Team Performance ManagementEmerald Article: Emotional intelligence abilities and their relationships with team processesNicholas Clarke

Article information:To cite this document: Nicholas Clarke, (2010),"Emotional intelligence abilities and their relationships with team processes", Team Performance Management, Vol. 16 Iss: 1 pp. 6 - 32

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591011028906

Downloaded on: 21-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 82 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *Elizabeth J. Rozell, Wesley A. Scroggins, (2010),"How much is too much?: The role of emotional intelligence in self-managed work team satisfaction and group processes", Team Performance Management, Vol. 16 Iss: 1 pp. 33 - 49http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591011028915

Umar Ghuman, (2011),"Building a model of group emotional intelligence", Team Performance Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 7 pp. 418 - 439http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591111182661

Robert Kerr, John Garvin, Norma Heaton, Emily Boyle, (2006),"Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 265 - 279http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610666028

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Emotional intelligence abilitiesand their relationships with team

processesNicholas Clarke

School of Management, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

AbstractPurpose This paper aims to identify whether relationships exist between emotional intelligence(EI) and specific teamwork behaviours that are associated with transition, action and interpersonalteam processes using the ability model of EI.

Design/methodology/approach A total of 68 MBA students comprising 13 randomly assignedteams completed a pencil and paper performance-based test of emotional intelligence. Some 14 weekslater a score reflecting the extent team members engaged in a number of teamwork behavioursconsistent with transition, action and interpersonal team processes was obtained from peer ratings.

Findings Emotional intelligence was found to explain direct and unique variance in transition andinterpersonal team processes. However, only three individual branches of EI were found to be of anysignificance, and these differed in each instance.

Practical implications These findings add to the growing body of literature suggestingemotional intelligence may be an important aspect of individual difference amongst team membersthat can contribute to team effectiveness. Individuals with differing EI abilities may be particularlyimportant to teams dependent upon the teams activity phase.

Originality/value The paper shows that blanket assertions regarding the significance ofemotional intelligence for team effectiveness are far too simplistic. Differing EI abilities are associatedwith particular teamwork behaviours, which in turn become important during different phases of teamactivity. The findings suggest a need for more sophisticated frameworks regarding how EI relates tospecific cognitive, verbal and behavioural teamwork activities.

Keywords Emotional intelligence, Team working, Team performance, Interpersonal relations

Paper type Research paper

Widespread changes to job design over the past two decades has seen the increasingprominence given to team-based restructuring with the expectation of greaterefficiencies and performance gains in organisational work processes (Guzzo andDickson, 1996; Beyerlein, 2000). Understanding the nature of teamwork and importantlythose factors that either contribute to, or underpin team effectiveness should better assistus to meet these expected performance gains. An important aspect of individualdifference thought to influence team effectiveness is the concept of emotional intelligence(Jordan and Troth, 2004; Mayer et al., 2008). Salovey and Mayer (1990) initially definedemotional intelligence as a set of four specific cognitive abilities that involve the capacityto identify, reason with and utilise emotions effectively. Specifically, the ability to:

(1) perceive emotion;

(2) integrate emotion to facilitate thought;

(3) understand emotions; and

(4) manage emotions.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

TPM16,1/2

6

Received April 2009Revised August 2009Accepted September 2009

Team Performance ManagementVol. 16 No. 1/2, 2010pp. 6-32q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1352-7592DOI 10.1108/13527591011028906

Since then, alternative definitions of the construct have emerged alongside differentapproaches to its measurement. Although each of these has the potential to offer newinsights into team effectiveness, they also pose challenges for building an integratedbody of knowledge upon which to develop a theory of emotional intelligence and teameffectiveness. In addition to the ability model of EI, three major alternativeconceptualisations of EI can be found, often categorised as personality or trait models(e.g. Petrides and Furnham, 2001), mixed models (e.g. Bar-On, 1997; Dulewicz et al.,2003) and competence-based models (e.g. Boyzatis and Goleman, 2002). These modelsof EI although sharing some limited degree of overlap in places, differ markedly in howthey perceive the nature of the construct and what is included in the constructs domain(See Weinberger, 2002 for a review). For example, in sharp contrast to Salovey andMayers (1990) ability model of EI, Bar-Ons (1997) measure of EI, (the EQ-i)incorporates the five sub-constructs of:

(1) interpersonal skills;

(2) intrapersonal skills;

(3) adaptability;

(4) stress management; and

(5) general mood.

Together this EI construct assesses 16 dimensions including amongst them self regard,assertiveness, independence, flexibility, stress tolerance and happiness. Some of theseaspects are seen as more akin to individual dispositions or traits and are assessedsimilarly through the use of personality type self-report scales. Boyzatis and Goleman(2002) use a competence-based approach to capture self and peer ratings of17 individual EI competences. These are grouped into four cluster categories of:

(1) self-awareness;

(2) self-management;

(3) social awareness; and

(4) relationship management.

Within these competence clusters are included dimensions such as adaptability,achievement, initiative, organisational awareness and developing others, which someauthors suggest represent more distal behavioural indicators of emotional intelligencerather than the actual construct itself (Clarke, 2006a).

Unsurprisingly then, studies have often found low inter-correlations betweenmeasures originating from these differing models (e.g. OConnor and Little, 2003;Petrides et al., 2004). The limited extent of overlap between these models wouldsuggest that differing measures of EI are likely to offer varying degrees of predictivepower in explaining unique or additional variance in any behavioural variablesassociated with team effectiveness. Furthermore the theoretical bases upon whichrelationships are expected are also likely to vary. Given these arguments, we should becautious in theory building derived from conflating findings from studies that haveused differing models of EI. Instead, we need to clarify at a theoretical level how and inwhat ways differing conceptualisations of emotional intelligence are thought to explainvariance in team effectiveness. This paper contributes to these aims through

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

7

presenting findings from a study that investigated the relationship between emotionalintelligence and team effectiveness using Salovey and Mayers (1990) ability model ofemotional intelligence. First, the ability model of emotional intelligence and thetheoretical basis for its role in team effectiveness is summarised. A critical review ofthe empirical literature that has examined the role of ability EI in team effectivenessthen follows. Next, based upon limitations with how team effectiveness has beenperceived and measured in these previous studies, an alternative methodologicalapproach to examining relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and teameffectiveness is put forward. This suggests a need to identify relationships between EIand sets of team processes that are associated with different phases of team activity.Findings are then presented that show significant relationships between emotionalintelligence abilities at the individual level and both transition and interpersonal sets ofteam processes. The paper contributes to the literature through helping to furtherdelineate the boundary conditions that might surround the association betweenemotional intelligence abilities and team effectiveness. Implications for future researcharising from the findings are discussed.

The ability model of emotional intelligence and its role in teameffectivenessThe ability model of emotional intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mayer et al.,2008) is one of the more parsimonious of emotional intelligence models that have beenput forward in the literature. The concept is defined far more narrowly as comprising aset of four cognitive abilities associated with the processing of emotional information.The four cognitive abilities are:

(1) perceiving emotion;

(2) using emotions to facilitate thinking;

(3) understanding emotions; and

(4) managing emotions in oneself and others.

These are hierarchically organised in that higher abilities are thought to depend on thosebelow. Over the past 15 years, a number of studies have shown increasing discriminantand incremental validity of this version of the EI construct, notably as independent frompersonality constructs and general intelligence (Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Mayer et al.,2001; Mayer et al., 2008). For example, it has been found to correlate only modestly withverbal and perceptual reasoning (Mayer et al., 2008), as well as openness andagreeableness (Salovey and Mayer, 1993) Criterion-related tests investigating how theability model predicts life outcomes or behaviours have also been theoreticallyconsistent with the nature of the construct within a range of differing domains. Thesehave included findings that show its relationship with aspects of social functioning(Brackett et al., 2006; Lopes et al., 2004), psychological well-being (Brackett and Mayer,2003; Brackett et al., 2006) and a number of important work related outcomes, such asdecision making and negotiation (Day and Carroll, 2004; Mueller and Curhan, 2006).

Theoretically a relationship between emotional intelligence abilities and teameffectiveness has been posited, recognising that many behaviours thought to underpinteam processes such as cooperation and conflict management possess significantemotional dimensions. Similarly, team affective states such as trust and commitment

TPM16,1/2

8

are also recognised as also possessing major emotional components that play a role intheir genesis (Wolff et al., 2006). With this as a basis, the four emotional abilities thatcomprise the cognitive model of EI might be expected to assist individuals withinteams in the following ways. For example, an awareness of team member emotionswithin teams should help individuals to understand one anothers needs and help withteam bonding. Such bonding and close interpersonal ties can help build trust, resolveconflict and promote closer cooperation (Larkey, 1996, McAllister, 1995). Anunderstanding of how events in teams can trigger specific emotional responses thatthen impact on behaviour and performance can also assist team members to plan taskwork (Jordan et al., 2002). Team members that are better at managing and controllingtheirs and others emotions are also thought to be better at motivating others, as well ashelping to improve conflict management (Prati et al., 2003; Van Rooy and Viswesvaran,2004; Wolff et al., 2002).

Previous research on the ability model of emotional intelligence and teamsGiven the problems inherent in generalising findings from other EI models, a morefocused approach for specifically examining emotional intelligence abilities and teameffectiveness is needed. Thirteen studies were located in the literature that haveinvestigated the role of emotional intelligence in team effectiveness. Of these studies,five used competence-based derived measures of EI to examine relationships (Hartelet al., 2006; Koman and Wolff, 2008; Offerman et al., 2004; Rapisarda, 2002; Wolff et al.,2002), whilst one study detailed a meta-review of the relationship between individualdifference factors (deep-level team composition variables) and team performance thatincluded five EI studies with disparate measures (Bell, 2007). The seven remainingstudies used measures of EI that were based on, or derived from Mayer et al.s (2002)four ability conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (Ayoko et al., 2008; Day andCarroll, 2004; Feyerherm and Rice, 2002; Llarda and Findlay, 2006; Jordan et al., 2002;Jordan and Troth, 2004; Jordan and Ashkanasy, 2006). Only three of these studiesspecifically examined relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and teameffectiveness variables at the individual level, although each used a different approachto measurement. In a study involving 164 employees from the financial servicesindustry, Feyerherm and Rice (2002) used an early ability-based measure, theMultifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer et al., 1997) and found a positivecorrelation between the team leaders ability to understand emotion and the teamscustomer service performance based on team ratings. However, they also reported anegative relationship between the team leaders emotional intelligence, and managersrankings of overall team performance. Using aggregated measures of team membersability EI, they also found positive relationships with ability EI at the team level, and ameasure of team performance. Day and Carroll (2004) examined the relationshipsbetween EI abilities and citizenship behaviours amongst 246 undergraduate studentsformed into 47 work groups. Using the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002), they found nosignificant relationships between individual level measures but did find significantpositive relationships between participants ratings of the groups civic virtue (andsportsmanship) and nearly all their individual EI ability scores. Llarda and Findlay(2006) also looked at EI at the individual level, and investigated the relationshipbetween emotional intelligence and the propensity for teamwork measured by the teamplayer inventory (Kline, 1999). Based on a sample of 134 individuals working in teams

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

9

in a variety of industries, the authors collected data using a survey that contained aself-report measure of emotional intelligence. This was derived from Salovey andMayers (1990) four ability conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (the SUEIT:Palmer and Stough, 2001). The authors found that the total EI score accounted for afurther 4 per cent variance in the propensity for teamwork, after the 22 per cent theyfound for personality.

The remaining studies differ in that they all used a team level ability measure ofemotional intelligence, the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP: Jordanet al., 2002), which uses self and peer report responses to assess EI abilities rather thana performance-based test. Jordan et al. (2002) using the WEIP-3, conducted a studyinvolving 448 undergraduate students formed into 44 teams as part of a managementand communication skills course. They initially found a statistically significantrelationship between team average EI scores and goal focus, but the relationship withprocess effectiveness was not significant. They then divided teams into two groupscontaining the 15 highest and 15 lowest average EI scores respectively, and looked atthe relationship between team EI scores and measures of team effectiveness (goal focusand process effectiveness) obtained through independent ratings of written team logs.They found that whilst teams with high emotional intelligence initially performedbetter than those with low emotional intelligence, the low emotional intelligence teamseventually raised their performance to match that of the high EI teams after a ten-weekperiod. The authors suggested that factors such as dominant team members withhigher skills or increased familiarity within the team may have led to theimprovements in team effectiveness found. Jordan and Troth (2004), using a laterversion of this team EI measure (the WEIP-6), conducted a further study involving 350students formed into 108 teams and investigated the relationship between team EI andteam performance based on performance in a team survival situation exercise. Theyfound that teams with higher levels of average emotional intelligence performed betterthan those with lower levels, although statistically significant results were only foundfor the scale that captured individuals ability to deal with their own emotions and notwith the scale relating to individuals ability to deal with others emotions. They alsoshowed some positive relationships between team EI and the use of differing conflictresolution approaches (competing or collaborative) within teams.

More latterly Jordan and Ashkanasy (2006) reported the results of a study thatinvolved 140 students formed into 35 teams, that were enrolled in a businesscommunication course. Using measures of team EI and team effectiveness similar tothose reported in Jordan et al. (2002) above, they found a statistically significant, albeitweak correlation between the peer assessed measure of EI and team effectiveness.However they failed to demonstrate a relationship between the self assessed measureof EI (from the full sample) and team effectiveness. Finally, the most recent of thisgroup of studies examining team emotional intelligence used a shortened version of theempathetic concern subscale, and the management of ones own and others emotionalstates subscale contained in the WEIP-3, as indicators of a teams emotional climate(Ayoko et al., 2008). Based on an investigation of 660 employees from 122 teams, theauthors found that team EI was related to less relationship and task conflict and lessconflict intensity within teams.

The results from the studies above show a number of statistically significant andpositive relationships between team level measures of emotional intelligence and a

TPM16,1/2

10

range of team effectiveness measures. However in a number of instances, scalesassociated with the WEIP failed to demonstrate significant relationships withmeasures of team effectiveness (Jordan et al., 2002; Jordan and Troth, 2004; Jordan andAshkanasy, 2006). Similarly, both positive (Llarda and Findlay, 2006) and negativeresults (Feyerherm and Rice, 2002) were obtained for relationships between individuallevels of ability EI and team effectiveness or performance criteria. A possibleexplanation for these mixed findings, may well be found in the different ways teameffectiveness has been both conceptualised and measured in these studies. In a reviewof much of the team effectiveness literature to date, Marks et al. (2001) suggested thatteam effectiveness arises from episodes of team performance, which are temporalcycles of goal directed activity. They argue that the nature and importance of teamprocesses change over this temporal cycle time and that differing team processesbecome more critical in particular phases. As a result, team data gathered over timeand aggregated into a summary index of effectiveness in order to test process-outcomerelationships, potentially can miss important relationships.

They propose a taxonomy comprising three sets of team processes categorised astransition, action and interpersonal processes. Transition processes include activitiessuch as goal specification and strategy formulation, whilst coordination and teammonitoring and backup behaviours are seen as important action processes. Both affectand conflict management are among the interpersonal processes the team uses tomanage interpersonal relationships. The nature of team processes therefore changes,as teams move back and forth between action and transition phases. Particular teamprocesses therefore become more salient to team effectiveness at different phases ofteam activity. This being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that emotionalintelligence may be far more relevant to some teamwork processes rather than others.Further, that its importance to team effectiveness lies in the particular contribution itoffers to team processes that are associated with particular phases of team activity. Inorder to better understand the EI- team effectiveness link then, we need to gain a muchclearer picture of the relationships between EI and the differing team processes that areimportant during particular team activity phases.

Examining relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and teamprocessesMuch previous research in the area of team effectiveness has resulted in a number ofinput-process-output models that have sought to capture a range of team processesmediating team effectiveness and performance (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Guzzo andDickson, 1996). Constituting many of these team processes are specific cognitive,verbal and behavioural activities undertaken by team members in the pursuit ofcollective goals (Marks et al., 2001). These activities are themselves influenced by themany inputs to the team such as organisational support, team size and diversity, theknowledge and skills of team members as well as their attitudes and aspects ofindividual difference. It follows then, that one approach to elucidate the potential rolethat emotional intelligence abilities play in team effectiveness, is to examinerelationships more directly between emotional intelligence abilities and the differingsets of transition, action, and interpersonal team processes that have been identified askey to team effectiveness. Here emotional intelligence abilities are posited to have

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

11

direct effects on a number of these specific teamwork processes as well as interactioneffects.

Direct effectsEI and transition team processesTransition teamwork processes are seen as comprising:

. mission analysis and planning;

. goal specification; and

. strategy formulation (Marks et al., 2001).

The recognition that emotion can influence problem solving, decision making andcreativity (George, 2000; Prati et al., 2003) suggests that emotional intelligence mayplay a significant role in team processes associated with strategy formulation such astask planning and role allocation and those associated with goal specification. Sy andCote (2004) have suggested that individuals higher in emotional intelligence are betterable to align various goals and clarify roles and responsibilities as they are better ableto manage the stress and frustration often arising from complex goal setting. They arealso able to act to better prevent the allocation of misaligned goals through greateremotional sensitivity to others. Jordan et al. (2002) have previously demonstratedsupport for a relationship between emotional intelligence and goal setting at the teamlevel. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1. Emotional intelligence will be positively associated with transition teamprocesses.

EI and action team processesAction team processes include:

. monitoring progress towards goals;

. systems monitoring;

. team monitoring and backup behaviour; and

. co-ordination (Marks et al., 2001).

Emotional intelligence abilities that offer individuals an enhanced awareness of theaffective state of team colleagues may play critical roles in team monitoring. Firstly, inenabling members to consider how to respond to others personal concerns and needs,which may be important in determining how and when tasks should be allocatedamongst different team members. Using information about how team members arefeeling can also influence decisions about when to spend more time in showing concernfor team members, as well as in deciding appropriate timescales for team members tocomplete tasks and goals. Those better attuned at picking up emotional cues andunderstanding why emotions may have arisen, can use this emotional knowledge toplan for either improving team situations or remedying team problems. This then leadsto the following hypothesis:

H2. Emotional intelligence will be positively associated with action teamprocesses.

TPM16,1/2

12

EI and interpersonal team processesInterpersonal team processes include:

. conflict management;

. motivation and confidence building;

. affect management (Marks et al., 2001).

Emotional intelligence abilities have been suggested as contributing to relationshiporiented behaviours associated with attentiveness, showing consideration to otherteam members and encouraging others (Feyerherm and Rice, 2002). A number ofstudies have previously found relationships between team level measures of EI andbetter conflict management strategies in team settings (Ayoko et al., 2008; Jordan andTroth, 2004). Team members who engage in affect management can also motivate andenergise others (Vakola et al., 2004). An increased sense of control over ones ownemotional state and adaptive coping behaviours, combined with the ability to influencethe emotional states of others, should provide individuals with greater confidence andwillingness to discuss feelings more openly (Baumeister et al., 1994; Jordan et al., 2002)both of which promote a supportive team climate (Edmondson, 1999). This gives rise tothe following hypothesis:

H3. Emotional intelligence will be positively associated with interpersonal teamprocesses.

Interaction effectsEI and collectivist orientationRecognising emotional intelligence as a set of cognitive abilities implies that a degreeof individual effort is required on the part of the individual in order to for these abilitiesto be successfully utilised (Mayer et al., 2004). Drawing upon a general theory ofperformance as a function of both ability and motivation, Rode et al. (2007) found thatemotional intelligence explained incremental variance in only one of two measures ofinterpersonal effectiveness. However the interaction of both emotional intelligence andconscientiousness (as a trait indicator of motivation) added additional unique variationin both measures of interpersonal effectiveness, as well as a measure of academicperformance. In a similar vein, the relationship between emotional intelligence andteamwork behaviours associated with team processes might also be moderated by anindividuals motivational disposition towards teamwork. Collectivist orientation is avalues disposition that has previously found to be associated with team behaviours,such as individual inputs to the team (Driskell and Salas, 1992) and with co-operativeteam behaviours and negotiation behaviour at the group level (Eby and Dobbins, 1997;De Dreu and Boles, 1998). Previously, Shamir (1990) showed a relationship betweencollectivist orientation and the amount of effort expended by individuals in a team. Ebyand Dobbins (1997) have also shown that higher efficacy for teamwork and positivepast experience in teams were related to an individuals self report collectivism. Anindividuals collectivist orientation may therefore be indicative of their degree ofmotivation for working in teams. Based on the above, interaction effects are thereforeexpected between emotional intelligence abilities and an individuals collectivistorientation. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

13

H4. The relationships between emotional intelligence and action, transition andinterpersonal team processes are likely to be stronger for those individualswith a higher collectivist orientation.

The study and methodsA total of 68 students (51 male and 17 female), forming 13 randomly assigned teams offour to six members comprised the sample for this study. All students were enrolled ona core Organisational Behaviour Course as part of their study on a Master of BusinessAdministration degree programme. The average age of participants was 30.7 years (SD6.1) and ages ranged from 23-47 years. As with many MBA programmes today in theUK, these students represented a wide variety of differing cultural backgrounds asfollows: British/European 36 per cent (25); Chinese/Taiwanese, 26 per cent (18); Indian,18 per cent (12); Japanese 7 per cent (5), and Arabic 12 per cent (8).

These teams were required to produce a team report within a 14-week perioddetailing how they would undertake a specific change management intervention inorder to improve an organisations performance of their own choosing. Each team wasencouraged to use a range of data sources and undertake their own primary research aspart of the team project. The time team members spent together varied on a weeklybasis between approximately 0.5 and two hours per week over the 14-week period, inaddition to them undertaking individual team tasks agreed in their teams.

ProcedureA pencil and paper performance-based test of emotional intelligence was administeredto all individuals participating in the study, just prior to them beginning theirteamwork projects and being allocated into teams. Fourteen weeks later, members ofeach team rated each team member in their team excluding themselves, on the extent towhich they demonstrated teamwork behaviours consistent with transition, action andinterpersonal team processes using a specifically designed questionnaire. Teammembers were asked to rate as honestly as possible and told responses would besubsequently anonymised. Those completing ratings for all team members received anadditional credit towards the final grade they received for the course.

Measures. Emotional intelligence. The 141-item MSCEIT V2.0 (Mayer et al., 2002) was used

to measure emotional intelligence. The tests items correspond to the fourbranches of emotional abilities: perceiving emotion (B1); using emotion tofacilitate thought (B2); understanding emotions (B3); and managing emotions(B4). Answer sheets were then scored by the test publishers using consensusscoring norms. Scores reflect the degree of fit between participants responsesand those obtained from a normative sample of over 5000 individuals. Scores arethen standardised in relation to the normative sample with a mean of 100 andstandard deviation of 15. Previously reliabilities for each of the scales have beenreported as 0.90, 0.76, 0.77 and 0.81 for each of the four branches in order and 0.91for the full scale (Mayer et al., 2002). Reliabilities for each of these scales obtainedin this study were found to be satisfactory at 0.85 (B1), 0.82 (B2), 0.72 (B3), 0.71(B4) and 0.75 for the total EI scale.

TPM16,1/2

14

. Collectivist orientation. Collectivist orientation was measured using Eby andDobbins (1997) slightly modified version of Wagner and Mochs (1986)three-item value subscale of their Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) measure.Sample items include: I prefer to work with others in a team rather than to workalone; and I like it when team members do things on their own, rather thanworking with others all the time. Individuals rated themselves using aseven-point Likert scale where 1 completely disagree and 7 completelyagree. Eby and Dobbins (1997) previously obtained an internal consistency of0.68 for this scale similar to 0.69 obtained here. Although just under theminimum 0.70 reliability value normally expected, such values are deemedacceptable in initial exploratory studies such as this one (Hair et al., 2005).

. Transition, action and interpersonal team processes: based upon the work ofMarks et al. (2001) there are three categories of team processes that are generic toall work teams and associated with team effectiveness. An instrument formeasuring specific teamwork behaviours associated with these sets of teamprocesses in project teams was constructed (Appendix 1). Participants were thenasked to rate each of their team members on the extent to which theydemonstrated teamwork behaviours associated with each category of teamprocesses using a seven-point Likert scale. In order to maximize validity,respondents were told that their responses would be confidential. A total of 303ratings relating to the 68 individuals taking part in the study were collected. Aseparate mean rating score for each item contained within each team processcategory was then calculated. Scores for each set of team processes was thenobtained by summing relevant behavioural items and then obtaining the meanscore for each scale. Details of scale validation are provided below.

. General mental ability. General mental ability has been found to be a goodpredictor of individual job performance (Ree and Earles, 1992; Schmidt andHunter, 1992), team-related behaviours including leadership (Atwater andYammarino, 1993; Taggar et al., 1999) and performance on a teamwork test(Stevens and Campion, 1999). A measure of general mental ability was thereforeused as a control variable in the study. General mental ability has been found tobe associated with achievement and higher grades obtained in courses (Kuncelet al., 2004) and educational attainment scores have been previously used asindicators of GMA in a number of studies (Brackett et al., 2004; Kellett et al.,2002) Students grade point average scores (GPA) obtained at the end of theirdegree programme were therefore used in the study as an indicator of generalmental ability.

Procedure for validation team process scalesIn order to ground behavioural items associated with the three team processes in astudent project context, project reports from 162 students detailing personal reflectionson actual experiences of project team effectiveness behaviours were obtained from anindependent sample of postgraduate management students. These had been collectedover a two-year period prior to this study being undertaken. The process began withinitially identifying and coding all behaviours that were recorded as associated withteam effectiveness in these personal project reports. Next, behaviours were combinedinto wider behavioural categories that appeared to most closely correspond to those

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

15

associated with the transition, action and interpersonal sets of team processes asindicated by the empirical literature (Marks et al., 2001). This provided an initial pool of92 items. These items were further screened to omit items that were more closelyassociated with team rather than individual level characteristics or where overlap orsimilarity in meaning was apparent, reducing the number of items to 46. Face validityof these items was then further investigated with a focus group of 20 students drawnfrom this initial sample. This left a final pool of 33 behavioural items associated withthe following team processes:

. Transition: goal specification (two-items), strategy formulation and planning(four-items).

. Action: team monitoring and back up behaviours (11-items), co-ordination(two-items).

. Interpersonal: conflict management (five-items), motivation and confidencebuilding (two-items), affect management (seven-items).

All 33 items were then organised into a instrument which was then distributed a yearlater to a second independent sample of 62 postgraduate management students. Thesehad participated in 15 separate project teams of four to six members over one semester.At the end of this period, these students were all requested to rate each of their teammembers on the extent to which they had demonstrated each of the 33 separate teambehaviours using a seven-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree, 7 Stronglyagree). Completed instruments were then returned directly to the researcher. A total of308 separate ratings were obtained. Exploratory factor analysis was then undertakenusing principal components with a varimax rotation. The ratio of observations to itemswas 308:33 or 9.3:1, which is considered satisfactory for factor analysis (Nunnally,1978; Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985). The rotation converged in twelve iterationsresulting in a three factor solution, accounting for 66.95 per cent, 9.10 per cent and 4.53per cent of the variance, all with eigen values greater than 1. The factor loadings arepresented in Table I. Items were retained for factors were weights were greater than0.40 and where there was no cross loading. These items were found for the most part tobe consistent with the teamwork behaviours captured within each of the three-teamprocess categories. The exception being that one item from one of the original actionprocess scale loaded on to the interpersonal team process scale (Item 33 Table I). Thisitem related to open communication and was not seen as theoretically inconsistent withaction team behaviour processes and therefore retained on this scale. Items in each ofthese factors were then retained to comprise three scales to capture individualteamwork behaviours associated with the three team processes. These weresubsequently labelled as:

(1) transition team behaviours (six items);

(2) action team behaviours (six items); and

(3) interpersonal team behaviours (six items).

Items for each of these scales are reported in the appendix. Each of these scales showedhigh levels of internal consistency with alpha coefficients of 0.92, 0.90 and 0.87respectively. These items were then incorporated into a final instrument that was given

TPM16,1/2

16

ItemsTransition

processes (I)Interpersonalprocesses (II)

Actionprocesses (III)

Goal specification1. This team member helped to set clear goals for

the group in order to complete the groupworkassignment 0.775 0.221 0.357

2. This team member showed commitment to theteams goals and what it was trying to achieve 0.650 0.284 0.359

Strategy formulation and planning3. This team member helped to plan the workload

for the group in order to complete the groupworkassignment 0.680 0.206 0.562

4. This team member helped to clarify teamstandards and expectations of team members inorder to complete the groupwork assignment 0.788 0.302 0.205

5. This team member helped to clarify teammembers roles and work allocation in order tocomplete the groupwork assignment 0.794 0.259 0.212

6. This team member set tasks for the team andthemselves in order to complete the groupworkassignment 0.803 0.274 0.227

Team monitoring and back-up7. This team member helped the team to take time

to reflect on progress and decisions made in theteam 0.600 0.241 0.544

8. This team member sought to understand teammembers strengths and weaknesses 0.538 0.519 0.538

9. This team member helped to clarify whatdifferent team members were saying in the team 0.444 0.572 0.585

10. This team member helped others to express theiropinions and views in the team 0.616 0.462 0.540

11. This team member provided support andassistance to other members of the team 0.398 0.279 0.612

12. This team member sought ideas and informationfrom other members of the team 0.469 0.411 0.384

13. This team member was willing to shareinformation and ideas with other members of theteam 0.394 0.320 0.477

14. This team member was eager to work with otherteam members 0.294 0.383 0.747

15. This team member kept others informed of theprogress they were making and what they weredoing relevant to getting the group assignmentdone 0.362 0.398 0.577

16. This team member regularly helped tosummarise the progress the team had made andwhat the next steps were 0.289 0.348 0.742

17. This team member helped to keep the team ontrack in pursuing its objectives and getting workdone 0.553 0.339 0.650

(continued )

Table I.Varimax-rotated loadingson a three-factor solutionof teamwork behaviours

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

17

to student team members in the current study to complete at the end of the teamproject.

Data analysesAll statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 15. Initial tests consisted ofperforming confirmatory factor analyses on the team process scales used. Next

ItemsTransition

processes (I)Interpersonalprocesses (II)

Actionprocesses (III)

Co-ordination18. This team member helped to set timescales for

the group to work within in order to complete thegroupwork assignment 0.732 0.150 0.392

19. This team member helped to set times for whenthe team should meet 0.445 0.245 0.467

Conflict management20. This team member helped the team to set ground

rules for how the team would function and worktogether 0.562 0.614 0.377

21. This team member helped to bring any problemsthe team was experiencing out into the open 0.237 0.567 0.537

22. This team member helped the team to negotiateany differences or problems that arose. 0.349 0.665 0.155

23. This team member looked for compromise on keyareas of disagreement 0.338 0.690 0.109

24. This team member sought consensus ondecisions within the team 0.491 0.543 0.171

Motivation/confidence building25. This team member provided constructive

feedback to team members contributions. 0.479 0.510 0.43926. This team member sought to energise others

when team spirit was low. 0.497 0.598 0.126

Affect management27. This team member helped to create a supportive

team climate 0.336 0.645 0.26428. This team member helped to maintain good

relations within the team 0.446 0.465 0.33729. This team member encouraged other team

members to feel part of the team 0.342 0.694 0.31830. This team member showed respect for different

team members views and opinions in the team 0.550 0.598 0.44231. This team member was open to criticism and

feedback on their ideas and approach to how theteam should work and accomplish its goals 0.227 0.741 0.324

32. This team member listened attentively to whatothers had to say in the team 0.384 0.735 0.296

33. This team member encouraged free and opencommunication within the team. 0.375 0.306 0.787

Note: n 308Table I.

TPM16,1/2

18

bivariate correlations enabled initial exploration of relationships between variables inthe study. The final set of analyses involved regressing each of the three sets of teamprocess behaviours in turn against emotional intelligence measures, collectivistorientation and the interaction between emotional intelligence and collectivistorientation. Investigations were undertaken by entering GPA in the first step, followedby the four EI branch scores and total EI score in the second step, followed bycollectivist orientation in the third step, and the interaction term in the final step. Theinteraction term was created from combining centred total EI and collectivist scores inorder to minimize the risk of multicollinearity often found in moderator analyses(Cronbach, 1987).

ResultsInitial confirmatory factor analysis of the team process scales showed items loading onto each factor as expected with the exception of item 12 (Appendix) showing loadingsof 0.41 on the transition scale in addition to loadings of above 0.65 on the expectedaction scale. However to maintain theoretical consistency these items were retained.Reliabilities for each scale were deemed good with Cronbach alpha scores of 0.96, 0.95and 0.95 for the transition, action and interpersonal process behaviour scalesrespectively. Table II summarises the means, standard deviations, reliabilities andcorrelations among all the variables used in the study. All four branches of emotionalintelligence show significant positive correlations between each other supporting thenotion that they are complementary although independent dimensions of an overallability construct of emotional intelligence. The ability Perceiving emotions (B1) wasalso found to have a significant and positive association with transition team processes(r 0:04* ). Other significant, albeit more moderate relationships can be observedbetween mental ability (GPA) and both the ability understanding emotions (r 0:25* )and transition team processes (r 0:25* ). Previously the understanding emotionsbranch of the MSCEIT has also been found to correlate moderately with verbalintelligence (Lopes et al., 2003). The significant but again moderate correlation betweenthis branch of ability EI and GPA would seem to offer some support as GPArepresenting an indicator of general intelligence. It is interesting to note that nosignificant correlations were found between the EI measures used and collectivistorientation, suggesting that these constructs are rooted in independent cognitive andpersonality dimensions respectively. The using emotions to facilitate thinking (B2) andmanaging emotions (B4) were also found to have significant correlations withInterpersonal team processes (r 0:18* ) and (r 0:04* ) respectively. Finally, thethree categories of teamwork processes were all significantly correlated with eachother.

Results from the regression analyses to test the hypothesized relationships arepresented in Table III. After controlling for general mental ability, The PerceivingEmotions (B1) branch of Emotional Intelligence was significantly related to Transitionteam processes (b 0:79, p , 0:05, DR2 0:03) offering some partial support for H1.None of the individual branches of emotional intelligence nor the total EI score weresignificantly related to Action team processes providing no support for H2. The usingemotions to facilitate thinking (B2) branch of emotional intelligence was significantlyrelated to interpersonal team processes (b 0:30, p , 0:05, DR2 0:06) as was themanaging emotions (B4) branch of emotional intelligence (b 0:44, p , 0:05,

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

19

Var

iab

leM

ean

SD

12

34

56

78

910

1.G

PA

59.1

25.

72.

Per

ceiv

e(B

1)90

.50

16.2

32

0.01

3.U

sin

g(B

2)90

.63

18.7

30.

100.

61*

*

4.U

nd

erst

and

(B3)

86.7

615

.98

0.25

*0.

36*

*0.

50*

*

5.M

anag

e(B

4)88

.71

15.3

80.

190.

33*

*0.

49*

*0.

46*

*

6.T

otal

EI

84.2

717

.73

0.14

0.80

**

0.79

**

0.73

**

.69

**

7.C

olle

ctiv

ist

5.25

0.96

20.

172

0.03

0.11

20.

160.

102

0.01

8.T

ran

siti

on5.

210.

900.

25*

0.04

*2

0.11

0.08

20.

042

0.07

0.10

9.

Act

ion

5.24

0.94

0.17

20.

072

0.09

0.06

0.03

20.

060.

070.

80*

*

10.

Inte

rper

son

al5.

460.

952

0.03

20.

050.

18*

0.06

0.04

*2

0.07

0.08

0.79

**

0.63

**

Notes:

* p,

0.05

;*

*p,

0.01

;C

ron

bac

hs

alp

has

list

edon

dia

gon

alw

her

eap

pli

cab

le;n

68

Table II.Means, standarddeviations, Cronbachsalphas, andintercorrelations amongvariables

TPM16,1/2

20

Act

ion

pro

cess

esT

ran

siti

onp

roce

sses

Inte

rper

son

alP

roce

sses

Var

iab

leb

R2

DR

2F

bR

2DR

2F

bR

2DR

2F

Step1

GP

A0.

290.

43*

*0.

062

0.01

Step2

Per

ceiv

eem

otio

ns

(B1)

0.54

0.79

**

0.09

0.03

2.51

*0.

12U

seem

otio

ns

(B2)

20.

062

0.07

0.30

*0.

060.

06U

nd

erst

and

emot

ion

s(B

3)0.

430.

470.

12M

anag

eem

otio

ns

(B4)

0.36

0.31

0.44

*

Tot

alE

I* 1

.16

* 1.3

50.

160.

080.

025.

64*

Step3

Col

lect

ivis

tor

ien

tati

on0.

160.

130.

10Step4

Tot

alE

I

Col

lect

ivis

tor

ien

tati

on2

0.13

1.03

ns

20.

222

0.10

Notes:

Sta

nd

ard

ised

reg

ress

ion

coef

fici

ents

are

from

the

full

mod

el;R

2is

adju

sted

;*p,

0.05

;*

*p,

0.01

;n

68

Table III.Results of hierarchicalregression analysis of

teamwork processes

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

21

DR2 0:02) providing partial support for H3. Contrary to expectations, there were nointeraction effects found between collectivist orientation and emotional intelligenceand any of the sets of team processes studied, providing no support for H4.

DiscussionEmotional intelligence was found to explain direct and unique variance in two of the setsof team processes considered to play an important role in team effectiveness, thoseidentified as Transition and Interpersonal team processes. However only threeindividual branches of EI were found to be of any significance, and these differed in eachinstance. Emotional abilities in the four-ability model are thought to be temporallyordered. This suggests that relationships between particular emotional ability branchesand differential behaviours are generally more likely to be found for those emotionalabilities that are more temporally antecedent in underpinning the behaviour in question(Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). In relation to Transition processes, a positiveassociation was found only for the emotional ability, Perceiving Emotions in Oneself andOthers. This is consistent with previous empirical research that has found positive andsignificant relationships between team level measures of ability EI and goal focus(Jordan et al., 2002). It is also theoretically consistent with the view that the use ofemotional information can contribute to better cognitive analysis of the issues andsubsequent prioritisation of planning and tasks that the team faces (Salovey et al., 2000;Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Zajonc, 1998). The failure to find any significant relationshipsbetween transition processes and the other EI abilities, suggests that this particularemotional ability is the most important in contributing to team behaviours that areassociated with this phase of team activity. An individuals ability to perceive andaccurately appraise emotions is the most significant in enabling them to subsequentlyuse and act on this emotional knowledge. It is their active recognition and thenconsideration of their own and others emotional states in the team, that then contributesto higher quality goal setting and task planning. It suggests that those team memberswith greater levels of sensory awareness are able to engage far more effectively in thoseteam behaviours such as setting tasks and timescales that are associated with how theteam task is to be achieved. Although general mental ability was also found to beimportant during this phase of team activity, the ability to perceive emotions accountedfor an additional 3 per cent in variance to how well team members engaged in thenecessary team behaviours associated with this aspect of team effectiveness.

The two emotional abilities, Using emotions to facilitate thinking and Managingemotions in oneself and others, were found to be the most significant in supportingteam members to engage in interpersonal team processes. These together accounted for8 per cent of variance, whilst general mental ability was not found to be significant.This suggests that these different emotional abilities can help explain differences in theextent to which team members engage in interpersonal team processes that contributeto this particular aspect of team effectiveness. Given previous findings that have foundrelationships between EI ability measures and managing conflict (Ayoko et al., 2008;Jordan and Troth, 2004), and theoretical arguments relating to the contribution of theseemotional abilities in supporting a positive team climate (Koman and Wolff, 2008),these findings are again consistent with the literature.

The failure to find any significant relationships between any of the emotionalintelligence abilities and action team processes was unexpected. Previous theoretical

TPM16,1/2

22

arguments put forward earlier would suggest that emotional abilities might beexpected to contribute to individuals undertaking more effective monitoring andperforming team back up behaviours. There are a number of potential explanations forthis. Firstly, is seems likely that the range of teamwork behaviours that werecategorised under this team process are not all influenced by emotional intelligenceabilities. For example, keeping team members informed of progress and checkingperformance against targets might require environmental and team scanning abilitiesthat are not dependent significantly on being able to use emotional information. Bycontrast, offering support and assistance to team members when needed andencouraging open communication, may depend far more on the use of emotionalinformation. Grouping these different behaviours together as part of an overallmeasure of team action processes, may therefore have confounded the possibility ofdemonstrating any significant relationships here. However leaving measurementissues aside, it may well be that the relationship between EI abilities and transitionprocesses could be moderated by other factors.

Devine (2002) proposed a taxonomy of teams suggesting that the determinants ofteam effectiveness are likely to vary dependent upon team type. Team type isinfluenced by seven specific context variables including the fundamental work cycle,temporal duration and task structure of teams. The teams examined here can becategorised as commissions (special projects) according to Devines classification. Thisrecognises that the team only exists for the duration of a particular mission. Typicallythese teams worked within a brief work cycle where there was far less opportunity forteam members to engage in transition behaviours. There was also limited expectationthat team members will necessarily work together, again minimizing futureopportunities for exchange or reciprocity (Blau, 1964). The investment in the taskoutcome is also likely to differ significantly compared to other workplace teams (Higgset al., 2005). Such conditions could potentially moderate any EI effects in relation totransition team processes. It might also be the case that team level rather thanindividual level effects are more likely to be found here. Previously Day and Carroll(2004) similarly found no relationships between EI abilities using the MSCEIT andgroup citizenship behaviours (behaviours that might be seen as constituting part ofteam transition behaviours) although did find team level effects. Similarly, Bell (2007)found stronger effects for team level deep level characteristics (such as personality andvalues) and team performance, then individual level characteristics. This wouldsuggest then, that there is a need to examine relationships between EI abilities andthese three sets of team processes at both individual and team levels in future studies.

The failure to find any interaction effects between Emotional Intelligence andCollectivist Orientation was also unexpected. Previously Rode et al. (2007)demonstrated interaction effects between the personality trait of conscientiousnessand total EI ability scores in their study of interpersonal skills. Since collectivistorientation has been shown to be related to motivational factors for teamwork,interaction effects might well be expected. A possible explanation for these findingsmay be due to collectivist orientation referring to a general, context free, orientationtoward working in groups rather than an affective reaction to a particular team. Themeasures of team processes used in this study, captured individual behaviours as theyrelated to a specific team experience, and assessed as such by team colleagues.Elsewhere Alavi and McCormick (2004) have commented on the limitations associated

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

23

with the operationalisation of the collectivism construct in measures such as that usedhere. In particular, as failing to recognise the multidimensionality of construct, and thatcollectivism may be conditional on the team context. They argue that team membersbeliefs regarding their independence from and with team mates, will exert significanteffects irrespective of the need to work interdependently. Further that team memberscollective orientation will also differ depending upon whether they have joined a groupvoluntarily or been compelled to do so. Given that the measure used here was bothcontext free and collected just prior to individuals joining very heterogeneous teams,collectivistic orientation may not have been satisfactorily captured.

Implications and future researchThese findings add to the growing body of literature suggesting emotional intelligencemay be an important aspect of individual difference amongst team members that cancontribute to team effectiveness. The study has shown particular emotional abilities tobe associated with two categories of team processes. Those associated with transitionand interpersonal team processes, but not action team processes. The findings suggestthat the relationship between emotional intelligence and team effectiveness is notnearly as straightforward as some authors might suggest (Prati et al., 2003). First, anability to perceive emotions was found to be the most significant aspect of emotionalintelligence that contributes to team processes during the teams transition phase. Bycontrast, the emotional abilities, using emotions to facilitate thinking and managingemotions, are those, which contribute to team members performing behaviours thatare necessary for team interpersonal processes. How effective a team is, depends uponhow well team members are able to perform behaviours associated with particularprocesses during different phases of team activity. To the extent that these phasesrepresent distinct temporal cycles of activity, individuals with more developedemotional abilities in these areas are likely to make a more significant contribution atthese times. This may have significant implications for assisting team leaders with theallocation of roles and responsibilities within a team.

Instruments such as the MSCEIT, that assess each of these emotional abilities canidentify those team members who may show strengths in particular emotional abilities.Individuals who demonstrate particularly high levels of sensory awareness associatedwith perceiving emotions may be drawn upon to play more significant roles duringtimes in which the team is in a transition stage with its focus on goal setting and taskplanning. By contrast, individuals who show more developed abilities in managingemotions might be deployed to play more significant roles to support the teamsinterpersonal team processes. The findings also suggest that team leaders can considermore targeted developmental activities that focus on specific emotional abilities. Todate, there remains limited empirical evidence supporting the actual development ofemotional abilities through for example training activities (Clarke, 2006a). Thereremain a number of problems in determining the best ways in which these emotionalabilities may be improved, not least concerning the appropriate design and duration ofany intervention. However there is evidence for example that individuals abilities inperceiving emotions can improve through training (Elfenbein, 2006). Team-basedlearning interventions undertaken in the workplace may also help individuals to usetheir emotions more effectively to inform their thinking (Clarke, 2006b; Clarke, in press;Moriarty and Buckley, 2003). A better understanding of the differential roles that

TPM16,1/2

24

emotional abilities play in performing necessary team processes thus enables moreefficient and targeted interventions to be developed.

The findings here also have implications for future research. First, the study hasshown that blanket assertions regarding the significance of emotional intelligence forteam effectiveness are far too simplistic. We need to develop more sophisticatedframeworks regarding how EI relates to specific cognitive, verbal and behaviouralteamwork activities. This then can help us better to understand when EI may be moreimportant in differing phases of team activity. Studies that examine relationshipsbetween emotional intelligence and composite measures of team effectiveness, maywell miss important relationships if there is not sufficient attention paid to therelevance of different team phases at different times. Team effectiveness measures thatfor example, overly capture team action behaviours, may fail to show any significantrelationships. More studies are now needed that seek to explore the relationshipsbetween these EI abilities and sets of team processes within differing team contexts.The findings here suggest that the influence of EI during team transition phases maybe moderated by other variables. Where individuals have a greater stake in teamoutcomes, or where there are far longer work cycles or team durations, EI abilities mayexert more significant effects on team action processes. Future studies should seek toidentify how differing team conditions influence the salience of emotional intelligencefor performing team behaviours associated with differing team phases of activity. Inparticular the moderating effects of team task, team tenure and work cycle patternswould appear major points of focus. Given that positive relationships are foundbetween particular EI abilities and team process behaviours at differing phases of teamactivity at the individual level, the possibility of mean levels of such abilities exertingmore pronounced effects on these processes at the team level should also beinvestigated.

LimitationsAlthough as an aspect of individual difference it is intuitive to consider that differencesin emotional abilities may account for variations in particular teamwork behavioursassociated with team processes, it is possible that proficiency in such teamworkbehaviours might lead to these emotional abilities becoming better developed. Studiesthat seek to examine how these teamwork behaviours vary with emotional intelligenceover time, would therefore provide clearer insights into the direction of causality here.The relatively small sample size also means that the statistical power of tests may havebeen affected. However the study does show that significant effects can be found evenin smaller team populations. Nevertheless, the size of the sample precluded a widerspread of EI scores, which here tended to be concentrated towards the lower end of therange. This is likely to have influenced the size of effects found. Furthermore it isalways problematic in attempting to generalise to wider team settings when usingstudent samples. However the development of a specific measure of teamworkbehaviours derived from student work groups was an attempt in part to isolate thoseteamwork behaviours that are particularly relevant for the domain of team processesconsidered relevant to the performance of the specific team task required. In so doing,the study generated a more bounded set of team behaviours from which to testrelationships with emotional intelligence abilities. To the extent that other teams sharesimilar characteristics, most notably where individual team members come together

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

25

naturally (team members randomly assigned) and are self-organised to work on acomplex and meaningful task (an assessed team produced research-based report)within a finite period (14 weeks) then the findings here have greater external validity.

It should also be noted that in order to minimise common method bias, measureswere taken at different time points and from multiple sources. Emotional intelligencemeasures were taken from individuals at the beginning of the 14-week team projectalongside measures of collectivist orientation. Teamwork behaviour measures bycontrast, were taken at the end of this period from team member ratings. The use ofpeer report measures of teamwork behaviours attempted to overcome the biasessometimes found with self-report measures. However they still may suffer limitationsthrough likeability, similarity or negative affect biases (Spector, 1994). The fact that allteam members were providing ratings on each other, might also have influencedindividuals to give inflated ratings. The use of more objective measures of teamworkbehaviours such as through expert ratings of observations of teamwork wouldimprove the validity of teamwork behaviour measures in future studies. In addition,although the study did control for general mental ability, increasing research showingrelationships between personality dispositions and teamwork suggests that futurestudies should attempt to include personality measures in order to more clearlyidentify the additional variation in teamwork behaviours attributed to emotionalintelligence. It should also be noted that whilst using GPA scores as a measure ofgeneral mental ability has some support in the literature, these scores tap a much morenarrow range of general mental ability such that the full range of mental ability willnot have been completely controlled for. Finally, it should be noted that although notextensive, the studys sample was nonetheless very culturally diverse. As yet ourunderstanding of the influence culture may have on EI is very limited, although a fewstudies to date certainly suggest cultural differences in for example how individualsmay manage their emotions in similar situations (see for example Clarke and Salleh, inpress). Elsewhere it has also been suggested that the instrument used here to measureEI may have a Western cultural bias (Salleh, 2009). It is possible then that culturalfactors may have influenced the scores obtained for EI in this study and therefore thesignificant relationships with team processes that were observed.

ConclusionsPrevious studies examining relationships between emotional intelligence abilities andteam effectiveness dimensions have found mixed results. Identifying how emotionalintelligence is associated with specific team processes associated with differing phasesof team activity can help us to identify more clearly the boundary conditions underwhich EI might operate. This study found different emotional abilities to have directrelationships with both transition and interpersonal team processes. Emotionalintelligence abilities were not however associated with action team processes.Particularly significant is the key finding that emotional intelligence abilities accountfor greater variation in interpersonal team processes than any other team process.Although intuitively common sense, this is the first study that has demonstrated thisempirically. It suggests that emotional intelligence is likely to be of far moreimportance in those teams where interpersonal team processes are far moreparamount. From a theoretical perspective the findings here support the argumentadvanced earlier for a more considered analysis of the role EI may play in teams.

TPM16,1/2

26

Whilst on a practical level the results suggest that the selection of team members basedon their strengths in particular emotional abilities, could offer a more targeted meansfor achieving increased effectiveness in teams during differing phases of team activity.Future research should now begin to examine how differing team context factors maymoderate the relationships found here. Important avenues to explore include how andif cultural differences influence the significance of emotional intelligence for differingteam processes, as well as how differing types of teams (eg product developmentversus production) may place greater emphasis on those team processes where EIappears significant. Other studies seeking to examine team processes might alsogenerate further validation data in relation to the team process scales developed here.

References

Alavi, S. and McCormick, J. (2004), Theoretical and measurement issues for studies of collectiveorientation in team contexts, Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 111-27.

Arrindell, W.A. and Van der Ende, J. (1985), An empirical test of the utility of the observation tovariables ratio in factor and components analysis, Applied Psychological Measurement,Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 165-78.

Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1993), Personal attributes as predictors of superiors andsubordinates perceptions of military academy leadership, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 5,pp. 645-68.

Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hartel, C.E.J. (2008), The influence of emotional intelligence climateon conflict and team members reactions to conflict, Small Group Research, Vol. 39 No. 2,pp. 121-49.

Bar-On, R. (1997), Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical Manual, Multi-HealthSystems, Toronto.

Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. and Tice, D.M. (1994), Losing Control: How and Why PeopleFail at Self Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Bell, S.T. (2007), Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance:a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 595-615.

Beyerlein, M. (Ed.) (2000), Work Teams: Past, Present and Future, Kluwer Academic, Boston,MA.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Boyzatis, R.E. and Goleman, D. (2002), The Emotional Competence Inventory, The Hay Group,Boston, MA.

Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003), Convergent, discriminate and incremental validity ofcompeting measures of emotional intelligence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 147-1158.

Brackett, M.A., Mayer, J.D. and Warner, R.M. (2004), Emotional intelligence and its relation toeveryday behaviour, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1387-402.

Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N. and Salovey, P. (2006), Relating emotionalabilities to social functioning: a comparison of performance and self-report measures ofemotional intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4,pp. 780-95.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), What makes teams work: group effectiveness research fromthe shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90.

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

27

Clarke, N. (2006a), Emotional intelligence training: a case of caveat emptor, Human ResourceDevelopment Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-20.

Clarke, N. (2006b), Developing emotional intelligence through workplace learning: findings froma case study in healthcare, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9 No. 4,pp. 447-65.

Clarke, N. (in press), The impact of a training programme designed to target the emotionalintelligence abilities of project managers, International Journal of Project Management.

Clarke, N. and Salleh, M. (in press), Emotions and their management during a merger in Brunei:the impact of national culture, International Journal of Human Resource Management.

Cronbach, L. (1987), Statistical tests for moderator variables: flaw in analysis recentlyproposed, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 415-7.

Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.S. (2004), Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence topredict individual performance, group performance and group citizenship behaviours,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1443-58.

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Boles, T. (1998), Share and share alike or winner takes all? The influencefor social value orientation on the choice and recall of heuristics in negotiation,Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 253-76.

Devine, D.J. (2002), A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams inorganisations, Group Dynamics, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 291-310.

Driskell, J.E. and Salas, E. (1992), Collective behaviour and team performance, Human Factors,Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 277-88.

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M.J. and Slaski, M. (2003), Emotional intelligence: content, construct andconcurrent validity, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 405-20.

Eby, L.T. and Dobbins, G.H. (1997), Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual andgroup-level analysis, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 275-95.

Edmondson, A. (1999), Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-83.

Elfenbein, H.A. (2006), Learning in emotion judgements: training and the cross-culturalunderstanding of facial expressions, Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 21-36.

Feyerherm, A.E. and Rice, C.L. (2002), Emotional intelligence and team performance: the good,the bad and the ugly, The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 343-62.

George, J.M. (2000), Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence, HumanRelations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-55.

Guzzo, R.A. and Dickson, M.W. (1996), Teams in organisations: recent research on performanceand effectiveness, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 307-38.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis,Macmillan, New York, NY.

Hartel, C.E.J., Gough, H. and Hartel, G.F. (2006), Service providers use of emotionalcompetencies and perceived workgroup emotional climate to predict customer andprovider satisfaction with service encounters, International Journal of Work Organisationand Emotion, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 232-54.

Higgs, M.J., Pewina, U. and Ploch, J. (2005), Influence of team composition and task complexityon team performance, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11Nos 7/8, pp. 227-50.

TPM16,1/2

28

Jordan, P.J. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2006), Emotional intelligence, emotional self-awareness andteam effectiveness, in Druskat, V.U., Sala, F. and Mount, G. (Eds), Linking EmotionalIntelligence and Performance at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 145-64.

Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2004), Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotionalintelligence and conflict resolution, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-218.

Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J. and Hooper, G.S. (2002), Workgroup emotionalintelligence scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goalfocus, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-214.

Kellett, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. and Sleeth, R.G. (2002), Empathy and complex task performance:two routes to leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 523-44.

Kline, T.J.B. (1999), The team player inventory: reliability and validity of a measure ofpredisposition toward organisational team-working environments, Journal of Specialistsin Group Work, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 102-12.

Koman, E.S. and Wolff, S.B. (2008), Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and teamleader, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 55-75.

Kuncel, N.R., Hezlett, S.A. and Ones, D.S. (2004), Academic performance, career potential,creativity and job performance: can one construct predict them all?, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 148-61.

Larkey, L.K. (1996), Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverseworkgroups, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 463-91.

Llarda, E. and Findlay, B.M. (2006), Emotional intelligence and propensity to be a teamplayer,E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Emotional Intelligence, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 19-29.

Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Strauss, R. (2003), Emotional intelligence, personality and theperceived quality of social relationships, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35No. 3, pp. 641-58.

Lopes, P.N., Brackett, M.A., Nezlek, J.B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I. and Salovey, P. (2004), Emotionalintelligence and social interaction, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30 No. 8,pp. 1018-34.

McAllister, D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonalco-operation in organisations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.

Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), A temporally based framework andtaxonomy of team processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-76.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (1997), Emotional IQ Test, (CD ROM), VirtualKnowledge, Needham, MA.

Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D. and Barsade, S.G. (2008), Human abilities: emotional intelligence,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 507-36.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2002), Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional IntelligenceTest (MSCEIT), Multi Health Systems, Toronto.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2004), Emotional intelligence: theory, findings andimplications, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 197-215.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. and Sitarenios, G. (2001), Emotional intelligence as astandard intelligence, Emotion, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 232-42.

Moriarty, P. and Buckley, F. (2003), Increasing team emotional intelligence through process,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 98-110.

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

29

Mueller, J.S. and Curhan, J.R. (2006), Emotional intelligence and counterpart affect induction in anegotiation, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 110-28.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

OConnor, R.M. and Little, I.S. (2003), Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence:self-report versus ability-based measures, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35No. 8, pp. 1893-902.

Offerman, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Seal, C. and Sass, M. (2004), The relativecontribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and teamperformance, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219-43.

Palmer, B.R. and Stough, C. (2001), Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test: InterimTechnical Manual, Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Hawthorn.

Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2001), Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigationwith reference to established trait taxonomies, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15No. 6, pp. 425-48.

Petrides, K.V., Furnham, A. and Frederickson, N. (2004), Emotional intelligence,The Psychologist, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 574-7.

Prati, L.M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G.R., Ammeter, A.P. and Buckley, M.R. (2003), Emotionalintelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes, International Journal ofOrganisational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 21-40.

Rapisarda, B.A. (2002), The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness andperformance, International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-80.

Ree, M.J. and Earles, J.A. (1992), Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance, CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 86-9.

Rode, J.C., Mooney, C.H., Arthaud-Day, M.L., Near, J.P., Baldwin, T.T., Rubin, R.S. and Bommer,W.H. (2007), Emotional intelligence and individual performance: evidence of direct andmoderated effects, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 399-421.

Salleh, M. (2009), Emotions and emotional intelligence during merger, unpublished doctoralthesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, imagination, Cognition andPersonality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.

Salovey, P., Bedell, B.T., Detweiler, J.B. and Mayer, J.D. (2000), Current directions in emotionalintelligence research, in Lewis, M. and Haviland-Jones, J.M. (Eds), Handbook of Emotions,2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 504-22.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1992), Causal modeling of processes determining jobperformance, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 89-92.

Shamir, B. (1990), Calculations, values and entities: the sources of collectivistic workmotivation, Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 313-32.

Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.E. (1999), Understanding leader emotional intelligence andperformance: the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions,Group and Organisation Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-90.

Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of acontroversial method, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.

Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1999), Staffing work teams: development and validation of aselection test for teamwork settings, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 207-28.

TPM16,1/2

30

Sy, T. and Cote, S. (2004), Emotional intelligence: a key ability to succeed in the matrixorganisation, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 437-55.

Taggar, S., Hackett, R. and Saha, S. (1999), Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:antecedents and outcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 899-926.

Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I. and Nikolaou, I. (2004), The role of emotional intelligence andpersonality variables on attitudes towards organisational change, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 88-110.

Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004), Emotional intelligence: a meta-analyticinvestigation of predictive validity and nomological net, Journal of VocationalBehavior, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 71-95.

Wagner, J.A. and Moch, M.K. (1986), Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure, Groupand Organisation Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 280-303.

Weinberger, L.A. (2002), Emotional intelligence: its connection to HRD theory and practice,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 215-43.

Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druskat, V. (2002), Emotional intelligence as the basis ofleadership emergence in self managing teams, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5,pp. 505-22.

Wolff, S.B., Druskat, V.U., Koman, E.S. and Messer, T.E. (2006), The link between groupemotional competence and group effectiveness, in Drusksat, V.U., Sala, F. and Mount, G.(Eds), Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 223-42.

Zajonc, R.B. (1998), Emotions, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbookof Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 1, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, pp. 591-632.

Further reading

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between work groupcharacteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 823-50.

Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), Is there a big five in teamwork?, Small GroupResearch, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 555-99.

Appendix. Teamwork process behavioural scale itemsTransition process items

. This team member helped to set clear goals for the group in order to complete thegroupwork assignment.

. This team member showed commitment to the teams goals and what it was trying toachieve.

. This team member helped to clarify team standards and expectations of team members inorder to complete the groupwork assignment.

. This team member helped to clarify team members roles and work allocation in order tocomplete the groupwork assignment.

. This team member set tasks for the team and themselves in order to complete thegroupwork assignment.

. This team member helped to set timescales for the group to work within in order tocomplete the groupwork assignment.

Emotionalintelligence andteam processes

31

Action processes. This team member provided support and assistance to other members of the team.. This team member was willing to share information and ideas with other members of the

team.. This team member was eager to work with other team members.. This team member kept others informed of the progress they were making and what they

were doing relevant to getting the group assignment done.. This team member regularly helped to summarise the progress the team had made and

what the next steps were.. This team member encouraged free and open communication within the team.

Interpersonal processes. This team member helped the team to negotiate and differences or problems that arose.. This team member looked for compromise on key areas of disagreement.. This team member helped to create a supportive team climate.. This team member encouraged other team members to feel part of the team.. This team member was open to criticism and feedback on their ideas and approach to how

the team should work and accomplish its goals.. This team member listened attentively to what others had to say in the team.

About the authorNicholas Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at the University ofSouthampton School of Management where he teaches and researches in the areas of workplacelearning and emotional intelligence, particularly in the context of teams and teamwork.Previously he has occupied both practitioner and managerial roles within health and social careorganisations. Nicholas Clarke can be contacted at: n.r.clarke@soton.ac.uk

TPM16,1/2

32

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints