Emotional Intelligence and Team Learning

Emotional Intelligence Page 1

Emotional Intelligence and Team Learning

Michael Gottleib, D.M.

Faculty, University of Phoenix-Online

G3 Envision

, (406) 442-8596

Helena, MT

January 11, 2007

Table of Contents

Introduction4

Hypotheses10

Research Design11

DATA ANALYSIS15

Research FINDINGS15

Conclusions and Implications18

Recommendations21

SUMMARY23

REFERENCES25

Appendix A: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE CLUSTERS29

Appendix B: DLOQ LEARNING DIMENSIONS30

Appendix C: SCATTER PLOTS31

Appendix D: SCATTER PLOTS32

Appendix E: SCATTER PLOTS33

Abstract

Accelerating technology, globalization, and changing demographics accent the need for leadership approaches that can prepare leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Like rafters in turbulent whitewater, managers need skills to navigate constant challenge and change. Traditional leadership practices have come under increased scrutiny as 40% to 90% of organizational change efforts have failed. Organizational learning, a systems approach to managing change, has emerged as a means to address environmental whitewater. To promote learning, leadership that embodies cultural and relational competencies found in emotional intelligence may be essential. The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine managers’ emotional intelligence and its relationship with organizational learning in teams. In single stage sampling, 31 managers and teams of a United States defense industry contractor completed the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, and Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire. Data from the survey found statistically significant results that emotional intelligence in managers positively correlates to organizational learning in teams.

Introduction

Operating environments for business and organizations have been characterized as whitewater rapids, where surprises and obstacles appear with little advance notice. Managers who assume skills of an accomplished kayaker understand positioning is critical to navigate current conditions. Twenty-first century whitewater includes accelerating technology, globalization, and changing demographics (Graetz, 2000).

Traditional leadership practices have come under increased scrutiny as “between 40% and 90% of organizational change initiatives failed” (Thor et al., 2004, p. 60). To address environmental whitewater, organizational learning, a systems approach to managing change, has drawn increased attention. Organizational learning equates to kayak positioning in whitewater rafting. As the rafter assesses current conditions, personal skills, and risks, the river experience is transformed from fear to adventure. Learning is the transformative ingredient, yet questions remain about leaders’ effects on creating learning environments.

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine emotional intelligence in managers, and its relationship with organizational learning in teams. Emotional intelligence is a set of human competencies in managing self and others. These qualities contrast instrumental or technical proficiency. Human factors such as visioning, relational management, and interpersonal communication skills (Adjibolosoo, 2004) are representative of behaviors of the highly emotional intelligent manager.

Organizational and team learning are activities designed to acquire, distribute, and apply knowledge to create a desired future (Senge, 1990). Much like whitewater rafting, knowledge is used not to predict the future, but to prepare organizations for developing efficacy. A systems approach emphasizes the links between customer needs, organizational flexibility, current conditions, risks, and organization purpose. Both the whitewater rafter and the astute manager understand their success depends on ability and fit with the environment.

The findings of this study indicated significant relationships between emotional intelligence with organizational learning. The correlation between the variables indicated 30% of organizational learning in teams could be explained by emotional intelligence in managers.

Background of the Problem

Accelerating changes in technology, globalization, and demographics have led to unstable operating environments, posing significant challenges for organizations (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Colteryahn & Davis, 2004; Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, & Mattila, 2001). Traditional leadership practices have become suspect as many organizational change initiatives fail to deliver promised change. Traditional leadership is concerned with the development and management of systems, processes, and technologies (Adjibolosoo, 2004). Many change initiatives focus on instrumental factors surrounding financial metrics, but have failed to address sociological dimensions (Dawson, 2003).

Change management from an instrumental approach focuses on single-loop learning that leads to a change in process, or results in tangible identifiable outcomes, such as increasing market share or raising return on investment (Argyris & Schon, 1996; McLagan, 2003). Drucker (2001) theorized that these programs are inclined to limit acquisition of knowledge in the pursuit of ideal solutions or one best way. Change management from this perspective is problematic, as organizational templates designed elsewhere are less likely to accommodate a dynamic and relational situation where problems are social constructions (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996).

In contrast to instrumental change, organizational learning models a systems approach relying on deutero or double-loop learning (Chen, 2005). Double-loop learning is reflexive, a form of self-analysis that allows leaders to look back and inward to understand past interactions between the organization and its environment (Argyris & Schon, 1996). Organization learning is a process of self-regulation to adapt to changing environments (Morgan, 1998).

The challenge to promote learning is developing a core strategy to manage the context or culture of the organization to enforce consistency while guiding creativity and innovation (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003; Lloyd & Maguire, 2002). To manage learning systems, leaders must reconcile ambiguity and competing tensions inherent in complex environments. This requires leaders to ascribe to cultural and conceptual skills, and to build relational networks (Hill, 2004).

Relational leadership relies on emotional intelligence, a set of competencies identified as separate and distinctive from the more traditional measure of individual intelligence (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003). Leadership based on emotional intelligence differs from transactional leadership in that it is rooted in the ecology of the mind. Leaders grounded in emotional intelligence are more likely to create innovative, agile workplaces and teams that model cohesiveness, and high performance (Joroff, Porter, Feinberg, & Kukla, 2003; Pauleen, 2003; Rapisarda, 2002). In addition, leaders high in emotional intelligence positively affect motivation, and serve as a transformational influence (Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003). Further, advancement to senior leadership positions may depend on emotional intelligence as a sign of promotional readiness as senior managers must be focused more on coordinating teams of people as opposed to technologies (Langley, 2000).

Rapisarda (2002) noted “Although the relevance of EI to team effectiveness has been recognized, research is limited” (p. 63). Understanding the role of emotional intelligence in establishing learning cultures, specifically related to team performance, may provide valuable information on leaders’ practices to prepare organizational responses to environmental change.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual basis that guided this examination was organizations must change to survive in changing operating environments. From a systems perspective, changes in the macro system of an operating environment require micro, organizational changes in order to sustain organizational viability. A wellness paradigm to respond to the ambiguity associated with widespread change is organizational learning (Montuori, 2000).

Organizational health depends on both instrumental management and application of human factors. Human factors in leadership, demonstrated through emotional intelligence emphasize cultural and relational skills, and contrasts with analytical, rational, or instrumental practices (Adjibolosoo, 2004), and may be essential to promote learning culture (Caruso & Salovey, 2004; Goleman, 2004; Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

Organizational Change

Contemporary organizations face post-industrial era shifts where network structures have replaced hierarchies that once were societal structural norms (Hage & Powers, 1992; McLagan, 2003). Traditional hierarchical organizations were managed using rational and analytical management methods based on linear cause and effect relationships. Increased complexity and uncertainty in the post-industrial era requires a commensurate change in organizational structures and leadership skills (Handy, 1996; Marshak, 2004).

A technical or instrumental emphasis in leadership and organization studies surrounding change management was prevalent until the last decades of the 20th century (Carson, Ranzijn,Winefield, & Marsden, 2004). As more organic organizational management approaches evolved, systems thinking and organizational learning received greater attention as solutions to sustain organizational heath. Leadership styles have similarly developed, in recognition that workplaces are subject to emotional contagion (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002).

Predictor Variable: Emotional Intelligence

Discoveries in recent years of the importance of socio-cultural skills have added emphasis to understanding human factors as prerequisite for leadership success (Prati et al., 2003). Human factors in leadership are demonstrated through emotional intelligence, an acute ability to perceive, manage, and apply emotions in self and others in resourceful ways (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). While emotional intelligence is a capacity related to how emotions are recognized or managed, emotionalcompetence is the learned capacity based on emotional intelligence for effective work performance (Sala, 2002). Emotional intelligence may be a critical component for team learning as leaders high in emotional intelligence may be more capable to sustain learning environments (Luca & Tarricone, 2001).

Criterion Variable: Team Learning

Organizational learning initiatives are intended to increase an organization’s capacity to respond to change by acquiring, distributing, and managing knowledge to create its future (Senge, 1990). Organizational learning theory recognizes learning begins with individuals, and through sharing of knowledge, transfers practices and knowledge to increasingly larger and complex organizational units (Kline & Sanders, 1998; Senge, 1990).

Leadership that exercises emotional intelligence has been positively associated with agile and creative work environments (Joroff et al., 2003). However, questions exist on the effects of emotional intelligence on learning in teams. An examination of organization and leadership literature revealed no study investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational learning at the team level. This study was an attempt to increase understanding of the interrelationship between these two variables.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine if a relationship exists between leaders’ emotional intelligence and team learning. The predictor variable, emotional intelligence, is a cluster of human competencies in four domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 2000). The criterion variable was measured by the extent the manager’s team demonstrated qualities of a learning organization. Emotional intelligence in 31 team leaders was correlated with team learning in the leaders’ teams.

The challenge for this research was to converge two major areas of interest in organization studies. These lie at the intersection of leadership effect and organizational performance. Leaders may employ contrasting strategies to guide organizations; instrumental and analytical approaches stand apart from those oriented around human factors. Rational, analytical knowledge serves as the sine qua non of management entry positions, while the application of human factors may be essential for leaders to manage complex environments. Leaders’ actions may benefit organizations by directing contextual influences that promote learning to adapt to dynamic environments (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003; Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

Managing context requires sensitivity to forces that shape organizational behavior. Worker autonomy, job uncertainty, accountability, and resource scarcity are examples of discrete contextual conditions that affect task management (Johns, 2006). Team leaders routinely manage these work related contextual variables. The underlying premise of this study is that emotional intelligence serves as a catalyst for creating learning environments.

Hypotheses

A statistical analysis using the Pearson product moment and partial correlation tested the hypotheses to include one null, and five alternative.

H1. There is a relationship between a management team leader’s emotional intelligence and team learning.

Emotional intelligence exists in clusters of awareness and behavioral competencies at four levels: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social relations. Each of these competencies may affect learning culture, which lead to the development of sub problems for Hypothesis H1.

H1a. There is a relationship between a management team leader’s emotional intelligence of self-awareness and team learning.

H1b. There is a relationship between a management team leader’s emotional intelligence of self-management and team learning.

H1c. There is a relationship between a management team leader’s emotional intelligence of social awareness and team learning.

H1d. There is a relationship between a management team leader’s emotional intelligence of social relations and team learning.

H0. There is no relationship between a management team leader’s emotional intelligence and team learning.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study was quantitative, descriptive research concerned with current relationships between two distinct variables, reducible to numerical statistical analysis to aggregate, compare, and analyze (Babbie, 2001). Data collection and analysis examined 50 managers and their teams from the organization. Participants completed Internet-based surveys using self-administered Likert-type questionnaires. Managers’ self-report data for both instruments were not used for statistical analysis, as self-reporting scales may be subject to halo effects or other self-induced errors in judgment (Fineman, 2004; Kobe, Reiter-Palmon, & Rickers. 2001). All findings were based on others’ data.

The alphas for the ECI 2.0 (Sala, 2002) and DLOQ (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) used for his study were .82 and .93, respectively. Alphas above .60 are strong indicators of the usefulness for affective relationship studies such as this examination of emotional intelligence and organizational learning (Gay & Airisian, 2003).

Sampling Frame

The sampling frame was comprised of managers, supervisors, peers, and managers’ team members. The population was comprised of 50 managers of four operating divisions in the organization. They were homogeneous in that they were primarily Caucasian. Females made up 12% of the management group. Few minorities were present. Managers were professionals with either an undergraduate or masters degree.

The sample size for a population of 50 managers to generalize the data to the entire population was estimated to range from 44 to 50 to achieve a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of plus or minus 5% (Creative Research Systems, 2003). An alternative method to determine sample size based on power estimates, using a power of .80, resulted in a recommended sample size of 50 (Howell, 2007).

To create a normal distribution of data for correlational studies, a minimum of 30 data sets were needed (Gay & Airisian, 2003; Spatz, 2001). The number of data sets received in this study was 31 (N = 31), which equaled a 62% participation rate, and exceeded the number to achieve a normal distribution. This participation rate resulted in a 95% confidence level, with a confidence interval of plus or minus 11% (Creative Research Systems, 2003; Raosoft, 2004).

Instrumentation: Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence data were collected using the Emotional Competency Inventory 2.0 (ECI 2.0) (Sala, 2002), a 72-question Likert-type, 360-degree survey instrument with five anchor points ranging from never (1) through consistently (5). Emotional competencies are based on what outstanding performers do, think, feel, and say (Arond-Thomas, 2004). Data were segmented into eighteen competencies, then into clusters of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social relations (See Appendix A). Self-awareness competencies included awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses; self-management competencies included listening attentively, and remaining composed in unusual situations; social awareness competencies included gathering input from others, and monitoring customer service; and social relational competencies included developing others, and resolving conflict.

Scores for each level of a reporting hierarchy were weighted equally to arrive at a score for each competency. For example, the combined scores for peers were averaged to arrive at a peer level score; the combined scores for direct reports were averaged to arrive at a direct report level score, and so forth (HayGroup, 1999). Averaging supervisors’, peers’, and direct reports’ scores calculated a single competency score. A similar procedure computed cluster and overall emotional intelligence ratings. Awareness clusters were a product of three competences while behavioral clusters were a product of six competencies each. In producing an overall emotional intelligence score, behavioral clusters were valued at twice the weight as the awareness clusters (HayGroup, 1999).

The ECI 2.0 (Sala, 2002) scores measured individual emotional intelligence as reported by others resulting from observing actual behaviors practiced by leaders. These observations occur in the context of organizational and relational ambiguities and conflicts found in real work settings. Evaluation of emotional intelligence by others may be a more objective determination of competencies related to leadership than ability or self-scored instruments, as followers are the arbiters of a leader’s effectiveness (Drucker, 1996).

Instrumentation: Team Learning

Team learning was operationalized as the efficacy of teams to acquire, distribute, and implement knowledge (Senge, 1990). The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) specified three organizational levels (individual, team, and organizational) and seven domains of observables for organizational learning. Data was aggregated through 21-questions with a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from almost never to almost always. Managers’ team members provided the raw data for team learning. Scores were weighted equally to arrive at a single organizational learning value for each manager.Appendix B provides an overview of the dimensions of organizational learning.

The people level of organizational learning was composed of two dimensions: continuous learning, and dialogue and inquiry. Six questions comprised this section of the DLOQ (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) including In my organization, people help each other learn. The second level focused on collaboration and team learning (three questions) including In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group discussions or information collected. The organizational level of learning was comprised of four dimensions: embedded systems, empowerment, system connectedness, and leadership. There were 12 questions in this segment including My organization creates systems to measure gaps between current and expected performance.

DATA ANALYSIS

Statistical analysis of the data relied on the Pearson product moment correlation to measure the degree of correlation between a manager’s emotional intelligence and team learning. Due to the small sample size, the Pearson correlation coefficients were adjusted for sample size to obtain an unbiased estimate of the population correlation coefficients. The regression equation (r2) signifies variance and is another indicator of the degree of strength and usefulness of the relationship. The regression equation for the correlation between emotional intelligence and organizational learning indicated 30% of organizational learning was influenced by emotional intelligence.