Emotional Intelligence and Projects

Nicholas Clarke, Ranse Howell

• Publisher: Project Management Institute
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9781933890982
• eBook ISBN: 9781628251302
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Skills
• Index: Business

Emotional Intelligence and Projects investigates how emotional intelligence correlates with being successful at working in projects. It also explores how training in emotional intelligence can improve project professionals' abilities and relevant project management competences. The book explores ways to make emotional intelligence training more effective, and provides a number of training exercises and scenarios. Emotional intelligence may indeed be the reason that some project managers are more skilled at managing relationships in projects. As Emotional Intelligence and Projects suggests, such abilities can be developed and improved through training, making emotional intelligence skills an important factor in project and career success.

SECTION 1.0

Summary of the Report

How to successfully participate and manage projects in order that projects meet their desired outcomes has become more significant over recent years, as project working has become a preferred and dominant form of work organization within an environment of increasing complexity (Sicotte & Langley, 2000; Olson, Walker, Rueckert, & Bonner, 2001). Key dimensions of projects considered to be associated with successful outcomes have been both appropriate collaborative behaviors on behalf of project members as well as transformational leadership. More recently, emotional intelligence (EI) (Brackett, Mayer & Warner, 2004; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008) has been suggested as a unique area of individual differences that is likely to underpin the required behaviors associated with these project activities (Druskat & Druskat, 2006), although to date actual research evidence examining EI in projects is minimal (c.f. Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Muller & Turner, 2007).

To date only five studies have appeared in the literature specifically investigating emotional intelligence in project contexts, all of which have examined relationships between emotional intelligence and either leadership or project management competences. Together these studies suggest a significant role for emotional intelligence in terms of underpinning both leadership and important behaviors that have been suggested as associated with successful outcomes in projects. However, these EI and project studies do suffer a number of major limitations. The first of these relates to criticisms associated with the validity of the particular EI measures used. Another limitation is that no attempt was made to control for both general ability or personality.

Given the limitations with some of the previous studies examining emotional intelligence in projects, this research study seeks to build on the current literature in two major ways. Firstly, through investigating whether emotional intelligence is associated with a number of behaviors posited as key for successfully working in project contexts. Secondly, through using an ability-based model of emotional intelligence and controlling for both cognitive ability and personality, the extent to which emotional intelligence is able to account for variance in these behaviors over and above these other variables, can be more clearly determined. From a project management perspective there is also a need for studies that examine EI development interventions and whether these can be tracked to improvements in the attitudes and behaviors necessary for project management. Despite significant interest in the concept of emotional intelligence within project management (Druskat & Druskat, 2006), this is still a relatively unexplored concept within the field. Although some progress has been made in examining relationships between emotional intelligence and project management behaviors associated with leadership (Muller & Turner, 2007), research examining interventions for developing emotional intelligence in project managers is very much embryonic. The findings from the one evaluation study so far conducted by Turner and Lloyd-Walker (2008), although using a competence-based measure of emotional intelligence, also suggest that designing training interventions that are targeted specifically for project management may be an important factor to consider in maximizing the effectiveness of any training. This pilot research therefore sought to address the following objectives:

1. To identify the relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and specific project manager competences identified as critical within project contexts.
2. To identify relationships between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behaviors.
3. To determine whether training can result in improvements in project managers’ emotional intelligence abilities and relevant project management competences.
4. To identify factors that may be associated with the effectiveness of emotional intelligence training.

Based on a sample of 67 UK project managers, it was found that emotional intelligence ability measures and empathy explained additional variance in the project manager competences of teamwork, attentiveness, and managing conflict, and the transformational leadership behaviors of idealized influence and individualized consideration after controlling for cognitive ability and personality. In addition, a 6-month follow-up of 53 project managers who attended a 2-day emotional intelligence training program found statistically significant changes in the emotional intelligence ability, understanding emotions. The results support a growing body of literature that suggest emotional intelligence, when perceived as a distinct set of independent cognitive-emotional abilities, may indeed be an important aspect of individual difference that can help to explain the performance of project managers in key areas associated with relationship management in projects. Further, the results suggest that such abilities may in fact be developed and improved through training and development interventions.

SECTION 2.0

Emotions, Emotional Intelligence, and Projects

2.1 Critical Perspectives on Project Management: Projects are Emotional

Traditionally, research in the area of project management has tended to direct its attention to the application of tools and techniques with far less attention given to the role of people management and the management of relationships more specifically (Cooke-Davis, 2002; Matta & Ashkenas, 2003; Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Verma, 1996). Over the past two decades however, the “human side” of project management has increasingly been identified as a critical component of the project manager's role and associated with project management success (Cleland, 1995; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Cowie, 2003; El-Sabaa, 2001; Hill, 1977; Kliem & Ludin, 1992; Lechler, 1998; Sizemore, 1988). Given that project management involves attempting to get the best input from a wide range of technical specialists, many authors have identified a large part of the project manager's role in particular as one that constitutes leadership and relationship management between all the parties involved in a project (Milosevic, Inman & Ozbay, 2001; Sizemore 1988; Strohmeier, 1992). Baker, Murphy, & Fisher (1983) showed that of the seven factors they identified, which together accounted for 91% of the variance between projects that succeeded and those that failed, one factor, coordination and relations, accounted on its own for 77% of the variance perceived in project success. This included areas such as the project manager's human skills and characteristics associated with the project team itself, including project team spirit, participation in decision-making, a sense of mission, and supportive informal relations between team members. Similarly, more recently Rudolf, Wagner, & Fawcett (2008) also have found the behavioral dimension of project management, which included communication, involvement, motivation, and identifying conflicts, contributes to greater project success in addition to other structural and procedural factors (Milosevic, et al 2001). Until very recently, however, this focus on factors associated with managing relationships was seen from a primarily administrative and functionalist perspective, the underlying assumption being that if its importance to project work was emphasized sufficiently enough, and a set of project work practices associated with it were codified, then this key aspect of a project's effectiveness could be sufficiently organized, planned, and of course controlled (Kerzner, 2001; Dvir, Raz, & Shenhar, 2003). As a result, relatively few studies have examined how relationships and their management are enacted within project contexts or how the patterns and dynamics of these relationships come to exert key influences within projects (Grundy, 2000; Webb, 2000). Partly in response to reports that the results of projects often fail to meet the expectations of their stakeholders (O’Connor & Reinsborough, 1992), alongside a growing recognition of the limitations of traditional approaches for analyzing the problems and challenges encountered in the project management field, a range of alternative and more pluralist approaches to examine these behavioral and relationship dimensions have been called for (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Kreiner, 1995; Packendorff, 1995; Winter, Smith, Morris, & Cicmil, 2006; Williams, 1999). For many writers, this represents a need to reorientate far more research to understand the “actuality” of projects, in order to better understand the real, lived experience of project management that might then help build more effective bridges from research to practice (Cicmil, Williams, Thomas, & Hodgson, 2006). An important focus is the recognition that projects can themselves be seen as constituting a social process, and that we can learn more about how different areas of project management contribute to project success if we begin to analyze how the relationships through which project management takes place are defined and redefined, negotiated, and enacted. To date, such an approach has provided new insights into the nature of relationships in project management and their influence on outcomes, particularly through, for example, understanding the roles that power and politics play as collaboration to achieve project objectives becomes subject to divergent interests or understandings (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; O’Leary & Williams, 2008; Pinto, 2000). Similarly, our understanding of why and how problems occur in projects and how, and if they are dealt with, has increased through seeking to identify the nature of learning processes in projects, how these develop, and the factors which may impede or support learning (Keegan & Turner, 2001; Phang, Kankanhalli, & Ang, 2008; Sense, 2003).

A major area which has received minimal attention within the project management field has been the recognition of the role that emotions play within projects. In recognizing projects as social processes, this suggests that projects are, in their very nature, major sources of emotion. The social interactions through which relationships in projects are constructed and developed are inherently emotional, and it follows then that emotions are likely to play a significant role in influencing both their development and trajectory within a project setting (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The fact that patterns of social interactions in groups are associated with group outcomes has been recognized for some time now (Steiner, 1972; Weick & Roberts, 1993). To date, however, very little research has been conducted that has sought to understand how emotions are generated in projects, how these are managed, and importantly how they affect both behaviors and decisions that then impact on project outcomes. This itself is somewhat of an anomaly given the wealth of literature that has identified the significance of conflict in projects (Chen, 2006; Porter & Lilly, 1996; Tarr, 2007) and recognizing that conflict is a source of major emotion (Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Bodtker & Jameson, 2001).

Although research-examining emotions within organizations more generally have long been neglected (Muchinsky 2000), over more recent years, there has been an increasing amount of research demonstrating how emotions are implicated in key work behaviors and processes that have considerable implications for project management. For example, emotions have been found to play a major role in framing task-directed processes, such as effort and cooperation within teams and groups (Pirola-Merlo, Hartel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002; Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). A number of studies have also shown how the emotional states of employees influence their performance. Positive affect, in particular, has been found to contribute to managerial performance (Staw & Barsade, 1993), group motivation, and coordination (Barsade, 2002; Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005), creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005), cognitive flexibility (Isen & Daubman, 1984), and pro-social behaviors (George & Brief, 1992). Organizational research into emotions within work contexts has also identified the major role they play in shaping attitudes, actions, and decision-making (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Trust and commitment considered so important to the effectiveness of projects, for example, are recognized as possessing major emotional dimensions (Erdem & Ozen, 2003; McAllister, 1995; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolntsky, 2002). Similarly, the role of project managers, in articulating a clear vision for project success and inspiring the project team, is seen as engendering an emotional attachment (Druskat & Druskat, 2006; George, 2000). To date, however, very little empirical research has examined emotions in projects and their impact on processes and outcomes. Recently, Peslak (2005) recorded the emotional states of 55 students from 18 teams involved on a team project over 15 weeks and showed how individuals on these projects experienced a variety of emotions over the project's lifetime. He found that these teams began their projects in a lower emotional state but their level of emotional involvement increased throughout the life of the project, with increases found in emotional intensity. Importantly, the final emotions were significant factors in team process satisfaction. This suggests that there may well be significant differences in both project member behaviors and project outcomes, depending upon how well project managers are able to recognize, understand, and manage the emotional content arising from project work. Individual abilities or competences such as these have been referred to in the literature as comprising emotional intelligence, and a number of authors have suggested that such abilities may differentiate more effective project managers (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Muller & Turner, 2007). This is based on research that has begun to identify significant relationships between emotional intelligence and team effectiveness (e.g., Feyerherm & Rice, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004), leadership (e.g., Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005) as well as research specifically within projects (e.g., Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Muller & Turner, 2007).

2.2 The Concept of Emotional Intelligence

The concept of emotional intelligence first came to the attention of many organizations and managers when Daniel Goleman published his first book of the same name, which was followed by a second book some 3 years later (Goleman, 1995, 1998). The first scientific paper on the topic was published somewhat earlier in 1990 by Peter Salovey and John Mayer (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The concept itself, however, has much earlier roots that can be traced back to some of the pioneering work into behavior by Edward Thorndike in the 1920s. Thorndike is credited with recognizing that intelligence may include a wide range of intelligence domains and identified social intelligence as a separate set of interpersonal-related abilities considered to comprise a form of intelligence. He originally defined social intelligence as “the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike, 1920). Later, problems with developing valid measures for accurately assessing social intelligence was a key reason for its becoming increasingly marginalized within research on human intelligence such that it became omitted from most traditional perspectives of intelligence (Thurstone, 1938; Spearman, 1927; Wecshler, 1958). It has not been until more recently that the notion of social and affective dimensions of intelligence has again begun to receive attention. Most notably, initially with the publication of work by Howard Gardner, who proposed the existence of seven intelligence domains of which social intelligence, comprising a person's intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence was one. Although extending beyond just emotional content, both of these domains placed significance emphasis on abilities associated with recognizing sets of feelings in oneself and distinguishing the feelings and moods of others as key aspects of social intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Salovey and Mayer's (1990) initial paper on emotional intelligence identified it as a subset of social intelligence and characterized the concept as consisting of a set of four interrelated cognitive abilities associated with the processing of emotional information. Similar to the notion of intelligence more widely, it describes the ability to reason about a particular type of information. They define it as follows:

“the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10).

However, throughout the 1990s a number of differing conceptualizations of emotional intelligence or models have been proposed, igniting considerable debate as to the theoretical validity of the concept (Conte, 2005; Locke, 2005). Although there is some degree of overlap between many of these models (for example, most include an emphasis on emotional awareness), essentially they differ quite markedly in how they perceive the EI construct, how it is measured, and the relationships which the construct potentially has to other relevant aspects of human functioning. Generally these differing models can be categorized as either ability-based conceptualizations of EI, mixed-model, conceptualizations, and competence-based approaches, although some models do not always fit neatly into either grouping. Some of the most widely used models in the literature and their features are as follows:

2.2.1 Ability Models of Emotional Intelligence

The ability model of emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008) is widely regarded as the most scientifically robust model of emotional intelligence in that it meets the criteria far more closely than others for what is termed an independent intelligence. The four abilities are cognitive in nature and are argued as developing from early childhood onwards. These four abilities are considered to develop and are therefore arranged in a hierarchical fashion in the following order: (1) ability to perceive emotion; (2) ability to integrate emotion to facilitate thought; (3) ability to understand emotions; and (4) ability to manage emotions. These are measured in a similar fashion to other intelligence tests through assessing a person's knowledge; in this instance the assessment is made on eight individual tasks, two relating to each ability or branch on a test called the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). Over the past 15 years, there has been considerable work undertaken in developing the metric and establishing its validity, with promising results. For example, it correlates only modestly with other forms of cognitive ability (e.g., verbal and perceptual reasoning [Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008], and aspects of personality such as openness and agreeableness [Day & Carroll, 2004; Lopes, Salovey, & Strauss, 2003]), thereby offering some support for the independent nature of the construct. Criterion-related tests involving studies that investigate how the ability model relates or predicts life outcomes or behaviors have also been theoretically consistent with the nature of the construct within a range of differing domains. Some of the more important outcomes have included findings that show their relationship with aspects of social functioning (Brackett et al., 2006; Lopes et al., 2004), psychological well-being (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2006), and a number of important work-related outcomes, including decision making and negotiation (Day & Carroll, 2004; Mueller & Curhan, 2007).

The ability model of EI has also been the driver for and underpins a number of other EI models and measures. These models converge with some consensus for accepting the theoretical validity of the four branch or ability structure as comprising emotional intelligence but have developed alternative approaches for considering how it is best to be measured. Schutte et al. (1998) developed a 33-item scale, which differs in that it attempts to assess an individual's emotional intelligence through the use of a self-report questionnaire. The obvious advantage here is the much reduced cost and resources involved in administering the test. Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, and Hooper (2002), by contrast, developed a measure of emotional intelligence designed to specifically assess the emotional intelligence within teams rather than individuals called the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP). This relies on team members rating each other on a number of EI dimensions corresponding to these four EI abilities as well as providing self assessments.

2.2.2 Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence

Mixed models of emotional intelligence are so called due to the inclusion of a range of noncognitive capabilities or personality traits as part of their...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgments
• The Authors
• Contents
• Section 1.0 - Summary of the Report
• Section 2.0 - Emotions, Emotional Intelligence, and Projects
• Section 3.0 - Study One: The Relationships between Emotional Intelligence Abilities, Project Manager Competences, and Transformational Leadership Behaviors
• Section 4.0 - An Evaluation of the Impact of Emotional Intelligence Training
• Section 5.0 - Implications of Findings, Directions for Future Research, and Overall Conclusions
• Section 6.0 - Developing Emotional Intelligence Training: Theoretical and Empirical Underpinnings
• Appendices
• References