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
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
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
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 func-tion 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 individ-ual parts because they share skills, knowledge, and experi-ences 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, col-leges 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 ex-periences 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 co-operative learning may be effective, the problem is that some teams fail to collaborate. The challenge of managing collab-orative work extends beyond the confines of the classroom. Business executives also struggle with forming and main-taining teams. In a recent survey, executives indicated that launching and maintaining teams is one of their most stagger-ing challenges (Farren, 1999). Whether in the college class-room or in corporate boardclass-rooms, 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 under-standing 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 Gard-ner’s (1983) research on multiple intelligences that identified the importance of evaluating more than cognitive signs of in-telligence 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 297
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 co-operative learning projects in their business classes at a small private university in the South.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Group cohesion is the most important source of success for groups (Carron & Brawley, 2000). Festinger (1950) defined
group cohesivenessas “the resultant of all of the forces
act-ing 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) ar-gued 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, assim-ilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emo-tion, 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 emotion-ally 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 under-graduate students enrolled in communications and manage-ment 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) exam-ined 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
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 sub-groups.
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 three-year 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 cohesive-ness instrument up to three years after the students gradu-ated. 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 admit-ted 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 relation-ship between EI and team cohesiveness, but with certain limitations and gaps that were discussed previously. Exist-ing 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 stu-dents 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–introductory-level 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 pur-pose 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
students at a small private university in the South. We used a nonprobability convenience sample to select the partici-pants who were enrolled in non–introductory-level business courses during the fall 2009 semester in which professors uti-lized a collaborative learning project throughout the semester. There were 83 female and 74 male participants. Approxi-mately 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 stu-dent 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 interchange-ably (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 individ-uals 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 in-clude “Awareness of own emotions; Management of own emotions; Awareness of others’ emotions; and Management of others’ emotions” (Jordan & Lawrence, p. 454). We se-lected 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 de-veloped by Dobbins and Zaccaro (1986), was used to mea-sure group cohesiveness. The instrument consists of seven questions allowing participants to rate themselves on a 5-point 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 co-efficient 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 rela-tionship between the EI of the group and team cohesiveness
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION 299
was further investigated by conductingt-tests. Threet-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.
Limitations
The study had several limitations. Because we used a con-venience 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. Fur-thermore, 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 ad-ditional 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 re-ported 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 cohe-sion. According to Cohen and Manion (1994), a coefficient of determination at this level may provide good prediction vari-able. Although a causal relationship cannot be established, a regression analysis may be in order to explore the relation-ship 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 min-imum score of the group increases, so does team cohesion. Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was also ob-served 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=
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 3.79
SD 0.67
Minimum score 2.48
Maximum score 4.96
Overall emotional intelligence (EI)
M 5.13
SD 0.60
Minimum score 3.94
Maximum score 6.28
Awareness of own emotions
M 4.51
SD 1.02
Minimum score 2.38
Maximum score 6.38
Management of own emotions
M 5.84
SD 0.49
Minimum score 4.56
Maximum score 6.92
Awareness of others’ emotions
M 5.11
SD 0.68
Minimum score 3.67
Maximum score 6.33
Management of others’ emotions
M 5.07
SD 0.76
Minimum score 3.31
Maximum score 6.50
.85, p ≤.001). As presented in Table 2, the coefficient of determination (r2=72%) was strong. There was a signifi-cant 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 signifi-cant 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 cohe-siveness 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
TABLE 2
Correlation Matrix of Team Emotional Intelligence and Team Cohesiveness (N=44)
Variable
Team cohesiveness (r)
Coefficient of determination (r2) Overall emotional intelligence
awareness of others’ emotions were positively, but moder-ately, correlated with total group cohesion.
Three independent samplet-tests were conducted to see whether the mean differences in team cohesion between high and low EI groups were statistically significant. Thet-test re-sults are presented in Table 3. All threet-tests revealed that the differences in team cohesion were significantly different based on overall mean EI score,t(42)=7.92,p≤.001; min-imum 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 the-ory 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-TABLE 3
Independent Samplest-Tests: Mean Differences in Team Cohesion Between Higher and Lower EI Groups
Group n M SD t(42) 95% CI Cohen’sd
Note.EI=emotional intelligence; CI=confidence interval.
∗∗∗p≤.001.
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 hav-ing 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 emo-tions communicate more effectively in teams and have less intense emotional reactions. Helping students become more self-aware of their strengths, weaknesses, and their emo-tions should be an important priority in education. Collabora-tive 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 an-other 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 inte-grated 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 dy-namic. By modeling awareness of our own emotions and dis-playing 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 char-acter for that student, providing the student an opportunity to share his or her feelings can help affirm to students that nam-ing and ownnam-ing their emotions are important. Additionally, when students are working in groups, providing several op-portunities 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 de-liver 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
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TEAM COHESION 301
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 maxi-mum 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 cohe-sion 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 neg-ative 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 “so-cial interactions create emotion” (p. 224) and that the more the group needs to interact the more vital EI is. Although many clich´es 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 undergrad-uates “who get the most out of college, who grow the most academically, and who are happiest, organize their time to in-clude interpersonal activities with faculty members, or with
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 mem-ber 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 re-garding 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 learn-ing 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). Green-wich, 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 character-istics 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 mea-surement 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 evalu-ating 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.
Fink, D. L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An inte-grated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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. Uni-versity 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 pro-cess effectiveness and goal focus.Human Resource Management Review,
12, 195–214.
Jordan, P., & Lawrence, S. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: De-velopment 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 intel-ligence (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 Edu-cation 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 out-comes.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 emo-tional intelligence on nursing team performance and cohesiveness. Jour-nal of ProfessioJour-nal 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).
Cur-rent 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 in-telligence 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.
