1

Group-level Emotional Intelligence

Vanessa Urch Druskat Steven B. Wolff

Whittemore School of Business and Economics Hay Group

University of New Hampshire McClelland Center for Research

McConnell Hall; 15 College Road 116 Huntington Ave.

Durham, NH 03824 Boston, MA 02116-5712

USA USA

Phone: 603-659-2916 Fax: 603-862-3383 Phone: 617-425-4525

E-mail: E-mail:

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (in press). Group-level emotional intelligence. In N.M. Ashkanasy & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: in press. London: Edward Elgar.

We wish to thank Neal Ashkanasy for his inspiration and patience.

Abstract

Group-level Emotional Intelligence

This chapter presents a theory explaining how emotional intelligence (EI) can be manifested at the group level. The theory explains how awareness and management of emotion in groups can improve group effectiveness by enabling a group to take advantage the positive and negative emotions experienced by members. We argue that group-level EI is most effective when it emerges as a set of nine emotionally competent norms that build social capital and that support group effectiveness.


Work tasks are assigned to teams when team member information sharing and interaction is necessary for optimal performance. Many factors can influence the quality of team member information sharing and interaction-- one of the most elusive is emotion. In fact, every interaction between and among team members produces emotion (Kemper, 2000). Moreover, within the team context, this emotion is contagious; it instantly and unconsciously spreads among team members and affects subsequent team dynamics (Barsade, 2002; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005). For the past five decades, researchers have been showing that emotion influences the quality of group interactions, the motivation of team members, and team performance (Boyd, 1964; Edmondson, 1999; Homans, 1950; Kelly, 2004).

Still, little research and theory have addressed how to turn emotion into an asset for a team. The primary focus of group theorists has been aimed at guarding against the negative aspects of emotion such as destructive conflict. In the 1970’s and 1980’s group theorists argued that emotion should be managed by reducing the amount of member interaction during team decision making processes (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafsun, 1975) and through the use of strategies such as structuring discussion principles or appointing a “devil’s advocate,” that is, a person whose mission was to provide the negative feedback or raise the difficult issues so that members would not fear having to disappoint or anger the group (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafsun, 1975; Janis, 1982).

While these strategies are effective at muting emotion in groups, they also reduce the team’s ability to exploit the constructive benefits of emotion. Negative emotions can preoccupy the attention of team members, never-the-less, they are commentaries on team member’s honest concerns and can provide valuable information (Archer, 2004) about the adequacy of team processes or the correctness of team decisions. Positive emotions can also play a useful role in team environments by engaging members in the team or the task (Bales, 1953; Homans, 1950). The positive emotions that emerge from caring, respectful, or enjoyable interactions among members can also lead to the development of bonds that boost cooperation (Dirks, 1999), the synergistic integration of ideas, and the effectiveness of group processes (Dirks, 1999; Hackman, 1987). However, little theory or research have examined how teams can best take advantage of both negative and positive emotion in the team environment and use it to improve performance (Reus & Liu, 2004).

In this chapter, We present a working theory developed by my colleague Steve Wolff and me to propose how awareness and management of emotion in groups can be used to harness the positive side of emotion and produce “process gains”(Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Process gains are defined as boosts to a team’s productivity due to high quality interaction processes in the team (Steiner, 1972). We argue that process gains are the result of “emotionally competent group norms” that build social capital and improve task focused behaviors and interactions. Our theory is an extension of theory on emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2001; J. D. Mayer, 2001) and its application in team environments (Huy, 1999). So, we begin by defining the construct of emotional intelligence and discussing how researchers have conceptualized its application in team environments.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is one of the most intriguing yet controversial concepts emerging from psychology in the last few decades. When it first emerged, the concept received immediate attention because social scientists, educators, managers, and the general public all saw face validity and utility in the idea of a form of intelligence that combines emotion and cognitive reasoning. Although beyond the scope of this chapter, it is worth noting that the controversy over EI stems mostly from the abrupt speed with which it entered the literature, which was due to its almost instant popularity. Additional theory and research are necessary to sort out problems that grew out of that such as the lack of a consistent definition, the quality of EI measures, and whether EI measures tap into something new that personality and cognitive intelligence tests don’t already provide (Murphy, 2006). Never-the-less, a growing amount of theory and research on EI links it to behaviors relevant in team environments (Druskat, Sala, & Mount, 2006).

In terms of definition, EI involves thinking and acting intelligently about emotion. Specifically, it requires the ability to recognize and differentiate ones own emotions and emotions in others, to understand how these specific emotions influence behavior, and to anticipate and manage one’s own and other’s behavioral reactions to specific emotions. Those who study EI agree that, like cognitive intelligence, (IQ) it is defined by a set of abilities. The exact abilities that define EI are debated by theorists whose theories differ in seemingly slight but important ways (Druskat et al., 2006; J. D. Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Recently, strong empirical support was found for a 6-factor model supporting six distinct EI abilities including: (a) emotional self-awareness; (b) awareness of others’ emotions; (c) emotional self-regulation; (d) management of others’ emotions; (e) emotional expression; and (f) emotional reasoning (Palmer, Gignac, Ekermans, & Stough, in press).

The first two abilities, emotional self-awareness and awareness of others’ emotions involve recognizing or perceiving one’s own feelings and those of others in their facial expressions, voice tones or postures, and then accurately labeling them. The second two abilities, emotional self-regulation and management of others’ emotions are seen when one is able to calm oneself or others’ down during stressful times, or when one anticipates and avoids stress before it occurs. Alternatively, it can involve cheering oneself or others up when needed—the critical attribute is the ability to manage the emotion. The fifth ability, emotional expression is the ability to accurately express the emotion one feels. The sixth ability, emotional reasoning involves the ability to accurately analyze emotions such as when they arise, their typical trends, and their typical outcomes.

Research consistently shows that when work requires social interaction, EI abilities are positively linked to high performance (Druskat et al., 2006). This makes sense because emotions are primarily social phenomenon (Leach & Tiedens, 2004; McCarthy, 1989). The emotional system is triggered by events occurring outside of our physical bodies and frequently these events are connected to social interactions and social relationships, as seen in the case of greed, anger, rage, or tenderness (McCarthy, 1989). The stronger the mutual dependence, that is interdependence, among individuals the more likely they are to invoke emotions in one another and the more inextricably linked are their emotions (Clark, Fitness, & Brissette, 2004), producing “shared emotions” (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). In team environments, interdependence among members is usually high because members need one another to complete their work. Decades of research provides ample evidence that emotion is a central and inevitable part of life in work teams (Bales, 1953; Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Tuckman, 1965).

Two features of EI make it particularly relevant to the productive use of emotion in team environments. First, as mentioned above, emotions are commentaries on concerns (Archer, 2004) and can be early indicators of problems in teams. Thus, attention to member emotions can enable a team to recognize problems before they evolve into larger problems. Second, EI enables one to regulate and manage destructive emotions. Given that conflict is a natural part of group life (Deutsch, 1973), this ability would likely be useful for tempering destructive conflict in a team. In sum, EI could be an asset in team environments because it has the potential to enable team members to notice and understand one another’s emotions, manage destructive emotions, recognize emotions as commentaries and feedback, and use emotion information to improve team processes, decisions, and outcomes.

Emotional Intelligence in Team Contexts

The clear association between EI and behavior that might be productive in team contexts has led theorists and researchers to examine its application in work teams. This application has been characterized and examined through the use of three different approaches. The most common approach is to measure each team member’s EI and to average the scores to compile a team EI score. The assumption is that the higher the average score, the more emotionally intelligent the team (Day & Carroll, 2004; Feyerhem & Rice, 2002; Frye, Bennett, & Caldwell, 2006; Offermann, Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal, & Sass, 2004).

A second approach to examining team EI is through the use of a specialized measure focused on behavior in team contexts. This approach was initiated by Peter Jordan and his colleagues who developed the “Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile” (WEIP) to assess individual emotional intelligence expressed in a team context (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004). The items in the WEIP ask members to rate the extent to which they can do things such as “explain the emotions they feel to team members,” “overcome anger that is felt toward a team member,” etc. A second version of the survey, the Peer-WEIP, asks team members to assess whether their teammates exhibit these EI abilities in the team. For both the WEIP and the Peer-WEIP, team EI is measured as the average level of individual EI in a team. Teams with members who score higher on EI are considered to be more emotionally intelligent.

Finally, some theorists, including my colleagues and I, define team emotional intelligence as a group-level (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Gnatt & Agazarian, 2004; Reus & Liu, 2004) or even organization-level construct (Gnatt & Agazarian, 2004; (Huy, 1999). We argue that just as emotion in an organizational context occurs at multiple levels (Ashkanasy, 2003), emotional intelligence can occur at multiple levels. In fact, teams (or organizations) are well-known to be “greater than the sum of their individual parts” (Tziner & Eden, 1985). In other words, behavior in teams is not random and do not occur in a vacuum; behavior is influenced by the surrounding context and the range of behaviors considered acceptable within the team (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). A team’s emergent norms and culture interact with and can easily prevail over the abilities or behaviors of individual members. Research has consistently revealed that other than task ability, individual member characteristics are weak predictors of team processes and outcomes (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Vraa, 1974). Thus, we argue that if emotional intelligence is to have a significant influence in a team, it must exist as something more than an individual team member ability that may or may not make a difference-- it must exist as a norm or expectation about how team members should behave in a team. Understanding how EI can exist as a group-level norm requires understanding how group norms emerge.

Research and theory provide evidence of a four phase process that occurs as norms emerge (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Feldman, 1984; Festinger, 1954). In the first phase, members come together and base their behavior and expectations on their prior experience in similar situations. Thus, for EI behaviors to emerge as norms, some members need to arrive with the abilities required for emotional intelligence and a belief that behaving in emotionally intelligent ways will serve the group.

The second phase starts as soon as team members begin to interact. It involves a series of actions, observations, and reflections through which members begin to create and make sense out of common experiences that start shaping their expectations (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). According to Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory, the ambiguity experienced in this phase causes members to turn to one another to compare behaviors and gauge the acceptability of their behaviors and beliefs in the team.

In phase three of the norm development process, members start challenging the emerging expectations and patterns of behaviors and begin voicing alternative preferences (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). It is important to note that norms develop only for those behaviors and attitudes which are viewed as important by most group members (Hackman, 1976). Thus, in this phase, if Group EI norms are emerging, they are likely to be challenged and must eventually get supported by a majority of group members if they are to endure. Alternatively, if Group EI norms have not emerged, this is a critical time period for group members to make interventions in support of them.

We propose five forces that can leverage the importance of emotionally intelligent behavior in the eyes of the group majority. These involve the influence of: (1) external team leaders, (2) informal team leaders, (3) courageous followers who aren’t necessarily treated as informal leaders in the team, (4) training, and (5) organizational culture. The first three involve interventions by individuals that believe in the importance of emotionally intelligent behavior and champion the relevance of emotion to team processes and outcomes. Training programs provided early in a group's development can advocate developing emotionally intelligent norms and have the added advantage of enabling members to build the skills and abilities needed to support such norms (Hackman, 1976). Finally, an organizational culture that supports emotionally intelligent behavior can support the emergence of emotionally intelligent norms.

In phase four, members start behaving according to group expectations instead of those in which they entered the team (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Deviations from norms are sanctioned. Group norms have been discussed as the most invisible, but most powerful form of influence in teams (Feldman, 1984).