1
Emotional Intelligence Competencies in the Team and Team Leader: a Multi-level Examination of the Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Team Performance
Elizabeth Stubbs Koman, Ph.D.The Stubman Group, LLC
U.S. Navy
2025 Tartar Ave
Virginia Beach, VA 23461-1924
/ Steven B. Wolff, DBA.
The Hay Group
116 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02116
617-425-4525
E-mail:
* Research based on the dissertation research of Elizabeth Stubbs (Stubbs, 2005)
* The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not the U.S. Navy
Abstract
Purpose of Paper / This research examines the relationshipsamongteam leader emotional intelligence competencies, team level emotional intelligence, and team performance.Design/ Methodology / It is argued here that team leader’s emotional intelligence (EI) will influence the development of group level emotional intelligence (GEI), which was measured by a team’s emotionally competent group norms (ECGN). Secondly, it is hypothesized that the presence of ECGNs will positively influence group effectiveness. Data were collected from 422 respondents representing 81 teams in a military organization.
Findings / Results show that team leader emotional intelligence is significantly related to the presence of emotionally competent group norms on the teams they lead, and that emotionally competent group norms are related to team performance.
Research Limitations/Implications / Limitations of this research include a narrow sample with the teams not being highly interdependent.
Practical Implications / This research provides implications for practice in three primary areas: 1) development and sustainment of emotionally intelligent managers and leaders, 2) development and sustainment of emotionally intelligent work groups, and 3) establishment of organizational leaders at all levels to foster and support emotional competence throughout the organization
What’s original/value of paper / This research contributes to the field by offering support for the effects team leader’s emotional intelligence has on the teams they lead as well as by showing team level emotional intelligence affects team performance.This study adds to the body of literature in what is considered a relatively new area of study. The fourkey contributions of this research are: (1) this research shows that leader’s behaviors are important at the team level, (2) this research further validates Wolff and Druskat (forthcoming) ECGN theory by lending support for the ECGNs as well as offers alternative clustering ideas for the norms, (3) ECGNs were shown to be related to performance, and lastly (4) this research extends the knowledge base about emotions in groups.
1
Introduction
Emotional Intelligence competencies have been shown to be significantly related to individual performance (Boyatzis, 1982) both in cognitive tasks where the individual is under stress and in tasks where individuals are interdependent on one another (see Druskat & Jordan, forthcoming, for a review). At the team level, the study of emotions and the effects of emotions on team performance is a relatively new avenue of research. Since teamwork is an inherently social activity, emotions play an important role in team effectiveness. Druskat and Wolff (1999, 2001a, 2001b) proposed a model of emotional intelligence at the group level. Groups develop a setof behavioral norms labeled emotionally competent group norms (ECGN)that guide the emotional experience in the group. The degree to which a group develops these norms has been linked to team performance (Druskat, Messer, Koman & Wolff, 2003). Understanding the factors that lead to the development of ECGNs would be beneficial for team development.
The purpose of this research is to assess the relation between team leader emotional intelligence competencies and the emergence of emotionally competent norms in a team. Specifically, the present research examines the relationship between emotional intelligence of a leader, the group level emotional intelligence (GEI), and how both of these levels of emotional intelligence affect performance of the team.
Definitions
Team/Group
Like Cohen and Bailey (1997), whose work is based on Hackman (1987) and Alderfer (1977), we define a team as “a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries” (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 241). The scope used in this research consisted of groups of individuals who worked together toward a common output, thus we refer to them as teams throughout the paper.
Team effectiveness
Team effectiveness is a multidimensional construct (Goodman, 1979; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990). The term team effectiveness entails both meeting customer specifications and being able to work together effectively in the future (Hackman, 1987). This view ensures that the team is not focused on customer satisfaction to the exclusion of concern with the well being of the team and its members, or vice versa.
Defining Emotional Intelligence for the Present Study
While there are varying definitions of emotional intelligence, there is agreement in the literature that EI includes an individual having an awareness of and an ability to regulate their emotions. Salovey and Mayer’s theory of EI focuses on the emotional abilities that link emotion and individual cognition, where Goleman and Boyatzis’s theory focus on social and emotional competencies (Jordan & Troth, 2004; Matthews, Zeidner Roberts, 2002). This study utilizes the emotional intelligence theory advanced by Boyatzis and Goleman. This EI theory has evolved into four overarching clusters of EI skills: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 2001; Boyatzis, Goleman & Rhee, 1999). The four clusters represent a recognition and regulation cluster for both the individual (self) and social competencies (other). Table 1 identifies the competencies in each cluster and their definitions.
------
Insert Table 1 about here
------
To examine the relationship between a team leader’s emotional intelligence and the development of group-level emotional intelligence, we used the above mentioned EI competencies. For a more robust discussion of the clusters and each competency see Stubbs (2005).
Defining Emotional Intelligence at the Team Level
Druskat & Wolff (1999) identified the existence of emotionally competent group norms (ECGNs) “that influence and manage the emotional process in a way that builds emotional capacity and develops social capital and leads to effectiveness” (p. 9). These group norms are an indication of the group’s emotional intelligence and can help to determine if a group of individuals functions as a high-performing team (Goleman, Boyatzis McKee, 2002). Wolff and Druskat state that each of the ECG norms is related to the individual, group or cross-boundary (external) level. Within each of the three levels, there is at least one norm that is an awareness norm and one that is a regulation norm (see Table 2 for a definition of the norms). In this study, we use the following definition for group-level emotional intelligence: The ability of a team to generate operating norms that increase awareness of emotion and management of behavior in ways that have positive emotional consequences.
------
Insert Table 2 about here
------
The Relation between Team Leader Emotional Intelligence and Group Emotional Intelligence
Team leaders are responsible for the success of the teams they lead. As such, they are not only responsible for their own emotions, but also for the emotions of the team they lead and the clients of the team (Rafaeli & Worline, 2001). To influence and move people, one must possess the knowledge and skills of emotional competencies (Boyatzis, Stubbs & Taylor, 2002). Boyatzis (1982) defines such competencies as “the underlying characteristics of a person that lead to or cause effective and outstanding performance.” With teams being social in nature, it is logical that emotional intelligence would be an important factor in team leader effectiveness; and it has been shown to be important for the success of managers and leaders (George, 2000; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; George, 1995; Gardner & Stoug, 2002).
Scholars have argued and shown that team leaders influence the processes, behaviors, norms, and climate of the team they lead (Kimberly 1980; Schein 1992; Dickson, et al., 2001; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). However, there has been a limited amount of research linking team leadership to performance. The empirical work that has been conducted has found that leadership has effects on team motivation, efficacy, and performance (Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; George, 2000; Schein, 1985; Dickson, et al., 2001); primarily through the development of the team’s climate (Piloa-Merlo et al., 2002).
Goleman (2001) and Williams (1994) suggested that leaders who are emotionally intelligent are essential to developing a climate where employees are encouraged to perform to the best of their ability. When the leader is helping the team develop its norms, the climate that is developed maintains a consonance with the team leader’s individual personality (Dickson, et al., 2001, p. 201). If the norms developed reflect the team leader’s personality, it could be argued that the emotional intelligence norms developed on the team would reflect the emotional intelligence competencies of the team leader. This research will examine the effect that 18 EI competencies have on the presence of GEI, and the effect of GEI on team performance (see Figure 1).
------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------
Hypothesis 1: The level of team leader EI is positively related to the presence of Emotionally Competent Group Norms.
Emotional Intelligence and Teams
Although there is asubstantial body of literature on individual emotion and on emotional intelligence, there is mixed evidence regarding the effects of emotional intelligence in teams and work groups (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004). Feyerherm & Rice (2002) found that the higher the team leader’s emotional intelligence, the worse the team performed, however, they did find a positive correlation between the team leader’s ability to understand emotion and the performance on the customer service metric (p.354). Whereas Jordan & Troth (2004) and Offerman, Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal Sass (2004) found that teams with higher levels of EI performed better than teams with lower levels of EI. When assessing the team’s EI, all three research teams (FeyerhermRice; Jordan & Troth; Offermann et al.) used measures that assessed each individual team member’s emotional intelligence. The current study varies from previous research in that we used a team-level measure to assess the team’s overall emotional intelligence.
GEI has been shown to be significantly related to performance (Stubbs & Messer, 2002; Druskat, Messer, Koman & Wolff, 2003). This research will further validate the findings that GEIeffects team performance through the testing of the relationship between the ECGNs and team performance (Stubbs & Messer, 2002; Druskat, Messer, Koman & Wolff, 2003;).
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between ECGN presence and team effectiveness.
Method
The objective of this research was to assess the relationship between individual emotional intelligencecompetencies, team level emotional intelligence, and team effectiveness. This field study was a cross sectional examination of the EI and GEI norms that were present in teams and team leaders in a military organization.
Sample & Procedure
A military sample was used. In each of two commands, both aircrew teams and maintenance teams participated. The maintenance teams served as direct support for the aircrew teams. A total of 349 aircrew and maintenance team members participated representing 81 aircrew and maintenance teams. Additionally, 70 team leaders and 73 managers (team leaders supervisors) rated team leaders’ emotional intelligence, 13% of the team leaders were women and 70% were men[1]. About 600 team members were asked to participate with 349 (58%) completing surveys. All participation was voluntary and everyone was given the opportunity to decline participation.
Final team level data analysis was completed on a sample of 275 men and 50 women. There were 55 officers and 294 enlisted personnel who participated. On average, participants had been members of their teams for 14.6 months, and a member of the military for 74.8 months. Each team had a mean of 6.8 team members (Range = 3-11; Median = 6.5). Any team where the number of respondents was less then 50% of the total number of team members was not included in the analysis. The final sample consisted of 64 teams where the response rate represented at least 50% of the team members.
Aircrew team leaders were officers (n = 9)[2] and maintenance team leaders were senior enlisted personnel (n= 49). Team leaders had been involved with their teams for 1-24 months, with the average being 10.6 months. Average military tenure was 210 months (17.5 yrs; range of 60-300 months).
All participants in this study were either a team leader or member on a functioning military team. This population was used because the nature of military work requires the use of teams (Prapavessis & Albert, 1997; Orasanu & Backer, 1996; Zaccaro, Gualtieri Minionis, 1995). The teams that participated in this study were direct mission support aircrew teams as well as maintenance teams that support the aircrew teams. The aircrew teams are tasked to perform operational military flights on a regular basis. The teams are composed of a mission commander, two pilots, and individuals performing avionics type tasks. The maintenance teams are tasked to support the aircrew teams by performing needed maintenance on the aircraft. The team of maintainers are specialized mechanics who work together on one specific portion of the aircraft, ie, engine, propellers, avionics, etc. Participant’s lives depend on their team members, and their support teams. All teams that participated have a direct role in mission accomplishment, and are able to see the results of their teamwork.
Measures
Team Leader Emotional Intelligence
To assess team leader emotional intelligence, the emotional competence inventory (ECI-2) was administered. The ECI-2 uses 360-degree feedback methodology to assess the emotional competencies of individuals (Wolff, 2006). The ECI-2 was developed by Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman with the help of the Hay Group (McClelland, 1973; Boyatzis, 1982; Goleman, 1998; Boyatzis and Sala, 2004). The ECI-2 has an overall average internal consistency coefficient of 0.78 and the self-ratings have an overall average internal consistency coefficient of 0.63 (Wolff, 2006). The ECI-2 has been used in various venues, in particular, in assessing the relationship between an individual’s emotional intelligence and their leadership behaviors (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Cavallo & Brienza, 2002; Boyatzis & Sala, 2004).
The ECI-2 consists of 72 questions that assess 18 EI competencies. Participants rated frequency of use of each item on a one-to-five Likert scale ranging from never (1) to consistently (5). If an item was not applicable or the respondent did not feel they could accurately assess the ratee on a particular item, there was a space marked “don’t know” so participants were not forced into an answer. The ECI-2 is a proprietary instrument; information on the scales can be obtained from the Hay Group. Each team leader in the final sample had 2 -14 raters rate their behaviors, with an average of 4.34 ratings completed for every team leader, excluding the self-rating.
Cronbach’s alpha internal reliabilities were assessed for each scale. Most scales had acceptable reliabilities, with their alphas close to or above 0.70 (see Vogt, 1999), with the exceptions of emotional self-control, initiative, and conflict management. Reliabilities were: accurate self assessment, = .75; emotional self awareness, = .75; self-confidence, = .73; achievement orientation, = .69; adaptability, = .77; emotional self-control, = .42; initiative, = .16; optimism, = .78; transparency, = .70; empathy, = .83; organizational awareness, = .63; service orientation, = .83; change catalyst, = .60; conflict management, = .33; developing others, = .83; influence, = .74; inspirational leadership, = .87; teamwork and collaboration, = .67. The majority of the theorized scales were found to have acceptable reliabilities. Since overall individual emotional intelligence is being examined, we decided to drop the three competencies with low reliabilities. This leaves 15 competencies, which still provides a good indication of overall emotional intelligence that will allow us to test our hypotheses.
We next tested the theoretical factor structure of the EI scales using AMOS 6. We examined each theoretical cluster (self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management) separately due to the large number of variables. The results showed that the theorized factor structure did not produce a good fitting model. Although all values of RMSEA were acceptable (.07 - .085), all but one NFI and RFI were below the acceptable .9 level (.73-.88).
Group Emotional Intelligence
Team level emotional intelligence was assessed using the Group Emotional Intelligencemeasure developed by Druskat and Wolff and later refined based on work by Hamme(2003). Team member participants self rated their team’s behavior according to each of the nine ECG norms measured by the instrument. The ECGN scales are comprised of 57 questions, representing nine team norms. The nine scales were comprised of 5-8 questions, with one to three items in each scale reversed scored. Respondents rated each item on a one-to-seven Likert scale ranging from very inaccurate (1) to very accurate (7). Interpersonal understanding was measured with six items, e.g., "On our team we make an effort to understand one another’s attitudes and views." Confronting members who break norms was measured with six items, e.g., "In our group, we let members know if they do something considered unacceptable." Caring behavior was measured with eight items, e.g., “We let members know that we value their contributions.” Team self-evaluation was measured with seven items, e.g., "On our team we often discuss what is helping or hurting our performance.” Creating resources for working with emotion was measured by six items, e.g., “When there is tension in our group, we acknowledge or talk about it”. Creating an affirmative environment was measured with five items, e.g., “When something goes wrong, we look at it as a challenge rather than an obstacle”. Proactive problem solving was measured with six items, e.g., "In our team we work hard to anticipate problems that might occur.” Organizational understanding was measured with seven items, e.g., "We understand how our work contributes to the company’s goals." Building external relationships was measured with six items, e.g., "We build relationships with teams that can help make a difference in our performance."