Emotional intelligence is potentially one of the most impactful concepts of recent times. Following a query from myself, Professor Bob Dailey of Edinburgh Business School issued one of his little challenges. I always approach them with a mixture of trepidation and excitement because they can be thought provoking, challenging and game changing.
The task was simple:
Summarise the research on the use of Emotional Intelligence in teams.
His feedback was encouraging :)
The Role of Social Capital and Emotional Intelligence in Team Performance
Derrick (Jamie) Venning (12/08/2018)
Organisation of the work force into teams has become the standard across most organisations with a resulting interest in how to ensure that teams perform highly. Research has emphasised task-focussed processes and strategies (Hackman 1987) with less attention being given to the emotional and social forces that underpin successful completion of task focused activities. However, completion of tasks by teams requires interaction of team members with team performance being correlated with the quality of those interactions (Hirokawa, DeGooyer & Valde, 2000). This is because emotions are evoked by human interaction (Fiske, 2014; Kemper, 2000) and this forms the building blocks of the team (George, 2002). These draw on the primary social needs of belonging, shared understanding and control (Druskat, Wolff & Truninger, 2017).
The term emotional intelligence was first used by Salovey and Mayer who defined it as “the ability to monitor one’s own feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). The concept was popularised through prolific publication by Goleman (e.g. Goleman 1995; Goleman 1998) but is supported by research. Although several models exist (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1995; Saarni, 1990; Davies, Stankov and Roberts, 1998; Dulewics and Higgs, 2002; Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002) it is generally agreed that emotional intelligence is composed of a number of competences with some authors believing that they can be developed with a positive impact on performance of leaders and individuals. In Goleman’s work, for example, competences are self-awareness, self-management, motivation, empathy and social skills (Goleman 1995) which later became self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management (Goleman, 1998).
High emotional intelligence has been associated with lower stress levels (Rook 1987), higher job satisfaction, higher organisational commitment and increased creativity (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Moses & Stahelski, 1999) and higher performance (Goleman 2005). In teams it has been linked to improved team behaviour and team performance (Jordan, Peter, Lawrence & Sandra, 2009) particularly if a team is able to recognise the emotions of team mates (Stough, Saklofske & Parker, 2009).
Less attention has been given to the role of team and organisational emotional intelligence than that of leaders or individuals. However, two models exist that emphasise improving team performance through building productive relationships and the quality of interactions, however, they approach it from different directions (from an organisational perspective or individual perspective).
Gantt and Agazarian (2004) proposed a system centred model. They proposed that emotional intelligence is a dynamic output of the structure (particularly boundary permeability to information flow), function (discriminating and integrating information) and energy (communication and information) of an organisational system itself rather than a property of individuals. The level of organisational emotional intelligence could be increased by improving interactions between system components (the nation, community, organisation, teams, and individuals), reducing noise through quality of communication and the information communicated, integration of relevant information, bringing conflict to the surface so it could be managed constructively through, for example, contextualising rather than personalising information and functional subgrouping.
An alternative model (Druskatt and Wolff, 2001) focused on awareness and management competences and how they are used from team to individual, team to team and team to external agencies. Team performance was proposed to result from participation, cooperation and collaboration which resulted from building trust within the team, building a team identity and building team efficacy. The latter two being related to boundary permeability from the previous model.
Commonalities between the models include developing ways of working that lead to productive, task focused interactions, reduction of process losses (e.g. noise and destructive forms of conflict) and contextualising situations at the individual, team and organisational level rather than personalising them. These require careful consideration of what information is to be communicated, how it will be communicated and strategies for working with that information as a team.
Further development of the second model (Druskat et al 2017; Stubbs 2005, thesis) has resulted in a model that withstands empirical testing:
Leader EI influences the group level EI which can be measured through the development of emotionally competent group norms (ECGNs). ECGNs improve the social capital within the group leading to task focused processes and behaviours (a reduction in process losses) and team effectiveness. In essence, task focused processes are facilitated by constructive group member relationships and interactions (leading to social capital, trust and safety, efficacy, building of networks, reciprocity, cooperation and producing for the common good) which are supported by development of ECGNs. Embedding of these norms results in higher levels of team performance.
The norms that have been shown to be positively correlated to team effectiveness (Druskat et al 2017) to see if in anticipation of some discussions) when embedded sensitively are:
Individual cluster:
1. Interpersonal understanding
2. Confronting members who break norms
3. Caring behaviour
Group cluster
4. Team self-evaluation
5. Creating resources for working with emotion
6. Creating an affirmative environment
7. Proactive problem solving
Cross-boundary cluster
8. Organisational understanding
9. Building external relationships
The development of each of these, leading to enhanced team performance, is dependent upon the leader’s ability to embed norms through leveraging their individual EI to develop team EI. The role of the norms is to develop appropriate working conditions (e.g. trust, psychological safety, team identity and efficacy).
Implications for Developing and Sustaining Team Effectiveness
Dependence on a manager: Through developing and observing appropriate norms (ECGNs) the factors limiting performance move away from ‘soft skills’ and towards task-focused processes. The dependence of the team on the manager to manage interactions and relations is reduced enabling the manager to focus on improving skill sets that are the barrier to high level task completion.
Integration of task processes and emotional processes: Team development is often isolated from activities related to task accomplishment. This can lead to leaders, managers and teams not being willing to commit time to team development. However, the research shows that behaviour in pursuit of a task leads to development of norms that support task completion; the emotional processes and task processes are mutually dependent and so need to be integrated into common ways of working.
Task or intervention focus: Integration of emotional and task processes enables the team focus to be on activities that enhance task performance because the two types of processes are mutually dependent. Those activities could improve emotional or task performance dependent on the barrier to success.
Teaching teams to fish: Through focusing on task processes we fail to provide teams with the tools it needs to overcome barriers, maintain a thirst for learning and form the foundations required for sustainable improvement. We also fail to develop teams that has members who don’t take responsibility for moving the team in appropriate directions.
In essence, through developing and embedding norms related to interaction and communication the team relies less on leaders, managers and facilitators to manage difficult situations reactively; the team becomes proactive in identifying and working through issues rather than requiring reactive interventions and more likely to take responsibility for its own effectiveness.
Bibliography
Davies, M., Stankov, L., Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional Intelligence: In Search of an Elusive Construct, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 4, 9891015.
Druskat, V. U., Wolff, S. B., & Truninger, M. (2017). Antecedents of effective team collaboration: The pivotal role of human social needs. Manuscript submitted for review.
Druskat, V. U., Wolff, S. B., Messer, T. E., & Stubbs-Koman, E., Batista-Foguet, J-M. (2017). TEAM EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: LINKING TEAM SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENT TO TEAM EFFECTIVENESS. DIEM, 3 (1), 433-454
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Can it be measured reliably and validly using competency data?, In, Higgs, M. and Dulewicz, V. Making sense of emotional intelligence. London: ASE
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In M. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion and social behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 119-150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology (3rd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John
George, J. M. 2002. Affect regulation in groups and teams. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior, pp. 183-217. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence, Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence. (10th Ed). New York: Bantam Books.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Hiokawa, R.Y., DeGooyer, D., Valde, K. (2000). Using Narratives to Study Task Group Effectiveness. Small Group Research, 31, 5, 573-591.
Jordan, P,J., Lawrence, S, A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIPS). In journal of Management and Organization.
Kemper, T. D. (1978). A social interactional theory of emotions. New York, John Wiley & Sons. Wiley & Sons.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.D. (2002). Emotional Intelligence, Science and Myth, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Moses, T. P., & Stahelski, A. J. (1999). A productivity evaluation of teamwork at an aluminum manufacturing plant. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), 391-412.
Rook, K. S. (1987). Social support versus companionship: Effects on life stress, loneliness, and evaluations by others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1132-1147.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 3, 185-211
Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional Competence: How emotions and relationships become integrated, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1998, 36, Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Stough, C., Saklofske, D. H., & Parker, J. D. (2009) Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications.
Comments