the large number of variables. Although previous
analyses (see Stubbs, 2005) showed the factor structure to produce good-fitting models
for each factor, analysis with AMOS 6, which uses stricter standards for calculating fit
indices (see Mayer, Panter, Salovey, Caurso & Sitarenios, 2005), showed that the
theoretical factors (individual, group, and cross-boundary) did not produce a good-fitting
model. Although RMSEA was in an acceptable range (.06 to .1) for the three factors, the
NFI and RFI were below an acceptable .9 (ranging from .7 to .85).
Team Performance
As previously discussed, team effectiveness is defined as multidimensional;
therefore, to assess team effectiveness, both objective and subjective measures were used.
Subjective performance measures were gathered from upper level officers who had
observed multiple teams within the command over time. This typically was an individual
at least two levels above the team. Participants were asked to evaluate each of the teams
under their management using a 7-point Likert scale. The subjective performance
measure consisted of a 5-item questionnaire developed and tested by Druskat, Messer,
Koman and Wolff (2003). The following criteria were evaluated: efficiency in getting
things done, quality of work, ability to be self-directed, performance against other teams
that perform similar work, and ability to continue working together in the future. The
responses to each question were totaled to produce a subjective rating of each team’s
effectiveness.
Each command provided the researchers with metrics used in their management
process to measure team performance. A criterion for participation in the study was that
15
effectiveness measures were recorded monthly and measured multiple criteria, thus each
team had performance metrics calculated on multiple dimensions. Examples of the
measures include: percentage of raw material waste; number of accidents; and percentage
of flight objectives met. The objective performance rating was calculated from the
percentage of goals attained by each team on each measure. The researchers collected
objective performance data for the period preceding and following data collection.
Performance measures were collected for a period of 2-8 months depending on
availability of data.
As previously discussed, team effectiveness is defined as multidimensional with
both objective and subjective measures used. The measures were moderately positively
correlated with one another, r = .08, p = .24. Subjective and objective performance scores
were standardized within team type to minimize variations in reporting. The combined
performance score was used for hypothesis testing.
Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Because the confirmatory factor analyses failed to confirm the theoretical factor
structure of either EI or GEI we performed an exploratory factor analysis. We first did a
principal components analysis using an oblimin rotation with the 15 EI and 9 GEI
competencies/norms entered simultaneously. The analysis showed two factors with all EI
competencies loading on one factor and all GEI competencies loading on the other. We
next examined EI and GEI competencies separately. This resulted in two EI factors (see
Table 3) and two GEI factors (see Table 4). The two GEI factors can be interpreted as
16
the awareness norms and the regulation norms. Caring Behavior is a regulation norm that
loaded highest on the awareness factor (.58) but the loading on the regulation factor was
comparable (.44). Since it theoretically should be included with the regulation norms, we
place it with the regulation factor in further analyses. It was difficult to interpret the two
EI factors so we decided to use an overall mean value of the competencies for a measure
of overall emotional intelligence. The final model we used to test our hypotheses is
shown in Figure 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here, Insert Figure 2 about here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------SEM Model Testing Hypotheses
The model in Figure 2 was run with all team data using AMOS 6 and was not a
good fit. Based on theoretical considerations the model was modified as shown in Figure
3. Specifically, Druskat & Wolff (2001b) argue that awareness precedes behavior, thus, it
is reasonable to assume that the awareness norms will lead to regulation norms, which
then affect performance. This modification highlights the fact that performance
ultimately depends on behavior. Also, the link between EI and the Regulation Norms
was not significant and was deleted from the model. All parameters are significant (onetailed) and the model is approaching a good fitting model. Although NFI and RFI are
less than the recommended .9 (Byrne, 2001), CFI is approaching an acceptable value of
.95 (Byrne, 2001) and RMSEA is at the recommended .1 cutoff (Tabachnick, B. G.,
Fidell, L. S.. 2001)
17
------------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here
------------------------------------------To further understand the relationships between team leader’s emotional
intelligence and the development of ECGNs, Table 5 shows the correlations between the
two. We also ran a series of stepwise regressions with each ECGN as a dependent
variable and all team leader emotional intelligence competencies as independent
variables. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 6.
------------------------------------------Insert Table5 and Table 6 about here
-------------------------------------------
Discussion
This study showed that a team leader’s emotional intelligence affects team level
emotional competence and team performance through the development of ECGNs. This
study also supported that the emotionally competent group norms affect team
performance.
The four key contributions of this research are: (1) this research validated that
leader’s behaviors are important in the development of team norms, (2) this research
further validates Wolff and Druskat (forthcoming) ECGN theory by lending support for
the ECGNs as well as offers alternative clustering ideas for the norms, (3) ECGNs were
shown to be related to performance, and lastly (4) this research extends the knowledge
base about emotions in teams.
18
Previous research has shown that leaders who are emotionally competent are
better performers, more successful, are able to handle relationships successfully, and
demonstrate a myriad of other traits (George, 2000; Goleman, 1998; Gabriel & Griffiths,
2002). With leaders having direct influence over their subordinates (Rafaeli & Worline,
2001), it is easy to see how a team leader’s EI influences the development of ECG norms
in the team they lead. While earlier research established that an individual’s EI affects
their performance, the present research now shows that a team leader’s EI affects team
performance through the ECGNs that are established on the team they lead.
Another contribution of this research is the validation it provides to the Wolff and
Druskat ECGN theory. Results partially support the relationship between ECGN
presence and team effectiveness. Specifically, it was found that awareness norms
contribute to the development of regulation norms and that the regulation norms are
related to performance. While this was not what was originally hypothesized in this
research, the reason why this relationship is present is clear. On the individual level, one
cannot have a regulation of emotions without having an awareness of their emotions first.
It is logical that the same relationship would be present with the group level emotional
intelligence; the group has an awareness of the emotion, which leads to the ability to
regulate it.
Limitations
While the sample in this research provided a unique insight into military teams,
the sample might have produced different results than industry teams would have. Teams
in private industry might not have the same consequences attached to their work as
military teams. Wageman (1997) stated that “in many U.S. companies, teamwork is an
19
‘unnatural act.’…. given this culture and context, team members will balk at the idea of
relying on one another to get work done” (p. 50). Thus, because the effects assessed with
this research were found in a culture where the outcome of team’s work has significant
consequences, which is a less prevalent condition in industry, the results may not
generalize to an industrial setting.
The sample used in this research consisted of two types of teams, aircrews and
maintenance teams. These types of teams are very different, and neither are highly
interdependent. The Wolff and Druskat GEI theory is based on interdependent teams.
While Stubbs and Messer (2002) found that task interdependence was not a moderating
factor for GEI, the lack of interdependence on the teams in this study could have been a
contributing factor to them not being more strongly related to performance.
Implications for future theory and research
This research provided an initial examination of the relationship between
individual and group level emotional intelligence and their effects on group effectiveness.
This research has sparked numerous additional questions to be addressed by future
research.
One area for future research to examine is that of the organizational culture and
organizational climate. We would suspect that an organization’s climate would greatly
influence GEI; the climate might directly affect the development of team norms, or the
climate might influence the leader’s EI behaviors, which in turn would affect the team EI.
The context in which a leader and a team are placed have been theorized and found to
impact their success (Wageman, 1999; Hackman, 1999). Similarly, Ashkanasy,
20
Wilderom and Peterson’s (2000) meta analysis on organizational culture and climate
indicates that organizational climate does impact work processes. With context having an
effect on groups and organizational climate affecting various work processes, it is
reasonable to assume that organizational climate would affect ECGN development and
sustainment.
Current research is focusing on examining the presence and effects of GEI,
research should also examine the prerequisites and conditions that are necessary for norm
development. The development of team norms takes time; the amount of time necessary
for a team to develop ECGNs has never been examined. Nor have the individual level
traits necessary for ECGN development. When team members have worked together
over time, they begin to develop relationships with one another and build trust in one
another. Time on the team might be an important component for the development of
group emotional intelligence, but it should be examined in conjunction with relationship
and trust scales to assess the amount of variance each of these items account for.
Additionally, another area of particular interest was the stepwise regression findings
(Table 6). Results indicated that the individual EI competencies optimism, and
organizational awareness were both frequent predictors for the ECGNs. There is a
logical connection between optimism and the norms it is a predictor for; without
optimism an individual most likely would not confront members who break norms or
create resources for working with emotion as there would not be any perceived benefit.
While the deductive reasoning on why these two competencies are frequent predictors for
ECGNs can produce compelling arguments, this demonstrates another area for further
examination.
21
With results indicating that team leader’s EI affects GEI development, it could be
reasoned that individual group member EI would also effect overall group EI.
Conversely, since team leader EI affects GEI development, research should examine if
leader/mentor EI affects individual EI development. Another aspect of GEI development
that should be researched is how team training on norm development impacts a group’s
ability to develop emotionally competent group norms. This research took a snapshot
view of the presence of team leader EI and team GEI; both of these variables could
potentially be impacted with training.
Lastly, this research was conducted on a military sample. While the military has
been utilized in research for centuries, the teams in the military cannot be assumed to be
representative of teams in industry. Future research should examine the relationship
between team leader EI, group EI, and group effectiveness with a sample comprised of
industry teams.
Implications for practice
The implications of the findings presented in this study are also important for
practice. Information that will help corporations improve performance is always desired.
This research provides implications for practice in three primary areas: 1) development
and sustainment of emotionally intelligent managers and leaders, 2) development and
sustainment of emotionally intelligent work groups, and 3) establishment of
organizational leaders at all levels to foster and support emotional competence
throughout the organization.
22
Development of emotionally competent managers
Up to now, it has been widely known that individual EI affected individual
performance, this research has shown that individual EI also affects team performance
through the development of emotionally competent group norms. In light of these
findings, corporations should be actively developing the emotional intelligence of their
managers and leaders. This can be accomplished through multiple modalities including
360-degree feedback and executive coaching. Thus, this research as well as previous
research would suggest that employing leaders with developed emotional competence
will increase both their own personal performance (Boyatzis, 1982; George, 2000;
Goleman, 1998) as well as that of the teams they lead.
Development of emotionally competent work groups
With corporations always keeping a mindful watch on the bottom line, strategies
to keep and sustain effective work teams are desired (Farren, 1999). This research
supports the strategy of developing emotionally competent group norms throughout an
organization to attain and sustain high performing work teams. Additionally, this
research suggests that one means through which organizations can develop emotionally
competent groups is to develop or hire emotionally competent managers who
purposefully focus on developing ECGNs. Other precursors to ECGNs should be
assessed in future research and incorporated into practice.
Establishment of organizational leaders to foster an emotionally competent environment
throughout the organization
Lastly, this research has indicated that managers affect the norms that are
developed on the teams they lead. The relationship of a manager or leader affecting the
23
group they lead was also found in previous research (Schein, 1992; Dickson, et al., 2001).
The present research supported the notion of a manager affecting the team they lead by
examining one level of an organization. One could conclude that the same relationship
would be present at all levels of the organization. If the president of an organization was
emotionally competent then he or she would develop emotionally competent group norms
on the team of executive managers. In turn, each individual on the executive management
team would influence the development of ECGNs on the teams he or she leads; the cycle
would continue. Thus, in addition to developing emotionally competent first line leaders,
organizations should develop emotionally competent executive leaders. In sum, this
research indicates that industry should work towards developing both emotionally
competent leaders as well as emotionally competent norms in their teams.
24
References
Argote, L., (1989), “Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from
the field”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, 131-140.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdahl, J. L. (2000), Small Groups as Complex Systems:
Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M. & Peterson, M.F (2000), Handbook of
Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bain, P.G., Mann, L. & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001), “The innovation imperative, the
relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and
development teams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, 55-73.
Barsade, S.G. & Gibson, D.E. (1998), “Group emotion: A view from top and bottom”, in
Gruenfeld, D.H. (ed.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams, JAI Press,
Stanford, CT, pp. 81-102.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager: A model for Effective Performance,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. & Rhee, K.S. (2000), “Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence”, in Bar-on & Parker (eds), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 343-362.
Boyatzis, R.E. & Sala, F. (2004), “Assessing emotional intelligence competencies”, in
Glenn, G. (ed.), The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence, Novas Science
Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, pp. 147-180.
Boyatzis, R., Stubbs, E.C. & Taylor, S.N., (2002), “Competency development through an
integrated MBA program, a longitudinal examination”, Academy of Management
Learning and Education Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 150-162.
25
Byrne, B. M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cavallo, K. & Brienza, D. (2002), “Emotional competence and leadership excellence at
Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study”
http://www.eiconsortium.org/.
Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, D.W. (1997), “What makes teams work: Group effectiveness
research from the shop floor to the executive suite”, Journal of Management, Vol.
23 No. 3, pp. 239-290.
Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B., Grojean, M.W. & Ehrhart, M. (2001), “An organizational
climate regarding ethics: the outcome of leader values and the practices that
reflect them”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 197-217.
Druskat, V. U. (1996), “A team competency study of self-managed manufacturing
teams”, Unpublished Dissertation, Boston University.
Druskat, V.U. (1996), “Team-level competencies in superior self-managing
manufacturing teams”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Cincinnati.
Druskat, V.U. & Jordan, P. (forthcoming), “Emotional intelligence and performance at
work”, Manuscript submitted for publication.
Druskat, V.U. & Wheeler, J.V. (2001), “Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams”, Paper presented at the annual
Academy of Management Meeting, Washington D.C.
Druskat, V.U. & Wolff, S.B. (1999), “The link between emotions and team effectiveness:
How teams engage and build effective task processes. Paper appeared in the
1999”, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Organizational
Behavior Division.
Druskat, V.U. & Wolff, S.B. (2001a), “Building the emotional intelligence of groups”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 81-90.
26
Druskat, V.U. & Wolff, S.B. (2001b), “Group emotional competence and its influence on
group effectiveness”, in Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (eds) Emotional Competence
in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 132-155.
Druskat, V. U., Wolff, S. B., Koman, E. C.S. & Messer, T.E. (2003, August),
“Emotionally competent group norms and group effectiveness”, Paper presented
at the Annual Academy of Management Conference, Seattle, Wa.
Earley, P.C. (1999), “Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to
collective efficacy across cultures”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 80, pp. 192-212.
Ekman, P. (1984), “Expression and the nature of emotion”, in Scherer, K. & Ekman, P.
(Eds.), Approaches to emotion, Earlbam, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 319-344.
Farren, C. (1999), “A smart team makes the difference”, The Human Resource
Professional, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Feldman, D.C. (1984), “The development and enforcement of group norms”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 47-53.
Feyerherm, A.E. & Rice, C.L. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and team performance:
The good, the bad, and the ugly”, The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 343-362.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1988), “Coping as a mediator of emotion”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 466-475.
Gabriel, Y. & Griffiths, D.S. (2002), “Emotion, learning and organizing”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 214-221.
Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002), “Examining the relationship between leadership and
emotional intelligence in senior level managers”, Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 68-78.
27
George, J.M. (1990), “Personality, affect, and behavior in groups”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 107-116.
George, J.M. (1995), “Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of
customer service”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 778-94.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence”,
Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-1055.
George, J.M. & Bettenhausen, K. (1990), “Understanding prosocial behavior, sales
performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service context”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 698-709.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Why it can Matter more than IQ, Bantam
Books, New York.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York.
Goleman, D. (2001), “An EI-based theory of performance”, in Cherniss, C. & Goleman,
D. (eds), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp.
27-44
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (Winter, 2002), “The emotional reality of
teams”, Journal of Organizational Excellence, pp. 55-65.
Goodman, P.S. (1979), Assessing Organizational Change: The Rushton Quality of Work
Experiment, Wiley, New York.
Hackman, J.R.(1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch J.W. (ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-342.
28
Hackman, J, R. (1999), “Thinking differently about context”, in, Wageman, R. (ed.),
Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Groups in Context, Vol. 2, pp. 233247, JAI Press.
Hamme, C. (2003), “Group emotional intelligence, The research and development of an
assessment instrument”, Unpublished dissertation, Rutgers State University of
New Jersey.
Hiokawa, R.Y., DeGooyer, D. & Valde, K. (2000), “Using narratives to study task group
effectiveness”, Small Group Research, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 573-591.
Izard, C.E. (1991), The Psychology of Emotions, Plenum Press, New York.
Jordan, P.J. & Troth, A.C. (2004), “Managing emotions during team problem solving:
Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No.
2, pp. 195-218.
Kelly, J.R. & Barsade, S.G. (2001), “Mood and emotions in small groups and work
teams”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 99-130.
Kemper, T. D. (1978), A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Kimberly, J.R. (1980), “The life cycle analogy and the study of organization:
introduction”, in Komberly, J.R. & Miles, R.H. (eds), The Organizational Life
Cycle, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 1-17
Langfred, C.W. (2000), “Work-group design and autonomy: A field study of the
interaction between task interdependence and group autonomy”, Small Group
Research Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Lawler, E. E. (1998), Strategies for High Performance Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
29
Lazarus, R.S. (1999), Stress and Emotions: A New Synthesis, Springer, New York.
Leeper, R.W. (1948), “A motivational theory of emotions to replace ‘emotions as
disorganized response’”, Psychological Review, Vol. 55, pp. 5-21.
Levy, R. I. (1984) Emotion, knowing, and culture, in Sweder, R. A. & LeVine, R.A.
(eds), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, Cambridge University
Press Cambridge, pp. 214-237
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R.D. (2002), Emotional Intelligence, Science and
Myth, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Mayer, J. D., Panter, A. T., Salovey, P., Caurso, D. R. & Sitarenios, G. (2005), “A
discrepancy in analyses of the MSCEIT—Resolving the mystery and
understanding its implications: A reply to Gignac (2005)”, Emotion, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 236-237.
McClelland, D.C. (1973), “Testing for competence rather than for ‘intelligence’”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 28, pp. 1-14.
McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power: The Inner Experience, Irvington, New York.
McClelland, D.C. (1998), “Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews”,
Psychological Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 331-340.
McClelland, D.C. & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), “Leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 6, 737743.
Offermann, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, Nicholas, L., Seal, C. & Sass, M. (2004),
“The relative contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to
individual and team performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219243.
30
Orasanu, J. M. & Backer, P. (1996), “Stress and military performance”, in Driskell, J. E.,
& Salas, E. (eds), Stress and Human Performance: Series in Applied Psychology,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 89-125.
Paglis, L.L. & Green, S.G. (2002), “Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation
for leading change”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 215-235.
Rafaeli, A. & Worline, M. (2001), “Individual emotion in work organizations”, Social
Science Information, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 95-123.
Rousseau, D.M. (1985), “Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and crosslevel perspectives”, in Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B. (eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-38.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.
Salovey, P., Bedell, P.T., Detweiler, J.B. & Mayer, J.E. (2000), “Current directions in
emotional intelligence research”, in Lewis, M. & Haviland-Jones, J.M. (eds),
Handbook of Emotions, The Guildford Press, New York, pp. 504-517.
Schein, E. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Schein, E. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.), Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W.D., Avolio, B.J. & Jung, D.I. (2002), “A longitudinal
model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group
performance”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 66-96.
Solomon, R. C. (1984), “Getting Angry: The Jamesian theory of emotion in
anthropology”, in Sweder, R. A. & LeVine, R.A. (eds), Culture Theory: Essays
on Mind, Self, and Emotion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 238254.
31
Stetzer, A., Morgeson, F.P. & Anderson, E.L. (1997), “Organizational climate and
ineffectiveness: Evidence from 25 outdoor work crew divisions”, Journal of
Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 251-265.
Stubbs, E.C. (2005), “Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader:
A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on group
performance”, Unpublished Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Stubbs, E.C. & Messer, T.E. (August, 2002), “Team effectiveness: Assessing the impact
of group emotional competency norms and the moderating role of task
interdependence”, Unpublished Manuscript, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Stubbs-Koman, E.C., Wolff, S & Howard, A. (Forthcoming 2007), “The cascading
impact of culture: Group emotional competence (GEC) as a cultural resource”, in
Emmerling, R., Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives.
Nova Science Publishing.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P. & Futrell, D. (1990), “Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 120-133.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.), Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
Vogt, W.P. (1999), Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wageman, R. (1997), “Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Wageman, R. & Baker, G. (1997), “Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task
and reward interdependence on group performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 139-158.
32
Wageman, R. (1999), “How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design
choices vs. hands-on coaching”, Unpublished Manuscript, Graduate School of
Business, Columbia University.
Watkin, C. (2000), “Developing emotional intelligence”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 89-92.
Williams, D. (1994), “Leadership for the 21st century: Life insurance leadership study”,
Hay Group, Boston.
Wolff, S.B. (2006), Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), Technical Manual, Hay
Group, McClelland Center for Research and Innovation, Boston.
Wolff, S.B. & Druskat, V.U. (1999), Toward a socio-emotional theory of work group
effectiveness. Paper appeared in the 1999 Academy of Management Best Paper
Proceedings, Organizational Behavior Division.
Wolff, S. B. & Druskat, V. U. (2003), “Toward a socioemotional theory of work group
effectiveness”, Unpublished Manuscript.
Wolff, S.B., Druskat, V.U., Koman, E. C.S. & Messer, T.E. (2005), “The link between
group emotional competence and group effectiveness”, in Druskat, V. U., Sala, F.
& Mount, G (eds), Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work:
Current Research Evidence with Individuals and Groups, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J. & Minionis, D. (1995), “Task cohesion as a facilitator of
team decision making under temporal urgency”, Military Psychology, Vol. 7 No.
2, pp. 77-93.
33
Table 1.
EI Competency clusters and definitions
Cluster
Competency
Definition
Self-Awareness
Emotional Self Awareness
Awareness of one’s own
emotional state
Accurate Self Assessment
Awareness of one’s own
strengths, weaknesses, and
performance
Self-Confidence
Sense of one’s self worth
and capabilities
Emotional Self Control
One’s ability to monitor and
regulate one’s emotional
states and emotional
impulses
Transparency
Maintaining standards of
honesty and integrity
Adaptability
Being flexible when dealing
with change
Achievement Orientation
One’s own ability to set
high standards then achieve
or exceed them
Initiative
Taking action on what
needs to get done before
they have been asked to
Optimism
Optimistic outlook;
persistence in pursing goals
despite obstacles
Empathy
Sensing and understanding
what others are feeling
Organizational Awareness
Reading a group’s
emotional currents and
power relationships
Service Orientation
Ability to understand others
needs and provide services
to meet their needs
Self-Management
Social Awareness
cont.
34
Table 1 (cont.).
Relationship Management
Developing Others
Sensing and bolstering
others development needs
Teamwork and
Collaboration
Respecting, and
collaborating with other
team members while being
cooperative and sharing
Conflict Management
Negotiating and resolving
disagreements
Change Catalyst
Initiating or managing
change
Inspirational Leadership
Inspiring and guiding
individuals and having
them follow without force
Influence
Wielding effective tactics
for persuasion
(Stubbs, 2005; Goleman, 1998; Boyatzis, 1982; Dulewics & Higgs, 2000; Watkin 2000)
Table 2.
Wolff and Druskat’s ECGN classification of norms.
Levels
Dimensions
Norms
Definition
Group Awareness
of members
Interpersonal Understanding
Understanding spoken and unspoken
feelings, interests, concerns, strengths,
and weaknesses of team members
Confronting Members who
break norms
Open discussion of issues that have arisen
on the team
Caring Behavior
Underlying respect, appreciation and
value members demonstrate to one
another
Group SelfAwareness
Team Self-Evaluation
Team self-diagnosis; seeking information
about their performance and comparing
themselves to other teams in order to
better their performance
Group SelfManagement
Creating Resources for working
with emotion
Acceptance of emotions as part of the
group work & the expression and
examination of team member feelings
Individual
Group
Management of
members
Group
35
Group Social
Awareness
CrossBoundary
(External)
Group
Management of
External
Relationships
Creating an affirmative
environment
Groups self efficacy; Positive group affect
and group members having an optimistic
outlook
Proactive Problem Solving
Taking initiative to anticipate problems
and resolving them prior to occurrence
Organizational Understanding
Understanding the environment and
organizational system the team is a part of
Building External Relationships
Team’s willingness to help other teams
build positive contact with external
constituents while obtaining external
support and securing your team’s
resources
(Stubbs, 2005; Druskat & Wolff, 1999; Hamme, 2003)
36
Table 3.
Exploratory Factor Analysis of EI Competencies (n = 81)
Component
1
Accurate Self Assessment
.962
Empathy
.914
Adaptability
.810
Change Catalyst
.711
Teamwork and
Collaboration
Inspirational Leadership
2
.654
.303
.550
.444
Developing Others
.548
.421
Optimism
.531
.403
Transpanency
.947
Self Confidence
.834
Organizational Awareness
.752
Emotional Self Awareness
.633
Achievement Orientation
.608
Service Orientation
.450
.570
Influence
.370
.554
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
37
Table 4.
Exploratory Factor Analysis of GEI Norms (n = 81)
Component
1
2
Creating Resources for
Working with Emotion
1.009
Team Self-Evaluation
.941
Interpersonal Understanding
.783
Caring Behavior
.578
.442
.561
.319
Organizational
Understanding
Building External
Relationships
.941
Proactive Problem Solving
.814
Creating an Affirmative
Environment
.477
.509
Confronting Members Who
Break Norms
.409
.474
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
38
Table 5
Correlations between Team Leader Emotional Intelligence and Emotionally Competent Group Norms
Emotional
Intelligence
Competency
Group Emotional Intelligence Norms
IU
CM
CB
TSE
CRWE
CAENV
PPS
OU
BREL
0.27*
0.12
0.30*
0.26*
0.23
0.21
0.07
0.29*
0.29*
0.23
0.21
0.23
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.30*
0.27*
Self Confidence
0.33**
0.40**
0.39**
0.29*
0.26*
0.39**
0.45**
0.34**
0.42**
Achievement
Orientation
0.30*
0.32*
0.33**
0.31*
0.22
0.33**
0.34**
0.32*
0.34**
Adaptability
0.25*
0.32*
0.35**
0.28*
0.20
0.32**
0.24
0.31*
0.30*
Emotional SelfControl
0.38**
0.36**
0.45**
0.44**
0.35**
0.31*
0.21
0.33**
0.27*
Initiative
0.31*
0.35**
0.23
0.27*
0.15
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.29*
Optimism
0.51**
0.50**
0.51**
0.53**
0.45**
0.43**
0.37**
0.40**
0.41**
Transparency
0.43**
0.35**
0.44**
0.41**
0.35**
0.32*
0.33**
0.36**
0.35**
Empathy
0.39**
0.24
0.36**
0.33**
0.26*
0.32*
0.19
0.33**
0.26*
0.43**
0.27*
0.42**
0.51**
0.44**
0.38**
0.40**
0.50**
0.30*
0.51**
0.45**
0.50**
0.52**
0.44**
0.47**
0.43**
0.53**
0.42**
0.31*
0.26*
0.24
0.34**
0.21
0.25*
0.12
0.34**
0.29*
0.02
0.01
-0.03
0.09
0.06
-0.01
0.20
0.24
0.44**
0.40**
0.48**
0.45**
0.41**
0.32*
0.30*
0.35**
0.38**
0.34**
0.30*
0.37**
0.31*
0.30*
0.29*
0.24
0.38**
0.31*
0.36**
0.38**
0.43**
0.41**
0.38**
0.40**
0.27*
0.40**
0.35**
0.43**
0.38**
0.49**
0.41**
0.36**
0.40**
0.25*
0.37**
0.41**
Accurate SelfAssessment
Emotional SelfAwareness
Organizational
Awareness
Service
Orientation
Change
Catalyst
Conflict
Management
Developing
Others
Influence
Inspirational
Leadership
Teamwork and
Collaboration
-0.01
*p<.05 **p<.01
Note: IU=Interpersonal Understanding, CM=Confronting Members who Break Norms, CB=Caring
behavior, TSE=Team Self Evaluation, CRWE=Creating Resources for Working with Emotion,
CAENV=Creating an Affirmative Environment, PPS=Proactive Problem Solving,
OU=Organizational Understanding, BREL=Building External Relations
39
Table 6
Stepwise Regressions
Group Emotional
Intelligence Norm
Interpersonal
Understanding
Confronting Members
Who Break Norms
Team Leader EI
Competencies
Service Orientation
Adaptability
Std.
Beta
Adj.
R-Sq.
0.87
0.28
-0.46a
Optimism
0.45
0.19
Optimism
0.35
0.28
Organizational Awareness
0.27
Organizational Awareness
0.57
0.29
Optimism
0.43
0.17
Organizational Awareness
0.35
0.28
Optimism
0.27
Self Confidence
0.53
Organizational Awareness
0.32
Emotional Self-Awareness
-0.35b
Caring Behavior
Team Self-Evaluation
Creating Resources for
Working with Emotion
Creating an Affirmative
Environment
Proactive Problem
Solving
Organizational
Understanding
Building External
Relationships
Service Orientation
0.32
Organizational Awareness
0.29
Self Confidence
0.43
0.3
0.29
0.17
Note: One must be careful about interpreting the negative coefficients as the EI
competencies are highly correlated.
Correlation of service orientation and adaptability = .79
Correlation of emotional self-awareness and self confidence = .70, correlation of
emotional self-awareness and organizational awareness = .42.
a
b
40
Figure 1. Hypotheses
Individual EI
Group EI
Performance
Leader EI
Group
Emotional
Intelligence
Team
Performance
41
Figure 2. Original SEM Model
e3
e4
e5
e6
IU
TSE
CRWE
OU
.76
GEI
Awareness Norms
(.29)
d1
.54
e1
.86
.93
.86
EI
Overall
e12
-.35
Performance
(.29)
.52
.52
GEI
Regulation Norms
(.27)
d2
.68
.81
.88
.75
.86
Chi-Square = 125.48
df = 42
BREL
PPS
CAENV
CM
CB
e7
e8
e9
e10
e11
p =.000
NFI = .76
RFI = .69
CFI = .82
RMSEA = .18
Note: BREL = Building Relationships, PPS = Proactive Problem Solving, CAENV = Creating an Affirmative
Environment, CM = Confronting Members who Break Norms, CB = Caring Behavior, IU = Interpersonal Understanding,
TSE = Team Self Evaluation, CRWE = Creating Resources for Working with Emotion, OU = Organizational
Understanding
Numbers in parentheses represent r-squared.
42
Figure 3. Modified SEM Model
e3
e4
e5
e6
IU
TSE
CRWE
OU
.76
GEI
Awareness Norms
(.30)
d1
.55
e1
.86
.89
.91
EI
Overall
e12
Performance
(.05)
.92
GEI
Regulation Norms
(.85)
d2
Chi-Square = 71.56
df = 43
.65
.22
.76
.91
.69
.89
BREL
PPS
CAENV
CM
CB
e7
e8
e9
e10
e11
p =.004
NFI = .87
RFI = .83
CFI = .94
RMSEA = .10
Note: BREL = Building Relationships, PPS = Proactive Problem Solving, CAENV = Creating an Affirmative
Environment, CM = Confronting Members who Break Norms, CB = Caring Behavior, IU = Interpersonal Understanding,
TSE = Team Self Evaluation, CRWE = Creating Resources for Working with Emotion, OU = Organizational
Understanding
Numbers in parentheses represent r-squared.