08832323.2011.623197
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Examining the Relationship Between Emotional
Intelligence and Group Cohesion
Amanda Moore & Ketevan Mamiseishvili
To cite this article: Amanda Moore & Ketevan Mamiseishvili (2012) Examining the Relationship
Between Emotional Intelligence and Group Cohesion, Journal of Education for Business, 87:5,
296-302, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.623197
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.623197
Published online: 05 Jun 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 717
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:04
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 296–302, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.623197
Examining the Relationship Between Emotional
Intelligence and Group Cohesion
Amanda Moore
John Brown University, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Ketevan Mamiseishvili
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
Collaborative learning experiences increase student learning, but what happens when students
fail to collaborate? The authors investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence
and group cohesion by studying 44 undergraduate teams who were completing semester-long
projects in their business classes at a small private university in the South. The results showed
that there was a significant positive correlation between overall emotional intelligence and total
group cohesiveness. Of the quadrants of emotional intelligence, awareness of own emotions,
and management of others’ emotions showed the strongest positive correlation with group
cohesion. Implications of the results for future research and practice are discussed.
Keywords: collaborative learning, emotional intelligence, team cohesion, undergraduate
business students
Today’s college graduates are expected to perform and function in collaborative work settings. Individuals are no longer
the key units in an organization; rather teams are (Senge,
1990). Katzenbach and Smith (2003) claimed that functional
teams perform at a greater level than the sum of their individual parts because they share skills, knowledge, and experiences that exceed the capability of any individual. Teams are
important to organizations because “the leader and the team
are able to achieve something together that neither could
achieve alone” (Bennis & Biederman, 1997, p. 3). Because
teams have become the vital component of organizations, colleges and universities have a responsibility to engage their
students in collaborative learning experiences and equip them
with the competencies to become effective team members
(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007).
Skills in communication, analytical reasoning, and teamwork
are the most important skills that companies look for in job
candidates, yet executives rarely find college graduates with
these skills (Vance, 2007).
Research demonstrates that collaborative learning experiences increase student satisfaction and learning (e.g.
Correspondence should be addressed to Amanda Moore, John Brown
University, College of Business, 2000 W. University, Siloam Springs, AR
72761, USA. E-mail: mmoore@jbu.edu
Beckman, 1990; Chickering & Gamson, 1991; Cooper,
1990; Davis, 1993; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, & Associates,
1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin,
& Smith, 1986; McKendall, 2000; Slavin, 1980). While cooperative learning may be effective, the problem is that some
teams fail to collaborate. The challenge of managing collaborative work extends beyond the confines of the classroom.
Business executives also struggle with forming and maintaining teams. In a recent survey, executives indicated that
launching and maintaining teams is one of their most staggering challenges (Farren, 1999). Whether in the college classroom or in corporate boardrooms, new knowledge is needed
to help teams become more cohesive so that dysfunction is
minimized and performance and cohesion are increased.
Researchers have asserted that studies addressing the role
of emotions in groups would provide value to the understanding of why some teams function effectively and some
fail (Wolff, Druskat, Koman, & Messer, 2006). However,
until recently, emotions have not been studied extensively
because historically, intellect has been considered superior
(Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000). It was Gardner’s (1983) research on multiple intelligences that identified
the importance of evaluating more than cognitive signs of intelligence suggesting that emotional and interpersonal areas
must also be recognized. Examining the relationship between
emotional intelligence (EI) and group cohesion may shed
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION
some light on why some teams fail to collaborate whereas
others are more cohesive. Thus, the purpose of the study
was to examine how emotional intelligence related to team
cohesiveness among undergraduate students completing cooperative learning projects in their business classes at a small
private university in the South.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Group cohesion is the most important source of success for
groups (Carron & Brawley, 2000). Festinger (1950) defined
group cohesiveness as “the resultant of all of the forces acting on members to remain in the group” (p. 274). Cohesive
teams maintain higher levels of productivity and perform at
higher levels (Summers, Coffelt, & Horton, 1988; Worchel,
Cooper, & Goethals, 1991). Druskat and Wolff (2001) argued that how group members manage their emotions within
the group determines their effectiveness. Wolff et al. (2006)
emphasized that “social interactions create emotion” (p. 224)
and the more the group needs to interact the more vital EI
of the group is. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) defined
EI as “the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others” (p. 396).
Furthermore, group EI is defined as “the ability to develop
a set of norms that manage emotional processes so as to
cultivate trust, group identity, and group efficacy” (Druskat
& Wolff, p. 133). Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and
Buckley (2003) found that individuals considered emotionally intelligent have “strong relationships and a solid team
support system” (p. 30). They proposed that “the level of
. . . cohesion is dependent on the degree of team members’
emotional intelligence” (p. 31).
Some scholars indicate the EI of an individual is a strong
factor in predicting effective performance (Goleman, 1995,
1998; Watkin, 2000). However, Salovey and Mayer (2004)
reminded scholars that EI is still in its infancy, and the study
of EI within groups is even more so. Only recently, there have
been several studies conducted to explore the application of
EI in relation to teams. For example, Jordan, Ashkanasy,
Hartel, and Hooper (2002) conducted a study of 448 undergraduate students enrolled in communications and management skills classes in Australia. The researchers developed
their own instrument, the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence
Profile 3, to assess the EI of the students in relation to group
focus and performance in problem-based teams and found
that the groups who had lower average EI scores performed
at a lower level initially.
Another study by Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009) examined the relationship between EI, work performance, and
group cohesiveness in 23 professional nursing teams in
Belgium. Quoidbach and Hansenne utilized the Modified
Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale to assess the EI of each
team. They found that even one member with a low EI score
297
or a very high EI score can have an effect on the performance
and cohesion of the entire group. Additionally, they found
that emotional regulation was the most important quadrant
of EI in predicting team cohesiveness and work performance.
The participants in this study worked for a hospital and were
primarily women. Each team in this study contained 14–23
members, and as Katzenbach and Smith (2003) indicated,
teams with more than 10 members might have led to subgroups.
Additionally, Rapisarda (2002) explored the impact of
EI on team cohesiveness and performance of 16 executive
MBA teams that graduated from a university over a threeyear period and found a positive relationship between EI and
cohesion. Rapisarda used 360-assessments in her study that
allowed for team members and faculty to evaluate the EI
of each participant; however, she sent the group cohesiveness instrument up to three years after the students graduated. Another study by Jordan and Troth (2004) studied 108
teams in an undergraduate introductory management course
to identify the relationship between conflict resolution, team
cohesion, and team performance. Utilizing mixed methods,
Jordan and Troth found that emotions and EI are important
factors influencing group performance. However, the teams
they studied only had three members. Jordan and Troth admitted that the increase in members would have likely changed
their results. Furthermore, the students who they studied only
worked together for one day on a single task.
In sum, several researchers have examined the relationship between EI and team cohesiveness, but with certain
limitations and gaps that were discussed previously. Existing research has not yet focused on traditional undergraduate
students in non–introductory-level business courses at a U.S.
university who have been working in collaborative teams
throughout the semester. In the present study we addressed
this gap in research and examined the relationship between
EI and team cohesiveness of undergraduate business students at a small private university in the South. Specifically,
we explored the relationship between EI scores and team
cohesiveness by assessing undergraduate students who were
completing collaborative projects in their non–introductorylevel business courses. Two primary questions guided the
investigation: (a) What is the profile of the groups on EI and
group cohesion? and (b) How do the EI scores of a group
relate to the cohesiveness of the group?
METHOD
Participants
An explanatory correlational design was used to evaluate
the relationship between EI and group cohesion. The purpose of explanatory correlational research is to “explain the
association between two variables” (Creswell, 2008, p. 358).
The participants in this study consisted of 157 undergraduate
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
298
A. MOORE AND K. MAMISEISHVILI
students at a small private university in the South. We used
a nonprobability convenience sample to select the participants who were enrolled in non–introductory-level business
courses during the fall 2009 semester in which professors utilized a collaborative learning project throughout the semester.
There were 83 female and 74 male participants. Approximately 96% of the participants were majoring in business
and 4% of the participants were pursuing majors outside of
business. The final sample for this study consisted of 44 student teams or groups. Thus, the unit of analysis of this study
was at the group level. Teams ranged in size from two to five
students, with four being the most frequent. Similar to other
researchers, we use the terms team and group interchangeably (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). For the purpose of this
study, the definition of a group or a team was that it was,
. . . made up of individuals who see themselves and who
are seen by others as a social entity who are interdependent
because of the tasks that they perform as members of a group,
who are embedded in one or more larger social systems, and
who perform tasks that affect others. (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996, pp. 308–309)
Measures
Emotional intelligence. The Workgroup Emotional
Intelligence Profile–Short Version (WEIP-S; Jordan &
Lawrence, 2009) was used to assess the EI of the individuals within the teams. The instrument included 16 questions
asking the respondent to reflect on his or her behavior within
the team context. Examples of questions are “I can talk to
other team members about the emotions I experience” and
“I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team
are feeling.” The WEIP-S used a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The instrument measured four constructs of EI, which include “Awareness of own emotions; Management of own
emotions; Awareness of others’ emotions; and Management
of others’ emotions” (Jordan & Lawrence, p. 454). We selected the WEIP-S for several reasons. According to Jordan
and Lawrence, the WEIP is one of the only EI inventories
that ask participants to respond within the context of a team.
They also indicate that especially with students, the WEIP
has been a valid and reliable measure of EI. WEIP-S is the
most recent short form of the WEIP instrument which was
developed by Jordan and Lawrence to “maximize response
rates . . . minimize disruption to employees” (p. 455) while
remaining valid. The WEIP-S (Jordan & Lawrence) uses
Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) model of EI, which is the most
supported definition of EI by scholarly researchers (Jordan
et al., 2002).
Jordan and Lawrence (2009) conducted three different
studies to measure the consistency, reliability, and validity
of the WEIP-S. In total, they had 1,397 participants. Jordan
and Lawrence reported that the Cronbach’s alphas for the
constructs ranged from .73 to .88 with an average reliability
of .82. The WEIP-S also demonstrated moderate to high
levels of test-retest reliabilities over three testing periods.
The constructs were also stable. In this study, the Cronbach’s
alpha for the EI constructs ranged from .76 to .92 with an
average reliability of .87.
Group cohesion. The Group Cohesiveness Scale,
which was adapted by Buchanan (1998) and originally developed by Dobbins and Zaccaro (1986), was used to measure group cohesiveness. The instrument consists of seven
questions allowing participants to rate themselves on a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Questions include statements such as “I
would look forward to being with members of my group
for another assignment.” In previous studies (Buchanan;
Dobbins & Zaccaro; Quoidbach & Hansenne, 2009), the coefficient alpha varied from .83 to .91. The Cronbach’s alpha
for this study for the Group Cohesiveness Scale was .92.
Data Collection
The data collection occurred during the eleventh week of
the semester. This allowed the groups the opportunity to
spend real time together and progress through the stages
of group development. The project for each team was due
within two weeks from the date of the survey administration.
The instructors agreed to include the research instruments
as a quiz grade to encourage participation. Within five days,
a 100% response rate was achieved. All 157 participants,
comprising a total of 44 teams, participated in the study. As
participants in this research, they received a copy of the final
research study. Eleven students chosen at random received
gift cards ranging from $10 to $50 for their participation in
this study. The participants’ names and university student
ID numbers were used to organize each of the 44 teams.
After we sorted student ID numbers by team, an independent
research assistant checked our work to ensure accuracy. Each
participant and team was assigned a random identification
number.
Data Analysis
We examined descriptive statistics to observe EI and
cohesion at the group level. This included the arithmetic
mean, standard deviation, minimum score and maximum
scores for all of the 44 teams in the study for each construct;
total EI, awareness of own emotions, management of own
emotions, awareness of others’ emotions, and management
of others’ emotions and total group cohesiveness. To
explore the association between EI and group cohesion,
we conducted the Pearson correlation test utilizing SPSS
(version 17.0). The coefficient of determination was also
calculated to assess the strength of the relationship.
Similar to as in Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009), the relationship between the EI of the group and team cohesiveness
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION
was further investigated by conducting t-tests. Three t-tests
were used to determine if there were significant differences
in the means of team cohesion scores between the higher EI
group and the lower EI group based on overall EI, minimum
EI, and maximum EI. The medians of the overall EI of the
team, maximum EI within the team, and minimum EI within
the team were used to collapse the sample into two groups
with higher and lower overall, minimum, or maximum EI
scores, respectively.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Limitations
The study had several limitations. Because we used a convenience sample, the results are not representative of the
target population and cannot be generalized. In addition, we
used self-reported measures of EI and group cohesion in
this study. Additionally, some of the student teams in this
study came from one of the researchers’ own course. Furthermore, Salovey et al. (2000) indicated that studies should
include personality inventories such as the Big Five (John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008) to show that EI is different from
personality. However, we were concerned that adding an additional instrument would decrease the response rate. As a
result, the Big Five instrument was not included.
RESULTS
The overall descriptive statistics of the EI scores for the
groups in the study are summarized in Table 1. As shown
in Table 1, overall, the groups had the highest mean average
and lowest standard deviation regarding the EI construct of
management of own emotions. However, overall the lowest
mean average score for an EI construct was awareness of
own emotions.
The bivariate correlation coefficients and the coefficient
of determination between team cohesiveness and EI are reported in the correlation matrix in Table 2. As indicated in
Table 2, there was a significant positive correlation between
overall EI mean and total group cohesiveness mean (r = .87,
p ≤ .001). The coefficient of determination shows that the
overall EI mean shares 75% of the variability in team cohesion. According to Cohen and Manion (1994), a coefficient of
determination at this level may provide good prediction variable. Although a causal relationship cannot be established, a
regression analysis may be in order to explore the relationship further. There was also a significant positive correlation
between the minimum score of overall EI and total group
cohesion (r = .77, p ≤ .001). This means that as the minimum score of the group increases, so does team cohesion.
Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was also observed between the maximum score of overall EI and total
group cohesion (r = .62, p ≤ .001).
Of the EI quadrants, awareness of own emotions showed
the highest positive correlation with team cohesiveness (r =
299
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum Scores and
Maximum Scores of Emotional Intelligence
Constructs and Total Group Cohesiveness (N = 44)
Variable
All teams
Group cohesiveness
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
3.79
0.67
2.48
4.96
Overall emotional intelligence (EI)
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.13
0.60
3.94
6.28
Awareness of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
4.51
1.02
2.38
6.38
Management of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.84
0.49
4.56
6.92
Awareness of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.11
0.68
3.67
6.33
Management of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.07
0.76
3.31
6.50
.85, p ≤ .001). As presented in Table 2, the coefficient of
determination (r2 = 72%) was strong. There was a significant positive correlation between awareness of own emotions
minimum score and team cohesiveness (r = .77, p ≤ .001)
and between awareness of own emotions maximum score
and team cohesiveness (r = .65, p ≤ .001). Management of
others’ emotions and total group cohesion showed a significant positive correlation (r = .74, p ≤ .001). The coefficient
of determination for management of others’ emotions shows
that it shares 54% of the variability in team cohesion. On the
other hand, awareness of own emotions’ standard deviation
and total group cohesiveness were negatively correlated (r
= –.35, p ≤ .05). The standard deviation for each of the
constructs showed a weak negative relationship. The scores
for management of own emotions and awareness of others’
emotions were not as strongly correlated with group cohesiveness mean as the scores from the other constructs were.
As presented in Table 2, the mean, the minimum scores and
the maximum scores for management of own emotions and
300
A. MOORE AND K. MAMISEISHVILI
TABLE 3
Independent Samples t -Tests: Mean Differences in
Team Cohesion Between Higher and Lower EI Groups
TABLE 2
Correlation Matrix of Team Emotional Intelligence and
Team Cohesiveness (N = 44)
Team
cohesiveness (r)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Variable
Coefficient of
determination (r2)
Overall emotional intelligence
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.87∗∗∗
–.26
.77∗∗∗
.65∗∗∗
75%
7%
60%
43%
Awareness of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.85∗∗∗
–.35∗
.77∗∗∗
.65∗∗∗
72%
12%
59%
43%
Management of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.58∗∗∗
–.06
.44∗∗
.65∗∗∗
34%
0%
19%
42%
Awareness of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.56∗∗∗
–.18
.46∗∗
.48∗∗∗
31%
3%
21%
23%
Management of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.74∗∗∗
–.35∗
.64∗∗∗
.47∗∗∗
54%
12%
41%
22%
∗p
≤ .05. ∗∗ p ≤ .01. ∗∗∗ p ≤ .001.
awareness of others’ emotions were positively, but moderately, correlated with total group cohesion.
Three independent sample t-tests were conducted to see
whether the mean differences in team cohesion between high
and low EI groups were statistically significant. The t-test results are presented in Table 3. All three t-tests revealed that
the differences in team cohesion were significantly different
based on overall mean EI score, t(42) = 7.92, p ≤ .001; minimum total EI score, t(42) = 8.20, p ≤ .001; and maximum
total EI score, t(42) = 3.75, p ≤ .001, within the group.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In general, the results of this study support the emerging theory that EI is related to group cohesion. Our study showed
that overall EI had the strongest positive correlation with
group cohesion, which was different from previous studies.
For example, Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009) reported that
the relationship between overall EI and group cohesion was
not significant; however, the team sizes in their study were
quite large, ranging from 14 to 23 people. The EI quad-
Group
n
M
Higher M EI
Lower M EI
Higher minimum EI
Lower minimum EI
Higher maximum EI
Lower maximum EI
22
22
22
22
22
22
4.30
3.28
4.31
3.27
4.12
3.46
SD
t(42)
95% CI
0.41 7.92∗∗∗ [0.76, 1.28]
0.45
0.41 8.20∗∗∗ [0.78, 1.29]
0.43
0.58 3.75∗∗∗ [0.30, 1.01]
0.58
Cohen’s d
2.37
2.48
1.14
Note. EI = emotional intelligence; CI = confidence interval.
≤ .001.
∗∗∗ p
rant labeled “awareness of own emotions” had the highest
degree of association with team cohesion when compared
with the other quadrants. The results of our study signal
the importance of awareness of own emotions in relation
to cohesion. Awareness of own emotions is the ability of an
individual to know his or her feelings in the moment, and having the ability to reflect, discuss, and disclose those to others
(Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Wolff, Pescosolido, and Druskat
(2002) found that individuals with high awareness of emotions communicate more effectively in teams and have less
intense emotional reactions. Helping students become more
self-aware of their strengths, weaknesses, and their emotions should be an important priority in education. Collaborative learning should allow team members, with the guidance
of faculty advisors, to provide feedback and become more
self-aware. Fink (2003) asserted that educators must add another dimension to learning and course design—the human
component. Fink wrote, “When one learns about one’s Self,
one almost inevitably learns about Others, and vice versa”
(p. 47). Collaborative learning opportunities should be integrated more intentionally in the design of a course and into
the curriculum.
Furthermore, professors are well suited for self-awareness
interventions because of the unique student and professor dynamic. By modeling awareness of our own emotions and displaying authenticity in the classroom, professors can serve as
role models. Faculty members often see students experience
a range of emotions throughout the semester. If a professor
notices a student is displaying an emotion that is out of character for that student, providing the student an opportunity to
share his or her feelings can help affirm to students that naming and owning their emotions are important. Additionally,
when students are working in groups, providing several opportunities for students to reflect on their experience within
the team, their individual contribution, and the contribution
of their other team members is important. It is essential to
equip team members with the ability to self-assess and deliver positive and negative feedback to others. Pausch and
Zaslow (2008) wrote that professors “best serve students by
helping them be more self-reflective. The only way any of
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION
us can improve . . . is if we develop a real ability to assess
ourselves” (p. 112).
The results of this study support the hypothesis that a team
with higher overall EI is significantly more cohesive than
groups with lower overall EI. Researchers suspect that an
individual’s EI affects the group (Barsade & Gibson, 1998;
Elfenbein, 2006). Although the groups with higher maximum EI scores were more cohesive than the groups with
lower maximum EI scores, it seems that the exploration of
the relationship between minimum EI scores and group cohesion is more meaningful. Furthermore, we found that groups
that included an individual with lower minimum scores of
total EI were significantly less cohesive than groups that
contained members with higher minimum scores of EI. This
could be explained by the theory of emotional contagion
(Barsade, 2002). The idea is that emotions or moods can be
contagious. Our study supports and adds further to a study
Barsade conducted with students. He was surprised that negative emotions did not spread more in the groups; however,
the teams in Barsade’s study completed a group exercise
for only one day. Perhaps, with projects that include more
interdependence over longer periods like one semester, the
negative emotion has more of an effect. As a result of her
research, Elfenbein (2006) indicated that groups with higher
minimum scores even had an increased level in performance
when compared to groups who just had higher average scores.
This finding implies that the EI of each individual matters.
Wolff et al. (2006) supported this with their assertion that “social interactions create emotion” (p. 224) and that the more
the group needs to interact the more vital EI is. Although
many clichés exist about teams only being as strong as their
weakest member is, our study supports the claim that a weak
member cannot be ignored when exploring EI and cohesion.
Faculty members must create collaborative projects to
prepare students for the demands in the workplace. It is just
as difficult to work with people in the real world as it is in the
college classroom. In classes that utilize cooperative learning
experiences, faculty members should take time to discuss EI
and the stages of group development. Sharing with students
that most teams must progress through a storming stage
can provide them with an opportunity to recognize there
will be a point within the team that they experience a range
of emotions. These experiences provide professors with an
opportunity to coach and develop students in a way that not
only increases their learning in the discipline, but also in
their ability to work with people. This type of awareness,
with guidance from faculty, can help students develop social
and emotional skills that will help them perform in the
professional workplace. Student learning about the subject
matter and about how to work collaboratively must both
become priority for educators. Light (2001) conducted a
study at Harvard University where he found that undergraduates “who get the most out of college, who grow the most
academically, and who are happiest, organize their time to include interpersonal activities with faculty members, or with
301
fellow students built around substantive, academic work”
(p. 10).
Future researchers should use the WEIP-S (Jordan &
Lawrence, 2009) in a manner that also asks each team member and faculty advisor to evaluate the EI. This would provide
a more robust description of group EI rather than relying only
on self-report. Although there is more research to conduct regarding EI at the individual level, the study of EI must also
progress at the group level. As Pausch and Zaslow (2008)
said, “none of us can go at it alone” (p. 124). Researchers
who study EI will progress the field if we choose not to go at
it alone as well.
REFERENCES
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership
Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Washington, DC:
Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495004)
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion in group.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 47, 644–675.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top to
bottom. In D. H. Gruenfeld, B. Mannix, & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on
managing groups and teams: Composition (Vol. 1, pp. 81–102). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace
and democracy. College Teaching, 38, 128–133.
Bennis, W. G., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets
of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Buchanan, L. B. (1998). The impact of Big Five personality characteristics on group cohesion and creative task performance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Cooper, J. (1990). Cooperative learning and college teaching: Tips from the
trenches. Teaching Professor, 4(5), 1–2.
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dobbins, G., & Zaccaro, S. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leader
behaviour on subordinate satisfaction. Group and Organization Studies,
11, 203–219.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Group emotional competence and its
influence on group effectiveness. In C. Cherniss and D. Goleman (Eds.),
The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 132–155). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Team emotional intelligence: What it can mean
and how it can affect performance. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount
(Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current
research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 165–184). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Farren, C. (1999). A smart team makes the difference. The Human Resource
Professional, 12(1) 12–16.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review,
57, 271–282.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
302
A. MOORE AND K. MAMISEISHVILI
Fink, D. L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than
IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY:
Bantam Books.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (Eds.).
(1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent
research on performance effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47,
307–340.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the
integrative Big-Five taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual
issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.
Jordan, P., Ashkanasy, N., Hartel, C., & Hooper, G. (2002). Workgroup
emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review,
12, 195–214.
Jordan, P., & Lawrence, S. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and
Organization, 15, 452–469.
Jordan, P., & Troth, A. (2004, April). Managing emotions during team
problem solving. Human Performance, 17, 195–218.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating
the high performance organizations (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Collins
Business.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of
emotional intelligence. In J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y. G., & Smith, D. A. F. (1986).
Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research
literature. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for
Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 277–282.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R.
(2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–40.
Pausch, R., & Zaslow, J. (2008). The last lecture. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Quoidbach, J., & Hansenne, M. (2009, February). The impact of trait emotional intelligence on nursing team performance and cohesiveness. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(1), 23–29,
Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team
cohesiveness and performance. EDM dissertation, Case Western Reserve
University, Weatherhead School of Management, Cleveland, OH.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2000). Current directions in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 504–520).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Slavin, R. F. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research,
50, 315–342.
Summers, I., Coffelt, T., & Horton, R.E. (1988). Work-group cohesion.
Psychological Reports, 63, 627–636.
Vance, E. (2007). College graduates lack key skills, report says. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 53(22), A30.
Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 8, 89–92.
Wolff, S. B., Druskat, V. U., Koman, E. S., & Messer, T. E.,(2006). The link
between group emotional competence and group effectiveness. In V. U.
Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and
performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and
groups (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505–522.
Worchel, S., Cooper, J., & Goethals, G. R. (1991). Understanding social
psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Examining the Relationship Between Emotional
Intelligence and Group Cohesion
Amanda Moore & Ketevan Mamiseishvili
To cite this article: Amanda Moore & Ketevan Mamiseishvili (2012) Examining the Relationship
Between Emotional Intelligence and Group Cohesion, Journal of Education for Business, 87:5,
296-302, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.623197
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.623197
Published online: 05 Jun 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 717
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:04
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 296–302, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.623197
Examining the Relationship Between Emotional
Intelligence and Group Cohesion
Amanda Moore
John Brown University, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Ketevan Mamiseishvili
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
Collaborative learning experiences increase student learning, but what happens when students
fail to collaborate? The authors investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence
and group cohesion by studying 44 undergraduate teams who were completing semester-long
projects in their business classes at a small private university in the South. The results showed
that there was a significant positive correlation between overall emotional intelligence and total
group cohesiveness. Of the quadrants of emotional intelligence, awareness of own emotions,
and management of others’ emotions showed the strongest positive correlation with group
cohesion. Implications of the results for future research and practice are discussed.
Keywords: collaborative learning, emotional intelligence, team cohesion, undergraduate
business students
Today’s college graduates are expected to perform and function in collaborative work settings. Individuals are no longer
the key units in an organization; rather teams are (Senge,
1990). Katzenbach and Smith (2003) claimed that functional
teams perform at a greater level than the sum of their individual parts because they share skills, knowledge, and experiences that exceed the capability of any individual. Teams are
important to organizations because “the leader and the team
are able to achieve something together that neither could
achieve alone” (Bennis & Biederman, 1997, p. 3). Because
teams have become the vital component of organizations, colleges and universities have a responsibility to engage their
students in collaborative learning experiences and equip them
with the competencies to become effective team members
(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007).
Skills in communication, analytical reasoning, and teamwork
are the most important skills that companies look for in job
candidates, yet executives rarely find college graduates with
these skills (Vance, 2007).
Research demonstrates that collaborative learning experiences increase student satisfaction and learning (e.g.
Correspondence should be addressed to Amanda Moore, John Brown
University, College of Business, 2000 W. University, Siloam Springs, AR
72761, USA. E-mail: mmoore@jbu.edu
Beckman, 1990; Chickering & Gamson, 1991; Cooper,
1990; Davis, 1993; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, & Associates,
1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin,
& Smith, 1986; McKendall, 2000; Slavin, 1980). While cooperative learning may be effective, the problem is that some
teams fail to collaborate. The challenge of managing collaborative work extends beyond the confines of the classroom.
Business executives also struggle with forming and maintaining teams. In a recent survey, executives indicated that
launching and maintaining teams is one of their most staggering challenges (Farren, 1999). Whether in the college classroom or in corporate boardrooms, new knowledge is needed
to help teams become more cohesive so that dysfunction is
minimized and performance and cohesion are increased.
Researchers have asserted that studies addressing the role
of emotions in groups would provide value to the understanding of why some teams function effectively and some
fail (Wolff, Druskat, Koman, & Messer, 2006). However,
until recently, emotions have not been studied extensively
because historically, intellect has been considered superior
(Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000). It was Gardner’s (1983) research on multiple intelligences that identified
the importance of evaluating more than cognitive signs of intelligence suggesting that emotional and interpersonal areas
must also be recognized. Examining the relationship between
emotional intelligence (EI) and group cohesion may shed
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION
some light on why some teams fail to collaborate whereas
others are more cohesive. Thus, the purpose of the study
was to examine how emotional intelligence related to team
cohesiveness among undergraduate students completing cooperative learning projects in their business classes at a small
private university in the South.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Group cohesion is the most important source of success for
groups (Carron & Brawley, 2000). Festinger (1950) defined
group cohesiveness as “the resultant of all of the forces acting on members to remain in the group” (p. 274). Cohesive
teams maintain higher levels of productivity and perform at
higher levels (Summers, Coffelt, & Horton, 1988; Worchel,
Cooper, & Goethals, 1991). Druskat and Wolff (2001) argued that how group members manage their emotions within
the group determines their effectiveness. Wolff et al. (2006)
emphasized that “social interactions create emotion” (p. 224)
and the more the group needs to interact the more vital EI
of the group is. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) defined
EI as “the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others” (p. 396).
Furthermore, group EI is defined as “the ability to develop
a set of norms that manage emotional processes so as to
cultivate trust, group identity, and group efficacy” (Druskat
& Wolff, p. 133). Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and
Buckley (2003) found that individuals considered emotionally intelligent have “strong relationships and a solid team
support system” (p. 30). They proposed that “the level of
. . . cohesion is dependent on the degree of team members’
emotional intelligence” (p. 31).
Some scholars indicate the EI of an individual is a strong
factor in predicting effective performance (Goleman, 1995,
1998; Watkin, 2000). However, Salovey and Mayer (2004)
reminded scholars that EI is still in its infancy, and the study
of EI within groups is even more so. Only recently, there have
been several studies conducted to explore the application of
EI in relation to teams. For example, Jordan, Ashkanasy,
Hartel, and Hooper (2002) conducted a study of 448 undergraduate students enrolled in communications and management skills classes in Australia. The researchers developed
their own instrument, the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence
Profile 3, to assess the EI of the students in relation to group
focus and performance in problem-based teams and found
that the groups who had lower average EI scores performed
at a lower level initially.
Another study by Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009) examined the relationship between EI, work performance, and
group cohesiveness in 23 professional nursing teams in
Belgium. Quoidbach and Hansenne utilized the Modified
Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale to assess the EI of each
team. They found that even one member with a low EI score
297
or a very high EI score can have an effect on the performance
and cohesion of the entire group. Additionally, they found
that emotional regulation was the most important quadrant
of EI in predicting team cohesiveness and work performance.
The participants in this study worked for a hospital and were
primarily women. Each team in this study contained 14–23
members, and as Katzenbach and Smith (2003) indicated,
teams with more than 10 members might have led to subgroups.
Additionally, Rapisarda (2002) explored the impact of
EI on team cohesiveness and performance of 16 executive
MBA teams that graduated from a university over a threeyear period and found a positive relationship between EI and
cohesion. Rapisarda used 360-assessments in her study that
allowed for team members and faculty to evaluate the EI
of each participant; however, she sent the group cohesiveness instrument up to three years after the students graduated. Another study by Jordan and Troth (2004) studied 108
teams in an undergraduate introductory management course
to identify the relationship between conflict resolution, team
cohesion, and team performance. Utilizing mixed methods,
Jordan and Troth found that emotions and EI are important
factors influencing group performance. However, the teams
they studied only had three members. Jordan and Troth admitted that the increase in members would have likely changed
their results. Furthermore, the students who they studied only
worked together for one day on a single task.
In sum, several researchers have examined the relationship between EI and team cohesiveness, but with certain
limitations and gaps that were discussed previously. Existing research has not yet focused on traditional undergraduate
students in non–introductory-level business courses at a U.S.
university who have been working in collaborative teams
throughout the semester. In the present study we addressed
this gap in research and examined the relationship between
EI and team cohesiveness of undergraduate business students at a small private university in the South. Specifically,
we explored the relationship between EI scores and team
cohesiveness by assessing undergraduate students who were
completing collaborative projects in their non–introductorylevel business courses. Two primary questions guided the
investigation: (a) What is the profile of the groups on EI and
group cohesion? and (b) How do the EI scores of a group
relate to the cohesiveness of the group?
METHOD
Participants
An explanatory correlational design was used to evaluate
the relationship between EI and group cohesion. The purpose of explanatory correlational research is to “explain the
association between two variables” (Creswell, 2008, p. 358).
The participants in this study consisted of 157 undergraduate
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
298
A. MOORE AND K. MAMISEISHVILI
students at a small private university in the South. We used
a nonprobability convenience sample to select the participants who were enrolled in non–introductory-level business
courses during the fall 2009 semester in which professors utilized a collaborative learning project throughout the semester.
There were 83 female and 74 male participants. Approximately 96% of the participants were majoring in business
and 4% of the participants were pursuing majors outside of
business. The final sample for this study consisted of 44 student teams or groups. Thus, the unit of analysis of this study
was at the group level. Teams ranged in size from two to five
students, with four being the most frequent. Similar to other
researchers, we use the terms team and group interchangeably (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). For the purpose of this
study, the definition of a group or a team was that it was,
. . . made up of individuals who see themselves and who
are seen by others as a social entity who are interdependent
because of the tasks that they perform as members of a group,
who are embedded in one or more larger social systems, and
who perform tasks that affect others. (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996, pp. 308–309)
Measures
Emotional intelligence. The Workgroup Emotional
Intelligence Profile–Short Version (WEIP-S; Jordan &
Lawrence, 2009) was used to assess the EI of the individuals within the teams. The instrument included 16 questions
asking the respondent to reflect on his or her behavior within
the team context. Examples of questions are “I can talk to
other team members about the emotions I experience” and
“I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team
are feeling.” The WEIP-S used a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The instrument measured four constructs of EI, which include “Awareness of own emotions; Management of own
emotions; Awareness of others’ emotions; and Management
of others’ emotions” (Jordan & Lawrence, p. 454). We selected the WEIP-S for several reasons. According to Jordan
and Lawrence, the WEIP is one of the only EI inventories
that ask participants to respond within the context of a team.
They also indicate that especially with students, the WEIP
has been a valid and reliable measure of EI. WEIP-S is the
most recent short form of the WEIP instrument which was
developed by Jordan and Lawrence to “maximize response
rates . . . minimize disruption to employees” (p. 455) while
remaining valid. The WEIP-S (Jordan & Lawrence) uses
Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) model of EI, which is the most
supported definition of EI by scholarly researchers (Jordan
et al., 2002).
Jordan and Lawrence (2009) conducted three different
studies to measure the consistency, reliability, and validity
of the WEIP-S. In total, they had 1,397 participants. Jordan
and Lawrence reported that the Cronbach’s alphas for the
constructs ranged from .73 to .88 with an average reliability
of .82. The WEIP-S also demonstrated moderate to high
levels of test-retest reliabilities over three testing periods.
The constructs were also stable. In this study, the Cronbach’s
alpha for the EI constructs ranged from .76 to .92 with an
average reliability of .87.
Group cohesion. The Group Cohesiveness Scale,
which was adapted by Buchanan (1998) and originally developed by Dobbins and Zaccaro (1986), was used to measure group cohesiveness. The instrument consists of seven
questions allowing participants to rate themselves on a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Questions include statements such as “I
would look forward to being with members of my group
for another assignment.” In previous studies (Buchanan;
Dobbins & Zaccaro; Quoidbach & Hansenne, 2009), the coefficient alpha varied from .83 to .91. The Cronbach’s alpha
for this study for the Group Cohesiveness Scale was .92.
Data Collection
The data collection occurred during the eleventh week of
the semester. This allowed the groups the opportunity to
spend real time together and progress through the stages
of group development. The project for each team was due
within two weeks from the date of the survey administration.
The instructors agreed to include the research instruments
as a quiz grade to encourage participation. Within five days,
a 100% response rate was achieved. All 157 participants,
comprising a total of 44 teams, participated in the study. As
participants in this research, they received a copy of the final
research study. Eleven students chosen at random received
gift cards ranging from $10 to $50 for their participation in
this study. The participants’ names and university student
ID numbers were used to organize each of the 44 teams.
After we sorted student ID numbers by team, an independent
research assistant checked our work to ensure accuracy. Each
participant and team was assigned a random identification
number.
Data Analysis
We examined descriptive statistics to observe EI and
cohesion at the group level. This included the arithmetic
mean, standard deviation, minimum score and maximum
scores for all of the 44 teams in the study for each construct;
total EI, awareness of own emotions, management of own
emotions, awareness of others’ emotions, and management
of others’ emotions and total group cohesiveness. To
explore the association between EI and group cohesion,
we conducted the Pearson correlation test utilizing SPSS
(version 17.0). The coefficient of determination was also
calculated to assess the strength of the relationship.
Similar to as in Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009), the relationship between the EI of the group and team cohesiveness
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION
was further investigated by conducting t-tests. Three t-tests
were used to determine if there were significant differences
in the means of team cohesion scores between the higher EI
group and the lower EI group based on overall EI, minimum
EI, and maximum EI. The medians of the overall EI of the
team, maximum EI within the team, and minimum EI within
the team were used to collapse the sample into two groups
with higher and lower overall, minimum, or maximum EI
scores, respectively.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Limitations
The study had several limitations. Because we used a convenience sample, the results are not representative of the
target population and cannot be generalized. In addition, we
used self-reported measures of EI and group cohesion in
this study. Additionally, some of the student teams in this
study came from one of the researchers’ own course. Furthermore, Salovey et al. (2000) indicated that studies should
include personality inventories such as the Big Five (John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008) to show that EI is different from
personality. However, we were concerned that adding an additional instrument would decrease the response rate. As a
result, the Big Five instrument was not included.
RESULTS
The overall descriptive statistics of the EI scores for the
groups in the study are summarized in Table 1. As shown
in Table 1, overall, the groups had the highest mean average
and lowest standard deviation regarding the EI construct of
management of own emotions. However, overall the lowest
mean average score for an EI construct was awareness of
own emotions.
The bivariate correlation coefficients and the coefficient
of determination between team cohesiveness and EI are reported in the correlation matrix in Table 2. As indicated in
Table 2, there was a significant positive correlation between
overall EI mean and total group cohesiveness mean (r = .87,
p ≤ .001). The coefficient of determination shows that the
overall EI mean shares 75% of the variability in team cohesion. According to Cohen and Manion (1994), a coefficient of
determination at this level may provide good prediction variable. Although a causal relationship cannot be established, a
regression analysis may be in order to explore the relationship further. There was also a significant positive correlation
between the minimum score of overall EI and total group
cohesion (r = .77, p ≤ .001). This means that as the minimum score of the group increases, so does team cohesion.
Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was also observed between the maximum score of overall EI and total
group cohesion (r = .62, p ≤ .001).
Of the EI quadrants, awareness of own emotions showed
the highest positive correlation with team cohesiveness (r =
299
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum Scores and
Maximum Scores of Emotional Intelligence
Constructs and Total Group Cohesiveness (N = 44)
Variable
All teams
Group cohesiveness
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
3.79
0.67
2.48
4.96
Overall emotional intelligence (EI)
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.13
0.60
3.94
6.28
Awareness of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
4.51
1.02
2.38
6.38
Management of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.84
0.49
4.56
6.92
Awareness of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.11
0.68
3.67
6.33
Management of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
5.07
0.76
3.31
6.50
.85, p ≤ .001). As presented in Table 2, the coefficient of
determination (r2 = 72%) was strong. There was a significant positive correlation between awareness of own emotions
minimum score and team cohesiveness (r = .77, p ≤ .001)
and between awareness of own emotions maximum score
and team cohesiveness (r = .65, p ≤ .001). Management of
others’ emotions and total group cohesion showed a significant positive correlation (r = .74, p ≤ .001). The coefficient
of determination for management of others’ emotions shows
that it shares 54% of the variability in team cohesion. On the
other hand, awareness of own emotions’ standard deviation
and total group cohesiveness were negatively correlated (r
= –.35, p ≤ .05). The standard deviation for each of the
constructs showed a weak negative relationship. The scores
for management of own emotions and awareness of others’
emotions were not as strongly correlated with group cohesiveness mean as the scores from the other constructs were.
As presented in Table 2, the mean, the minimum scores and
the maximum scores for management of own emotions and
300
A. MOORE AND K. MAMISEISHVILI
TABLE 3
Independent Samples t -Tests: Mean Differences in
Team Cohesion Between Higher and Lower EI Groups
TABLE 2
Correlation Matrix of Team Emotional Intelligence and
Team Cohesiveness (N = 44)
Team
cohesiveness (r)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Variable
Coefficient of
determination (r2)
Overall emotional intelligence
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.87∗∗∗
–.26
.77∗∗∗
.65∗∗∗
75%
7%
60%
43%
Awareness of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.85∗∗∗
–.35∗
.77∗∗∗
.65∗∗∗
72%
12%
59%
43%
Management of own emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.58∗∗∗
–.06
.44∗∗
.65∗∗∗
34%
0%
19%
42%
Awareness of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.56∗∗∗
–.18
.46∗∗
.48∗∗∗
31%
3%
21%
23%
Management of others’ emotions
M
SD
Minimum score
Maximum score
.74∗∗∗
–.35∗
.64∗∗∗
.47∗∗∗
54%
12%
41%
22%
∗p
≤ .05. ∗∗ p ≤ .01. ∗∗∗ p ≤ .001.
awareness of others’ emotions were positively, but moderately, correlated with total group cohesion.
Three independent sample t-tests were conducted to see
whether the mean differences in team cohesion between high
and low EI groups were statistically significant. The t-test results are presented in Table 3. All three t-tests revealed that
the differences in team cohesion were significantly different
based on overall mean EI score, t(42) = 7.92, p ≤ .001; minimum total EI score, t(42) = 8.20, p ≤ .001; and maximum
total EI score, t(42) = 3.75, p ≤ .001, within the group.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In general, the results of this study support the emerging theory that EI is related to group cohesion. Our study showed
that overall EI had the strongest positive correlation with
group cohesion, which was different from previous studies.
For example, Quoidbach and Hansenne (2009) reported that
the relationship between overall EI and group cohesion was
not significant; however, the team sizes in their study were
quite large, ranging from 14 to 23 people. The EI quad-
Group
n
M
Higher M EI
Lower M EI
Higher minimum EI
Lower minimum EI
Higher maximum EI
Lower maximum EI
22
22
22
22
22
22
4.30
3.28
4.31
3.27
4.12
3.46
SD
t(42)
95% CI
0.41 7.92∗∗∗ [0.76, 1.28]
0.45
0.41 8.20∗∗∗ [0.78, 1.29]
0.43
0.58 3.75∗∗∗ [0.30, 1.01]
0.58
Cohen’s d
2.37
2.48
1.14
Note. EI = emotional intelligence; CI = confidence interval.
≤ .001.
∗∗∗ p
rant labeled “awareness of own emotions” had the highest
degree of association with team cohesion when compared
with the other quadrants. The results of our study signal
the importance of awareness of own emotions in relation
to cohesion. Awareness of own emotions is the ability of an
individual to know his or her feelings in the moment, and having the ability to reflect, discuss, and disclose those to others
(Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Wolff, Pescosolido, and Druskat
(2002) found that individuals with high awareness of emotions communicate more effectively in teams and have less
intense emotional reactions. Helping students become more
self-aware of their strengths, weaknesses, and their emotions should be an important priority in education. Collaborative learning should allow team members, with the guidance
of faculty advisors, to provide feedback and become more
self-aware. Fink (2003) asserted that educators must add another dimension to learning and course design—the human
component. Fink wrote, “When one learns about one’s Self,
one almost inevitably learns about Others, and vice versa”
(p. 47). Collaborative learning opportunities should be integrated more intentionally in the design of a course and into
the curriculum.
Furthermore, professors are well suited for self-awareness
interventions because of the unique student and professor dynamic. By modeling awareness of our own emotions and displaying authenticity in the classroom, professors can serve as
role models. Faculty members often see students experience
a range of emotions throughout the semester. If a professor
notices a student is displaying an emotion that is out of character for that student, providing the student an opportunity to
share his or her feelings can help affirm to students that naming and owning their emotions are important. Additionally,
when students are working in groups, providing several opportunities for students to reflect on their experience within
the team, their individual contribution, and the contribution
of their other team members is important. It is essential to
equip team members with the ability to self-assess and deliver positive and negative feedback to others. Pausch and
Zaslow (2008) wrote that professors “best serve students by
helping them be more self-reflective. The only way any of
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION
us can improve . . . is if we develop a real ability to assess
ourselves” (p. 112).
The results of this study support the hypothesis that a team
with higher overall EI is significantly more cohesive than
groups with lower overall EI. Researchers suspect that an
individual’s EI affects the group (Barsade & Gibson, 1998;
Elfenbein, 2006). Although the groups with higher maximum EI scores were more cohesive than the groups with
lower maximum EI scores, it seems that the exploration of
the relationship between minimum EI scores and group cohesion is more meaningful. Furthermore, we found that groups
that included an individual with lower minimum scores of
total EI were significantly less cohesive than groups that
contained members with higher minimum scores of EI. This
could be explained by the theory of emotional contagion
(Barsade, 2002). The idea is that emotions or moods can be
contagious. Our study supports and adds further to a study
Barsade conducted with students. He was surprised that negative emotions did not spread more in the groups; however,
the teams in Barsade’s study completed a group exercise
for only one day. Perhaps, with projects that include more
interdependence over longer periods like one semester, the
negative emotion has more of an effect. As a result of her
research, Elfenbein (2006) indicated that groups with higher
minimum scores even had an increased level in performance
when compared to groups who just had higher average scores.
This finding implies that the EI of each individual matters.
Wolff et al. (2006) supported this with their assertion that “social interactions create emotion” (p. 224) and that the more
the group needs to interact the more vital EI is. Although
many clichés exist about teams only being as strong as their
weakest member is, our study supports the claim that a weak
member cannot be ignored when exploring EI and cohesion.
Faculty members must create collaborative projects to
prepare students for the demands in the workplace. It is just
as difficult to work with people in the real world as it is in the
college classroom. In classes that utilize cooperative learning
experiences, faculty members should take time to discuss EI
and the stages of group development. Sharing with students
that most teams must progress through a storming stage
can provide them with an opportunity to recognize there
will be a point within the team that they experience a range
of emotions. These experiences provide professors with an
opportunity to coach and develop students in a way that not
only increases their learning in the discipline, but also in
their ability to work with people. This type of awareness,
with guidance from faculty, can help students develop social
and emotional skills that will help them perform in the
professional workplace. Student learning about the subject
matter and about how to work collaboratively must both
become priority for educators. Light (2001) conducted a
study at Harvard University where he found that undergraduates “who get the most out of college, who grow the most
academically, and who are happiest, organize their time to include interpersonal activities with faculty members, or with
301
fellow students built around substantive, academic work”
(p. 10).
Future researchers should use the WEIP-S (Jordan &
Lawrence, 2009) in a manner that also asks each team member and faculty advisor to evaluate the EI. This would provide
a more robust description of group EI rather than relying only
on self-report. Although there is more research to conduct regarding EI at the individual level, the study of EI must also
progress at the group level. As Pausch and Zaslow (2008)
said, “none of us can go at it alone” (p. 124). Researchers
who study EI will progress the field if we choose not to go at
it alone as well.
REFERENCES
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership
Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Washington, DC:
Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495004)
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion in group.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 47, 644–675.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top to
bottom. In D. H. Gruenfeld, B. Mannix, & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on
managing groups and teams: Composition (Vol. 1, pp. 81–102). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace
and democracy. College Teaching, 38, 128–133.
Bennis, W. G., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets
of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Buchanan, L. B. (1998). The impact of Big Five personality characteristics on group cohesion and creative task performance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Cooper, J. (1990). Cooperative learning and college teaching: Tips from the
trenches. Teaching Professor, 4(5), 1–2.
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dobbins, G., & Zaccaro, S. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leader
behaviour on subordinate satisfaction. Group and Organization Studies,
11, 203–219.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Group emotional competence and its
influence on group effectiveness. In C. Cherniss and D. Goleman (Eds.),
The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 132–155). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Team emotional intelligence: What it can mean
and how it can affect performance. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount
(Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current
research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 165–184). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Farren, C. (1999). A smart team makes the difference. The Human Resource
Professional, 12(1) 12–16.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review,
57, 271–282.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
302
A. MOORE AND K. MAMISEISHVILI
Fink, D. L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than
IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY:
Bantam Books.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (Eds.).
(1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent
research on performance effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47,
307–340.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the
integrative Big-Five taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual
issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.
Jordan, P., Ashkanasy, N., Hartel, C., & Hooper, G. (2002). Workgroup
emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review,
12, 195–214.
Jordan, P., & Lawrence, S. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and
Organization, 15, 452–469.
Jordan, P., & Troth, A. (2004, April). Managing emotions during team
problem solving. Human Performance, 17, 195–218.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating
the high performance organizations (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Collins
Business.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of
emotional intelligence. In J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y. G., & Smith, D. A. F. (1986).
Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research
literature. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for
Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 277–282.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R.
(2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–40.
Pausch, R., & Zaslow, J. (2008). The last lecture. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Quoidbach, J., & Hansenne, M. (2009, February). The impact of trait emotional intelligence on nursing team performance and cohesiveness. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(1), 23–29,
Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team
cohesiveness and performance. EDM dissertation, Case Western Reserve
University, Weatherhead School of Management, Cleveland, OH.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2000). Current directions in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 504–520).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Slavin, R. F. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research,
50, 315–342.
Summers, I., Coffelt, T., & Horton, R.E. (1988). Work-group cohesion.
Psychological Reports, 63, 627–636.
Vance, E. (2007). College graduates lack key skills, report says. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 53(22), A30.
Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 8, 89–92.
Wolff, S. B., Druskat, V. U., Koman, E. S., & Messer, T. E.,(2006). The link
between group emotional competence and group effectiveness. In V. U.
Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and
performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and
groups (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505–522.
Worchel, S., Cooper, J., & Goethals, G. R. (1991). Understanding social
psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.