Journal of Management & Organization

http://journals.cambridge.org/JMO

Additional services for Journal of Management &

Organization:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial

validation of the short version of the Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Prole (WEIP-S)

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

Journal of Management & Organization / Volume 15 / Issue 04 / September 2009, pp 452 - 469
DOI: 10.1017/S1833367200002546, Published online: 02 February 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1833367200002546

How to cite this article:

Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and
initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Prole (WEIP-S).
Journal of Management & Organization, 15, pp 452-469 doi:10.1017/S1833367200002546

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JMO, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 19 May 2015

 Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Journal of Management & Organization (2009) 15: 452–469.

Emotional intelligence in teams:

Development and initial validation
of the short version of the
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence
Profile (WEIP-S)
P ETER J J ORDAN
Centre for Work Organization and Wellbeing, Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Australia

S ANDRA A L AWRENCE
Centre for Work Organization and Wellbeing, Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Australia

ABSTRACT
Research reveals that emotional intelligence is an important factor in predicting performance in
teams. In this article, we initially outline a theoretical model for examining emotional intelligence
in teams. Using this model, we test a short version (16 items) of the self-report Workgroup Emo-
tional Intelligence Profile (WEIP). Evidence from three studies supports this model. Two samples of
620 and 217 employees support the hypothesized structure of the WEIP-S. Four distinct constructs
were derived: Awareness of own emotions; Management of own emotions; Awareness of others’
emotions; and Management of others’ emotions. The WEIP-Short Version (WEIP-S) scale, there-
fore, is based on abilities that are vital during the interaction of team members. Data from 99
employees provide evidence of test–retest stability for the WEIP-S across three time periods. Limita-
tions and potential uses in management research for this short-version scale are discussed.

Keywords: emotions; emotional intelligence; emotional awareness, emotional management, teams;

measurement

T he importance of emotions in work settings

has been established (Ashforth & Humphrey
1995; Jordan & Troth 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano
1996). Emotional intelligence, a multi-dimension-
al construct that links emotion and cognition with
the aim of improving human interactions (Mayer
& Salovey 1997), has been linked to improved
workplace behaviour (Aritzeta, Swailes & Senior
2007) and in particular team behaviour (Druskat
& Wolff 2001) and team performance (Jordan &
Troth 2004). Mayer and Salovey (1997) devel-
oped a model of emotional intelligence as a set of
emotion processing abilities that together con-
tribute to improving social interactions. The four
related emotion processing abilities are a) aware-
ness of own and others’ emotion, b) emotional
facilitation, c) emotional understanding and d)
management of own and others’ emotions (Mayer

452 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
& Salovey 1997). While other models of emotion-
al intelligence vary from this construct (e.g. Coop-
er & Sawaf 1997; Goleman 1995), the common
point they share is a focus on emotional awareness
and emotional management as core abilities.
Given that emotion plays a prominent role
in the workplace (Ashforth & Humphrey
1995; Ashkanasy 2003) and that possessing
emotional intelligence is an advantage in a con-
text often requiring interpersonal communica-
tion (Ashkanasy, Hartel & Zerbe 2000; Kelly
& Barsade 2001), it is surprising to find that
few measures of emotional intelligence examine
contextually specific abilities used by employ-
ees in the workplace (Jordan, Ashton-James &
Ashkanasy 2006). Van Rooy and Viswesvaran
(2004), in their meta-analysis of the research
evidence on emotional intelligence, note that
the construct is in the early stage of construct
development and measurement, and identify
the need for more refined measures. Addition-
ally, we argue that to maximise response rates
and survey completions in organisational sur-
veys, workplace-relevant measures of emotional
intelligence should be valid, but as short as
possible to minimize disruption to employees.
In this article, we examine both the theoretical
need for, and assessment of, a parsimonious
model of emotional intelligence in work teams.
Our aim is to produce a theoretically driven and
psychometrically sound short measure that is
indicative of behaviours that constitute emotional
intelligence in a team setting and hope that this
measure will enhance future research between EI
and behaviour/performance in teams. Initially, we
outline a theoretical model for examining emo-
tional intelligence in teams and review existing
workplace-relevant measures of emotional intelli-
gence. Using this model, we then develop and
test a short-version (16 items) of the self-report
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile
(WEIP) on work-based samples in three studies.
We conclude the article by examining the limita-
tions and potential uses in management research
for this short-version scale.
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ABILITIES IN
WORK TEAMS
The comprehensive theoretical framework devel-
oped by Tannenbaum, Beard and Salas (1992)
contends that team performance (i.e. quality,
quantity, outputs) is influenced by team input
characteristics (individual characteristics, work
structure, team characteristics, task characteris-
tics), team processes and organizational and situ-
ational characteristics. Using Tannenbaum et
al.’s (1992) team effectiveness framework, our
article develops a theoretical model and argues
that emotional intelligence is a team input char-
acteristic.
Emotional intelligence comprises four abili-
ties, emotional awareness (own and others),
emotional management (own and others),
emotional understanding (understanding emo-
tional cycles and progressions) and emotional
facilitation (generating emotions) (Mayer &
Salovey 1997). Mooney, Holahan and Amason
(2007) argue that emotional interaction is
essential at a group level to enhance relation-
ships in those groups. In terms of understand-
ing how emotional intelligence works in teams,
we focus on abilities relating to dealing with
your own emotions and abilities relating to
dealing with other peoples’ emotions (see Fig-
ure 1). In both the theoretical development of
emotional intelligence (George 2000; Mayer &
Salovey 1997) and in empirical studies (e.g.
Jordan & Troth 2004), researchers have indi-
cated that it is important to distinguish
between abilities related to dealing with self
(own emotions) and abilities relating to how
we deal with others (others’ emotions). Previ-
ous research has shown clear differential effects
for the focus on own and others’ emotions (see
Jordan & Troth 2004). The abilities relating to
own emotions involve intra-personal abilities
including emotional self-awareness, while the
abilities relating to deal with others draws on
interpersonal abilities such as communication
abilities and conflict resolution abilities (Gard-
ner 1983).
453
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence
Emotional
Awareness
Self Awareness of
Own Emotions
Focus of
Attention
Awareness of
Others Others’ Emotions
F IGURE 1: A MODEL OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ABILITIES IN TEAMS
Emotional awareness and emotional manage-
ment abilities have important consequences for
performance within teams, helping to maintain
effective and appropriate relationships with fellow
workers (Jordan & Troth 2004), contributing to
better information exchange and decision-making
in teams (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin 1999) and
facilitating functional conflict resolution, rather
than dysfunctional conflict resolution in teams
(Jehn & Mannix 2001; Jordan & Troth 2004).
In the next section, we examine these abilities
in more detail to reveal how each contributes to
better performance within a team context. We
simultaneously reveal potential methods for
measuring these abilities through self report by
asking respondents to reflect on their behaviour
in teams, rather than on their general preferences
or attitudes.
Awareness of own emotions
Awareness of own emotions involves being in
touch with our moment-to-moment feelings.
Awareness of own emotions is often revealed in
an individual’s ability to discuss and disclose the
emotions they are experiencing (Pennebaker &
Francis 1996). We contend that emotional aware-
ness can be measured by asking respondents to
reflect on the extent to which they are able to dis-
cuss and disclose their emotions. Research evi-
454 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
Abilities Emotional
Management
Management of
Own Emotions
Management of
Others’ Emotions
dence has emerged which demonstrates a link
between emotional self awareness and the ability
to respond to emotional cues (Lane, Reiman,
Axelrod, Yun, Holmes & Schwartz 1998)
Emotional self-awareness has been identified
as contributing to leadership effectiveness (Sosik
& Megerian 1999) and predicting team perform-
ance (Jordan & Ashkanasy 2006). Silvia (2002)
has demonstrated that high emotional self-aware-
ness acts as a damper on individuals’ experience
of intense emotions, no matter whether these are
positive emotions or negative emotions. In other
words, those individuals with high emotional
self-awareness will experience more moderate
emotional reactions in response to intense emo-
tion triggering situations and, therefore, can com-
municate more effectively with their team
members (Wolff, Pescosolido & Druskat 2002).
Management of own emotions
The management of own emotions involves an
individual’s ability to connect or disconnect from
an emotion depending on its usefulness in any
given situation (Mayer & Salovey 1997). This has
often been manifested in the individual’s ability to
hold back on immediate reactions and delay
judgements and then to express them in a more
considered manner. The advice to ‘think and then
act’ and admonishments to ‘count to 10 before
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
replying’ and listening techniques such as ‘pause,
breathe and relax then respond’ are all attempts at
managing emotions by expressing feelings and
thoughts in an appropriate way when communi-
cating. Researchers have shown a clear link
between the experience of intense emotion and
lowered cognitive functioning (Drevets & Raichle
1998). On this basis, delaying immediate respons-
es is a clear indication of emotional management
ability and we contend that asking respondents to
reflect on their behaviour in delaying emotional
reactions and forming more considered responses
(including emotional content) is a method of
measuring emotional self-management.
Emotional self-management has been identi-
fied as an important ability for employees. The
expression of emotions in the workplace is a
stress-relieving action (Folkman & Lazarus 1988)
and is appropriate if the expression of emotion
does not affect relationships. Mumby and Put-
nam (1992) argue that the expression of emotion
is only productive if emotional expression is con-
strained to protect relationships.
In teams, emerging situations such as differ-
ences over values or goals, frustrations with prob-
lems, short timeframes for task performance, or
the entry of new members into the group, evoke
emotions that need controlling (Weiss & Cropan-
zano 1996). Mischel and DeSmet (2000) note
that self-regulation is an important ability in
resolving conflict. We argue that the self-regula-
tion of emotions contributes to better team per-
formance. For instance, a team member who
expresses anger or frustration at another employee
may jeopardize future working relationships
(Mumby & Putnam 1992). Indeed, Jordan and
Troth (2004) demonstrated that emotional self-
management was a key predictor of team perform-
ance for a short-term problem solving exercise.
Awareness of others’ emotions
Recognizing emotional displays by others and
detecting false expressions of emotion is a funda-
mental ability involved in successfully dealing
with other people (Mayer & Salovey 1997). This
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
skill is most commonly manifested in people’s
ability to read faces and body language. While
Ekman (1971) argues that emotion is most accu-
rately read by examining the face, de Meijer
(1989) contends that the use of body language
provides accurate information for assessing emo-
tions. We argue that asking a respondent to
reflect on their ability to read faces and body lan-
guage is a method for measuring the awareness of
others’ emotions.
Extensive research has been conducted on
reading facial expressions (Ekman 1971; Izard,
Wehmer, Livsey & Jennings 1965) and body lan-
guage (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero 2003) with a
view to improving interpersonal interactions.
Recognizing and analysing the sequence of emo-
tions that emerge from one’s perceptions is an
important tool in overcoming negative responses
to emotions (Mischel & DeSmet 2000). In order
to address negative emotions, one first needs to
be able to accurately read the emotion and distin-
guish between emotions to effectively respond to
the emotion expressed (Jordan, Lawrence &
Troth 2006). Elfenbein, Polzer and Ambady
(2007) found that the ability of a team to recog-
nize teammates’ emotions significantly influenced
team performance as measured by the goal
achievement of the teams and team cohesiveness
approximately one year later.
Management of others’ emotions
A more controversial ability in teams is the ability
to manage other team members’ emotions. In
some circumstances, emotions of other team
members need to be managed to ensure that
working relationships are maintained. For
instance, immediately responding to an anger
episode from a fellow employ can result in retalia-
tion which may exacerbate the situation. On the
other hand, managing this emotion by allowing
the employee to vent and release the anger and
then calming them down to discuss the situation
can result in a resolution of the anger episode.
Research has shown that employees who manage
anger episodes in the workplace have a positive
455
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence
impact on relationships in that workplace (Fitness
2000). Encouraging positive emotions such as
enthusiasm may result in positive emotional con-
tagion amongst workers, which, in turn, increases
the positive interactions between team members
(Barsade 2002) and has implications for motiva-
tion (Christie, Jordan, Troth & Lawrence 2007).
We argue that a way of measuring the ability to
manage others’ emotions is to ask respondents to
reflect on their behaviour in creating a positive
environment and their ability to use emotional
contagion to encourage the teams with whom
they work (Kelly & Barsade 2001).
Summary
In summary, we expect that individuals who have
better emotional awareness and emotional man-
agement abilities will be more effective contribut-
ing to their teams (Druskat & Wolff 2001),
through their improved ability to communicate
with their fellow team members and their ability
to ensure an effective emotional tone appropriate
to the work that needs to be completed. To
achieve this effective emotional tone, the individ-
uals need to focus both on themselves (own emo-
tions) and on reacting effectively with their fellow
team members (others’ emotions). In the next
section we outline how this model can be meas-
ured using self report.
MEASURING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
IN WORK TEAMS
We propose to develop a short measure of emo-
tional intelligence in teams that reflects four
broad self-reported emotional intelligence abili-
ties that manifest as behaviours in work teams:
Awareness of own emotions (as revealed in their
ability to discuss and disclose emotions); Man-
agement of own emotions (based on their ability
to delay or withhold strong emotional reac-
tions); Awareness of others’ emotions (as
revealed by the ability to read faces and body
language) and finally, Ability to manage others’
emotions (based on the ability to positively
influence others’ emotions).
456 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
The rationale for developing a short measure
of emotional intelligence in teams is based on
theoretical and practical grounds. From a theoret-
ical perspective, a short measure simplifies the
understanding of the emotional intelligence abili-
ties that can be useful in teams into a two by two
explanatory framework (focus of attention: own,
others; and ability: awareness, management) and
conforms to the theoretical framework of team
effectiveness developed by Tannenbaum et al.
(1992). Researchers argue the need for both par-
simonious theory and measures (Morrell 2004).
In considering the practical issues around survey
administration, both researchers and practitioners
are constantly looking for shorter, more parsimo-
nious measures. The length of these question-
naires, in particular, enhances the risk that
responses will be indifferent or incomplete, which
in turn, threatens the validity of results drawn
from such data (Periatt, LeMay & Chakrabarty
2004). Thus a valid, reliable and easy to use short
measure of emotional intelligence in teams would
contribute a valuable practical resource to
researchers and managers. We note that the cre-
ation of short forms of existing scales have been
seen as a valuable contribution to the discipline
(e.g. Guppy et al. 2004; Rammstedt & John
2007). We also note that this shortened format
complements other popular and widely used self
report measures in this field (e.g. Law, Wong &
Song 2004).
Workplace measures of emotional
intelligence
A number of the emotional intelligence measures
used in organizational behaviour research do have
factors that approximate the Mayer and Salovey
(1997) ability model of emotional intelligence
(e.g. emotional self-awareness and management
of emotions, as opposed to traits or preferences;
see Mayer, Caruso & Salovey 2001). A full review
of these measures can be found in Jordan (2007).
Of these measures, we have chosen to base our
short measure on the Workgroup Emotional
Intelligence Profile (WEIP: Jordan, Ashkanasy,
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
Hartel & Hooper 2002) for two reasons. First,
other measures have been developed as uni-
dimensional constructs with no differentiation of
subscales (e.g. Self Report Emotional Intelligence
Test (SREIT): Schutte et al.1998). For instance,
the SREIT contains 33 items with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .89 (Schutte et al. 1998) that provides a
single measure of emotional intelligence based on
Mayer and Salovey’s framework. As outlined
above, we argue that it is important to assess the
contribution of each emotional intelligence abili-
ty on interpersonal behaviours and performance
within teams.
Second, other measures assess general abilities
and skills and the results of the tests are then
extrapolated to specific research contexts (e.g.
MSCEIT: Mayer et al. 2001; Wong & Law Emo-
tional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS): Law, et al.
2004). Thus, for example, the ability to read
facial expressions is taken to indicate that an
employee behaviourally uses this ability (aware-
ness of others’ emotions) in the workplace. We
argue that it is important to assess abilities as
expressed as actual behaviour in a specific context
(in this case the team) and, therefore, we require
a measure that can identify the specific abilities
that are actually being used in those particular
contexts. This approach is supported by Mischel
and Shoda (1998), who argue that actual behav-
iour is a product of both personal attributes (e.g.
personality and abilities) and the context in
which those behaviours emerged. Moreover, the
episodic and situationally specific nature of emo-
tions (Ortony, Clore & Collins 1988) provides a
framework for measuring emotional abilities
within particular contexts, particularly in busi-
ness settings where emotions can be used both to
engender and to decrease performance (Ashforth
& Humphrey 1995).
Aligned with the Mayer and Salovey (1997)
framework for emotional intelligence, the WEIP
(Jordan et al. 2002) is a complex measure of self-
reported individual emotional intelligence within
a team context. From an original item pool of 52,
the final measure consists of 27 items. Items
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
assess the behavioural use of particular emotional
intelligence abilities in a team context. Scoring
can be performed to produce either a single score
of individual emotional intelligence, 2 broad
scales (Ability to deal with own emotions, Ability
to deal with others’ emotion), or 7 subscales
(Awareness of own emotions; Ability to discuss
own emotions, Ability to use own emotions to
facilitate thinking; Ability to recognize other’s
emotions, Ability to detect false displays of emo-
tion, Empathy; and Ability to manage other’s
emotions). The WEIP has been a valid and reli-
able measure, particularly within student sample
populations. Jordan and colleagues validated the
measure’s subscale factor structure using
exploratory factor analysis and provided evidence
of convergent validity with trait mood and con-
current validity with self-monitoring, empathy,
creative thinking and emotional control (Jordan
et al. 2002). Further, there is evidence of predic-
tive validity with other-rated team process per-
formance and other-rated team goal focus
(Jordan et al. 2002), positive team behaviours
and course grade (Sue-Chan & Latham 2004),
career advancement (Donohue & Stevensen
2006), and a positive relationship between leaders
and followers emotional intelligence scores (Kel-
lett, Humphrey & Sleeth 2006). Reliability statis-
tics reported for the WEIP demonstrate adequate
internal consistency for the scale overall (α = .86
to .93), the two broad scales (α =.76 to .85) and
the 7 subscales (α =.58 to .85; Jordan et al. 2002;
Moriarty & Buckley 2003; Sue-Chan & Latham
2004).
Subsequent refinement of the WEIP (WEIP-
6; Jordan & Troth 2004) increased the number of
items to 30 (using the original item pool) to
improve the reliability of the measure and the
number of subscales was reduced to 5 (Empathy
was removed and Ability to detect false emotions
was merged with the Ability to recognize others’
emotions) to reflect the redevelopment of the
emotional intelligence model in Mayer and
Salovey (1997). Following this refinement, the 5
subscales became: Ability to recognize own emo-
457
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence
tions, Ability to discuss own emotions, Ability to
manage own emotions; Ability to recognize oth-
ers’ emotions, Ability to manage others’ emotions
(WEIP-6; Jordan & Troth 2004). Jordan & Troth
(2004) reported adequate reliability statistics for
the scale overall (α =.80), the two broad scales
(Ability to deal with own emotions, α = .79,
Ability to deal with others’ emotion, α = .80) and
the 5 subscales (α = .71–.80).
The WEIP and WEIP-6, in particular, are use-
ful measures as they assess (in part) dimensions of
emotional intelligence by both ability (awareness,
management) and focus of attention (own, oth-
ers). As we argue above, our framework examines
abilities in relation to the individual’s themselves
and their abilities in dealing with other team
members as this differentiation allows us to
examine both intra-personal and interpersonal
abilities in a team context (Gardner 1983). More-
over, as the measures assess emotional intelligence
behaviours used in team contexts, they are
aligned with our argument that it is important to
examine the effects of emotional intelligence abil-
ities in particular contexts (e.g. within teams) to
more accurately understand processes that are
occurring within these contexts.
However, both the WEIP and WEIP-6
could not be viewed as short measures.
Researchers such as Gosling, Rentfrow &
Swann (2003) have expressed the advantage of
short measures that can be used in longer
research surveys and be easily converted to a
self-scoring format for self-development pur-
poses. Our aim, therefore, is to use a selection
of the behaviourally-based ability items listed
in the revised WEIP-6 (Jordan & Troth 2004)
to develop a new short-version of the scale: the
WEIP-Short (WEIP-S). Scale evaluation of the
inventory is presented in Study 1, followed by
two validation tests: scale replication in Study
2 and test–retest reliability in Study 3. All three
studies use data obtained from working popu-
lations and the measure’s structural validity was
assessed using the statistically rigorous method
of confirmatory factor analysis.
458 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
STUDY 1: SCALE EVALUATION
DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEIP-SHORT
VERSION
The initial survey used 25 items selected from the
30 item WEIP-6 (Jordan & Troth 2004), using a
7-point Likert response format ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) for each
item that conforms to the theoretical model
described earlier in this article (Figure 1). In this
instrument, there were 5 items relating to ability
to discuss own emotions (Own Aware; e.g. ‘I can
discuss the emotions I feel with other team mem-
bers’), 8 items relating to the ability to control
emotional responses (Own Manage; e.g. ‘I respect
the opinions of team members, even when I
think they are wrong’), 7 items relating to the
ability to recognize others’ feelings (Other Aware;
e.g. ‘I am able to describe accurately the way oth-
ers in the team are feeling’) and 5 items relating
the ability to positively influence others’ emo-
tional states (Other Manage; e.g. ‘My enthusiasm
can be contagious for members of a team’). Each
of the 25 items had prima facie validity conform-
ing to the theoretical model of emotional intelli-
gence in teams (see Figure 1).
The instructions to respondents read: ‘Please
indicate your level of agreement with each of the
following statements about your feelings when
working in your team. When thinking about
your team, please think of your immediate work
unit.’ A self-report format was adopted for two
reasons. First, this format is relatively simple to
complete (15 minutes). Secondly, as a measure
that has been designed to examine behaviours
within a specific context (i.e. the respondent’s
work team), we considered that self-report based
on the reflections of the respondent behaviours is
a reasonable method to assess the respondent’s
abilities within that context (see also Jordan et al.
2002). The method of questioning for this
instrument asks respondents to recall specific
actual behaviours they have exhibited while
working in their teams, rather than providing
responses to preferred behaviours. While there
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
may be an amount of ego protection and social
desirability in the responses, we don’t anticipate
this would be any more than for any other ques-
tionnaire that asked respondents to reflect on
their behaviour or emotions (e.g. PANAS; Wat-
son, Clark & Tellegan 1988).
Method
Participants and procedure
A survey containing the WEIP and several meas-
ures of employee attitudes and organizational cli-
mate was distributed through a large public sector
organization’s internal mail system to 640 partici-
pating staff and returned via a postage-paid return
envelope. Participation in the survey was volun-
tary and anonymous. From this sample (Sample
1), 620 respondents completed usable surveys
(response rate 97%). This high response rate was
achieved through gaining the full commitment of
senior management of the organization and a
process of advertising the project prior to the sur-
vey going out. We also attribute the high return
rate to the fact that the survey was administered as
a part of a training course in which all employees
participated. Of the respondents, 299 (48.2%)
were male, the mean age was 40 years, ranging
from 18 to 66 years, with 578 (93.2%) being full-
time employees. Four hundred and forty-nine
(72%) respondents worked in administrative roles,
44 (7%) in technical roles, 87 (14%) in profes-
sional roles and 15 (2%) in senior managerial
roles. The average size of the teams that respon-
dents worked in was 10 employees. Analysis of the
demographics reveals this is a representative sam-
ple for the organization.
Results
Construct validity tests via confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted to evaluate the emotion-
al intelligence scale and to evaluate subsequent
revisions to the measure. Model comparisons
were also conducted to verify that the four-factor
structure, based on the modified solution, was
the best representation of the data. Data screen-
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
ing for respondent errors and omissions was con-
ducted prior to analysis. Missing data for any
scale item were random (less than 2%; Cohen &
Cohen 1983). Missing data were replaced by val-
ues estimated by the Expectation-Maximization
(EM) imputation method in SPSS 10.0.5 (see
Kline 1998).
All model estimations in this paper were con-
ducted on covariance matrices, using the Maxi-
mum Likelihood (ML) procedure in EQS 6.1
(Bentler & Wu 2005). Fit indexes and cutoff val-
ues used when conducting confirmatory factor
analyses adhered to recommendations of Hu and
Bentler (1999). The fit indexes used in all analy-
ses were the CFI, IFI, NFI, NNFI, RMSEA and
the SRMR. Hu and Bentler (1999) argue that for
analyses using the ML method, good model fit is
demonstrated when the CFI, IFI and NNFI are
close to .95, the RMSEA is close to .06 and the
SRMR is close to .08.
Examination of the data revealed some evi-
dence of univariate skewness and kurtosis for sin-
gle items relating to own manage, other aware
and other manage. Corrected test statistics (the
Satorra-Bentler rescaled chi-square statistic and
the CFI Robust) are therefore reported when
assessing model fit involving those constructs, in
order to control for the degree of non-normality
of the data (Kline 1998). Anderson and Gerbing’s
(1988) recommended two-step procedure was
used to conduct the confirmatory factor analyses.
Step One consisted of separately assessing the fit
of the four emotional intelligence constructs.
Step Two of the analysis involved assessment of
these measurement models together, represented
as four correlated factors, where each factor repre-
sented a distinct emotional ability (see Table 1).
Analysis of the a priori measurement models
for Awareness of Own Emotions (Own Aware)
and Management of Own Emotions (Own Man-
age) revealed an acceptable (the RMSEA only
reached mediocre levels; Brown & Cudeck 1993)
and poor fit of the model, respectively (see Table
1). An examination of the factor loadings for the
two models also revealed non-significant load-
459
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

TABLE 1: I NVENTORY EVALUATION CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS a

Source Models χ2 p df Δχ 2 Δdf CFI IFI NFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

Own Aware A priori 39.80 < .001 5 —- —- .97 .97 .96 .94 .11 .03
Modified 33.28 < .001 2 6.52 3 .97 .97 .97 .91 .12 .03
Own Manage b A priori 128.85 < .001 20 —- —- .90 .90 .88 .85 .09 .05
Modified 32.77 < .001 9 96.08*** 11 .97 .97 .95 .94 .07 .04
Other Aware b A priori 53.00 < .001 14 —- —- .96 .96 .95 .95 .07 .04
Other Manage b A priori 39.15 < .001 5 —- —- .96 .96 .95 .92 .10 .04
Combined Model b 548.21 < .001 203 —- —- .92 .92 .88 .91 .05 .05
Modified Combined Model 271.33 < .001 98 276.88*** 105 .95 .95 .92 .94 .05 .05
a n = 620. *** p < .001
b Robust statistics reported for χ2 and CFI.

ings. Alternatively, analysis of the a priori meas-
urement models for Awareness of Other’s Emo-
tions (Other Aware) and Management of Other’s
Emotions (Other Manage) items revealed a good
and acceptable fit of the model, respectively.
From the results above, respecification was
necessary on both the Own Aware and Own
Manage models to attain better fit. Respecifica-
tion decisions were based both on content (face
validity) and statistical considerations (standard-
ized residuals, Cronbach’s alpha statistics and
Wald and LM tests). Deleting problem indicators
is the preferred solution for poor fitting models
(Anderson & Gerbing 1988). On this basis, one
indicator was dropped from the Own Aware
measurement model and two from the Own
Manage measurement model. The modified
measurement model for Own Aware did not sta-
tistically improve fit, as compared to the a priori
measurement model (Δχ2 (3) = 6.52, p > .05; see
Table 1). However, the model now only had sig-
nificant, moderately high factor loadings and as
this model demonstrated acceptable fit (Anderson
& Gerbing 1988; Browne & Cudeck 1993; Hu
& Bentler 1999), it was retained as a more viable
solution than the a priori model. The modified
measurement model for Own Manage revealed a
substantially improved fit, as compared to the a
priori measurement model (Δχ2 (11) = 96.08, p <
.001) and given the combined fit indices, factor
loadings and reliability, was deemed to demon-
strated good fit.
Step Two of the analysis involved assessment of
the Step 1 final measurement models together,
represented as four correlated factors, where each
factor represented a distinct emotional ability and
responses to the relevant inventory items repre-
sented the factor indicators (see Table 1; Ander-
son & Gerbing 1988). This model was consistent
with our conceptualization of emotional abilities
and how they are interrelated. Analysis of the
model revealed a mediocre fit. The SRMR and
RMSEA both reached .06, however, the CFI, IFI,
NFI and NNFI did not reach the .95 cutoff.
Respecification was conducted in order to
improve the fit of the model. On this basis, six
indicators were dropped, two from the Own
Manage factor, three from the Other Aware factor
and one from the Other Manage factor. The
resulting 16-item modified, combined measure-
ment model revealed a substantially improved fit
as compared to the a priori model (Δχ2 (66) =
206.74, p < .001). Analysis of the modified com-
bined model (see Table 1), combined with an
examination of factor loadings and Cronbach’s
alphas (see Table 2), revealed a good overall fit.
Table 2 presents construct labels, items, stan-
dardized coefficient factor loadings and Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficients for the modified
inventory. Table 3 describes the means, standard
deviations and correlations for the WEIP-S sub-
scales. The four emotional intelligence constructs
have moderate correlations with one another (see
Table 3). To verify that the four-factor structure,

460 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

TABLE 2: S TANDARDIZED CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS AND CRONBACH ’ S ALPHA COEFFICIENTS FOR
FINAL INVENTORY ITEMS (WEIP–S)

Standardized Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha
Subscale labels and items factor loadings coefficients

Awareness of Own Emotions (Own Aware) .85

1. I can explain the emotions I feel to team members. .77
2. I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members. .87
3. If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better. .66
4. I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience. .76
Managgement of Own Emotions (Own Manage) .77
5. I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong. .66
6. When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my frustration. .70
7. When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of a disagreement before
I come to a conclusion. .62
8. I give a fair hearing to fellow team members’ ideas. .71
Awareness of Others’ Emotions (Other Aware) .81
9. I can read fellow team members ‘true’ feelings, even if they try to hide them. .81
10. I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling .78
11. When I talk to a team member I can gauge their true feelings from their
body language. .68
12. I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say. .62
Managem ment of Others’ Emotions (Other Manage) .81
13. My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team. .71
14. I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down. .68
15. I can get fellow team members to share my keenness for a project. .70
16. I can provide the ‘spark’ to get fellow team members enthusiastic. .79
Note: All factor coefficients significant at p < .001.

consistent with our conceptualization, was the
best representation of the items in the WEIP-S,
all possible alternative models were estimated
based on an item-set derived from the modified
combined solution (see Mathieu & Farr 1991).
The models included a one-factor, 3 two-factor
and 6 three-factor dimensions. The two-factor
models represented all possible parings of the
four emotional ability dimensions. Similarly, the
three-factor models represented all possible three-
way combinations of the four dimensions. The
evaluation of these models and the chi-square dif-
ference tests conducted to compare all of the
alternative models to the four-factor solution, are
shown in Table 4. Results from the alternative
model estimations and chi-square difference tests

TABLE 3: STUDY 1 – MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS , CORRELATIONS AND INTER -ITEM RELIABILITIES FOR WEIP–Sa
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Own Aware 4.14 1.15 (.85)

2. Own Manage 5.32 .79 .38*** (.77)
3. Other Aware 4.45 .93 .53*** .43*** (.81)
4. Other Manage 4.71 .88 .58*** .46*** .54*** (.81)
a n = 620. *** p < .001. Inter-item reliabilities in brackets.

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 461
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

clearly defended a four-factor structure for the
team-based emotional skills. The four-factor solu-
tion in each case was significantly better (p <
.001) than any other of the alternative models
presented and the difference in CFI ranged from
.05 to .19. Respondents did distinguish between
the emotional abilities they perceived they uti-
lized in work teams. Further, the model compari-
son analysis substantiates the notion that there
are four conceptually distinct emotional abilities
that participants utilize in team-based work.
WEIP-S VALIDATION
To provide further evidence of the construct
validity of the WEIP-S, we conducted additional
analyses including a model replication analyses in
Study 2 (using a general working population
sample), and test-retest reliability in Study 3
(using a sample from a single organization).
STUDY 2: REPLICATIVE CONFIRMATORY
FACTOR ANALYES
To assess whether the analysis results are a perva-
sive phenomenon and not an artefact of the par-
ticular sample used during data collection (see
DeVellis 1991), the confirmatory factor analyses
were repeated on data using the 25 WEIP item
instrument obtained from a second sample (Sam-
ple 2), taken from a general population. The
modified 16-item, four-factor model derived in
Study 1 was replicated using Sample 2 data to
verify the construct validity and reliability of the
four dimensions of the WEIP-S.
Method
Participants and procedure
Data for this study were collected in a national web
survey. Participants were recruited via advertise-
ments in national and local print and radio media
and were asked to complete the survey anony-
mously and voluntarily. As such the data in this
analysis are drawn from a convenience sample.
Two hundred and seventeen working respon-
dents provided usable responses to all items in the
web survey. Of these, 63 (29%) were male, 154
(71%) were female and their mean age was 36 to
40 years, ranging from under 20 to over 65.
Ninety-nine (46%) had tertiary qualifications; 76
had completed graduate studies (35%); 26 had
completed a diploma, certificate or apprentice-
ship training; and 16 (7%) had completed high
school. Respondents worked in a broad spectrum
of industries (e.g. but not limited to, manufactur-
ing, wholesale trade, finance & insurance, educa-
tion, health & community services) and the mean

TABLE 4: R ESULTS OF EMOTIONAL ABILITIES MODEL COMPARISONS USING INVENTORY EVALUATION MODIFIED
MODEL ITEMS a

Models χ2 p df Δχ 2b Δdf CFI Δ CFI IFI NFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

c
4-factor: OwnA OwnM OthA OthM 271.33 < .001 98 —- —- .95 —- .95 .92 .94 .05 .05
3-factor: (OwnA/OwnM) OthA OthM 599.77 < .001 101 328.44*** 3 .85 .09 .85 .83 .82 .09 .08
3-factor: (OwnA/OthA) OwnM OthM 546.86 < .001 101 275.53*** 3 .87 .07 .87 .84 .84 .08 .07
3-factor: (OwnA/OthM) OwnM OthA 507.21 < .001 101 235.88*** 3 .88 .06 .88 .85 .85 .08 .06
3-factor: OwnA (OwnM/OthA) OthM 526.85 < .001 101 255.52*** 3 .87 .07 .87 .85 .85 .08 .07
3-factor: OwnA (OwnM/OthM) OthA 488.25 < .001 101 216.92*** 3 .88 .06 .89 .86 .86 .08 .07
3-factor: OwnA OwnM (OthA/OthM) 482.35 < .001 101 211.02*** 3 .89 .05 .89 .86 .86 .08 .06
2-factor: (OwnA/OwnM) (OthA/OthM) 810.68 < .001 103 539.35*** 5 .79 .15 .79 .77 .75 .11 .09
2-factor: (OwnA/OthA) (OwnM/OthM) 761.44 < .001 103 490.11*** 5 .80 .14 .80 .78 .77 .10 .08
2-factor: (OwnA/OthM) (OwnM/OthA) 759.17 < .001 103 487.84*** 5 .80 .14 .81 .78 .77 .10 .08
1-factor: (OwnA/OwnM/OthA/OthM) 952.76 < .001 104 681.43*** 6 .75 .19 .75 .73 .71 .12 .09

a n = 620.
b Critical χ2 (df = 3, p < .001) = 16.27, χ2 (df = 5, p < .001) = 20.52, χ2 (df = 6, p < .001) = 22.46
c OwnA = Own Aware, OwnM = Own Manage, OthA = Other Aware, OthM = Other Manage

462 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

number of years respondents had worked in their
organization was 6 years. One hundred and fifty-
two respondents were employed in full-time
employment (70%); 24 (11%) were employed in
full-time contract positions; and 41 (19%) were
employed in part-time or casual positions.
Results
Data screening for respondent errors and omis-
sions was conducted using the previously stated
procedure. As was the case for the Sample 1,
some of the individual items showed evidence of
univariate skewness and kurtosis. When assessing
the combined four-factor model, corrected test
statistics (the Satorra-Bentler rescaled chi-square
statistic and the CFI Robust) were reported to
control for this non-normality.
The analysis assessing the modified 16-item,
four-factor model revealed comparable results to
the evaluation analysis of Sample 1. The four-fac-
tor measurement model revealed a good fit (see
Table 5). The CFI, IFI and NNFI reached or was
close to .95, the SRMR and RMSEA were both
below cutoff values, the factor loadings were
moderately high and each scale had a moderate
or high level of reliability (see Table 6). Again,
although the NFI was below .90, the measure-
ment model shows good overall fit, given the
combined results.
As for the inventory evaluation analyses, the four
emotional skill constructs have moderate correla-
tions with one another (see Table 6). Rather than
conducting model comparison analyses, a simpler
test of discriminant validity amongst the factors in
the measurement model was conducted. In such an
analysis, the correlations between the four factors
were fixed at 1.0 and a chi-square difference test
was used to compare the constrained and uncon-
strained models (Bagozzi & Phillips 1982). The test
revealed that the modified measurement model fit-
ted the data significantly better than the con-
strained model (Δχ2 (6) = 24.04, p < .001). Thus,
respondents distinguished amongst the emotional
skills they utilized in work teams. Accordingly, a
four-factor structure measuring the proposed emo-
tional skill constructs was deemed appropriate.
STUDY 3: TEST–RETEST RELIABILITY
The purpose of Study 3 was to investigate whether
the four emotional intelligence constructs in the
WEIP-S demonstrated stability over time.
Method
Participants and procedure
A survey containing WEIP-S items was distributed
to 560 employees at three points in time, 4 months
apart as a part of their normal mail distribution.

TABLE 5: I NVENTORY REPLICATION CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ab

Models χ2 p df Δχ 2b Δdf Δ CFI CFI IFI NFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

Combined 4-Factor Model 151.54 < .001 98 —- —- —- .95 .95 .87 .94 .05 .06
Constrained Combined Model 175.58 < .001 104 24.04*** 6 .02 .93 .93 .84 .92 .06 .20

a n = 217. Critical χ2 (df = 6, p < .001) = 22.46

b Robust statistics reported for χ2 and CFI.

TABLE 6: S TUDY 2 – M EANS , STANDARD DEVIATIONS , CORRELATIONS AND INTER -ITEM RELIABILITIES WEIP–S a
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Own Aware 4.40 1.31 (.86)

2. Own Manage 5.66 0.86 .45*** (.76)
3. Other Aware 4.87 1.15 .37*** .35*** (.86)
4. Other Manage 4.97 1.13 .48*** .46*** .46*** (.86)
a n = 217. *** p < .001. Inter-item reliabilities in brackets.

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 463
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence

The employees worked at the organization used to
collect data in Study 1, but were not part of the
Study 1 sampling frame. The surveys were complet-
ed voluntarily and anonymously by the staff and
returned to the researcher by mail via a postage-paid
return envelope. Three hundred and twenty-five
respondents (58%) completed surveys at Time 1,
263 (47%) respondents completed surveys at Time
2 and 227 (41%) respondents completed surveys at
Time 3. Combined, 99 respondents completed
usable surveys across all three time periods, reflect-
ing an 18% response rate. Of these respondents, 58
(59%) were male with a mean age of 40 years, rang-
ing from 18 to 62 years. Eighty-one (82%) were
full-time employees with 63 (64%) in administra-
tive roles, 7 (7%) in technical roles, 10 (10%) in
professional roles and 4 (4%) in senior managerial
roles. Again, the average size of the teams that
respondents worked in was 10 employees.
Results
Table 7 demonstrates the consistency of the
WEIP-S across three points in time. The mean
difference for a particular construct ranged from
TABLE 7: S TUDY 3 – D ISTRIBUTIONAL PROPERTIES , RELIABILITIES
CALCULATIONS FOR THE WEIP-S CONSTRUCTS
M (SD ) Cronbach’s Alpha
.02 to .19, the standard deviation difference for a
particular construct ranged from .01 to .09.
None of the means for a construct were signifi-
cantly different from one another. All Cronbach’s
alphas for the four constructs ranged from .73 to
.88, with an average reliability of .82. Across time
periods, the matched construct variable correla-
tions ranged from .47 to .66 with a mean of .59.
The alphas and bivariate variable correlations
suggest a moderate to high level of internal con-
sistency. Test–retest reliabilities between the three
time periods were moderate to high and reflective
of good levels of stability across time for the
WEIP-S constructs. These findings provide evi-
dence of the reliability and, by extension, the
construct validity of the WEIP-S.
SUMMARY DISCUSSION
In this article, we developed a model demonstrat-
ing the types of emotional intelligence abilities
that may be useful in teams. We also have out-
lined three studies aimed at validating a short-
version of the WEIP, an inventory that measures
self reported emotional awareness and manage-
AND TEST – RETEST RELIABILITY
Test–Retest Reliability
Time 1&2 Time 1&3 Time 2&3

Own Aware
Time1 4.03 (1.21) .88 .76 .80
Time2 4.22 (1.27) .87 .81
Time3 4.16 (1.18) .87
Own Manage
Time1 5.40 (.76) .74 .67 .64
Time2 5.30 (.78) .77 .77
Time3 5.28 (.73) .73
Other Aware
Time1 4.50 (1.00) .85 .71 .77
Time2 4.61 (1.04) .85 .83
Time3 4.59 (1.01) .84
Other Manage
Time1 4.57 (.93) .80 .78 .79
Time2 4.70 (.97) .84 .82
Time3 4.59 (.96) .83
n = 99.

464 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
ment abilities within team settings. The final
WEIP-S inventory consists of 16 items, 4 items
for each of the four emotional abilities. Evidence
of construct validity was provided for the final
inventory though a series of tests, using different
samples: scale evaluation, discriminant validity,
construct replication across samples, reliability
and test–retest stability. In Study 1, the derived
16-item scale demonstrated acceptable to good
model fit for each of the emotional intelligence
constructs and a good fit for the combined model
consisting of all four self reported emotional abil-
ities. Comparison with all possible alternative
models in Study 1 confirmed that our conceptu-
alization of four, distinct self reported emotional
abilities best represented the data. The replication
study (Study 2) also confirmed a four-factor solu-
tion for the WEIP-S. It is important to acknowl-
edge, however, that the results also indicate that
there is some empirical overlap (and therefore
conceptual overlap) between the constructs, as
evidenced by moderate bi-variate correlations in
Tables 3 and 6. Internal consistency reliability
statistics for the resulting four self reported emo-
tional abilities constructs were moderate to high
across all three studies. Moreover, in Study 3, the
four constructs demonstrated test–retest stability
over three time periods.
CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY AND
PRACTICE
As noted earlier, the rationale for developing a
short measure of emotional intelligence in teams
was a based on theoretical and practical grounds.
From a theoretical perspective, this article has
contributed to understanding the way in which
emotional intelligence abilities may be used in
teams and conforms to the theoretical framework
of team effectiveness developed by Tannenbaum
et al. (1992). The WEIP-S devised in this paper
demonstrated further evidence for the conceptu-
alization of emotional intelligence abilities within
team settings as distinguished by both focus of
attention (own, others) and ability (awareness,
management). In particular, the development of
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
this self report measure has shown the importance
of distinguishing between abilities relating to self
(intrapersonal abilities) and abilities relating to
how we deal with others (interpersonal abilities).
Although the emotional intelligence construct is
still in early theoretical development, the idea of
measuring abilities in relation to own emotions
and abilities in relation to other’s emotions there
has not been broadly articulated before. Figure 1
contributes to this understanding.
In terms of practical applications, WEIP-S
provides a short, easy to use public domain self
report, workplace-based measure of emotion
intelligence that can be utilized to assess other
team based behaviours and attitudes. This meas-
ure, which relies on a reflection method to collect
self reported behaviourally-based responses to
items, enables the WEIP-S to be used for staff
development purposes. The format also enables
the instrument to be extended from its current
self-reporting format to a peer-reporting format.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The first and most obvious limitation of the pres-
ent study is that the WEIP-S data relies on self-
report. There is a debate over the best method of
assessing emotional intelligence with significant
criticism of measures that use a self-report format
(see Mayer et al. 2001; Roberts, Zeidner &
Matthews 2001). This criticism is based on the
assertion that if emotional intelligence is really
intelligence, then it needs to be tested as other
intelligences are tested, using ability testing and
not self-report. In response to this criticism, we
note that the WEIP-S uses a format in which
respondents are asked for responses based on a
reflection of their behaviours while working in
their team, rather than for behavioural prefer-
ences. While this method of questioning may be
effected by social desirability and ego protection
responses, we argue that as a self-development
tool it is entirely appropriate for individuals to
reflect on their situational behaviour. As noted
earlier, there is evidence that the WEIP can pre-
dict performance and that it can differentiate
465
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence
between different types of performance (e.g. team
and individual; Jordan & Troth 2004). This sug-
gests that it is a useful measure for tapping into
some human potential in terms of emotion and
how we conceptualise emotion when working
with others. Both Damasio (1994) and Calne
(1999) have pointed out that both intelligence
and emotion are required to generate behaviour.
The aim of the research program outlined in this
article is not to resolve the issue of self report and
ability testing in emotional intelligence, but rather
to offer a theoretically driven and psychometrical-
ly sound short measure that is indicative of emo-
tional intelligence being used in a team setting.
A potential limitation of Study 2 is that a con-
venience sampling method was used to collect the
data. While this type of sampling prevents us
from drawing conclusions about the generaliz-
ability of these data, we collected these data for a
replication study to provide evidence of the sta-
bility of the WEIP-S between groups and the
obtained data from this sampling method did
provide us with a reasonably heterogeneous sam-
ple. Respondents worked in a broad spectrum of
industries (e.g. manufacturing, wholesale trade,
finance & insurance, education, health & com-
munity services) and, therefore, it could be
argued that the sample was more heterogeneous
than the sample in Study 1, where the partici-
pants were drawn from a single and possibly cul-
turally homogeneous, organization.
The present research is only the beginning of a
larger program to confirm the predictive poten-
tial for this short measure of emotional intelli-
gence abilities in teams. In the current article, we
have not presented evidence of the convergent
validity, concurrent validity or predictive validity
of the short version of the WEIP. Further research
is required to establish that the dimensions of the
WEIP-S can be discriminated from both concep-
tually similar and divergent constructs. Such evi-
dence will provide further support for our claim
that the WEIP-S is a valid and reliable measure of
emotional intelligence. We also note that the
short version of the WEIP will enable results to
466 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
be compared to a peer assessment measure cur-
rently in development. Research has shown that
shorter questionnaires have more potential to
improve the accuracy of peer-self evaluations
(Jordan & Ashkanasy 2006; Rammstedt & John
2007) and the WEIP-S allows us to take advan-
tage of its shorter format to test it against peer
reports of an individual’s behaviour.
As mentioned above, the WEIP- S requires
extensive testing on its predictive validity in
applied settings. Researchers can examine the effi-
cacy of the WEIP-S for predicting both task and
contextual performance in teams, at multiple lev-
els of analysis. One area of research that needs
more examination at the individual level of analy-
sis, for example, is the idea that teams may
require different emotional intelligence abilities
depending on the type of work to be completed
by the team. For instance, are different emotional
intelligence abilities required for creative research
and development teams when compared with
sales teams? The WEIP-S will be useful in
extending this research.
CONCLUSION
In this article we have developed and tested a
short measure of emotional intelligence that can
be used to measure the emotional intelligence of
members of teams. Our findings provide initial
support for the WEIP-S as a valid and reliable self
report measure of emotional intelligence that
assesses emotional intelligence on 4 dimensions:
Awareness of Own Emotions, Management of
Own Emotions, Awareness of Others’ Emotions
and Management of Others’ Emotions. We antic-
ipate that this measure will be useful to
researchers examining the impact of emotional
intelligence on team attitudes, team behaviours
and team performance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was supported by grants from the
Australian Research Council. The authors would
like to thank Jane Murray for her work in collect-
ing the data used in Studies 1 and 2.
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)
References
Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural
equation modelling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological
Bulletin 103: 411-423.
Aritzeta A, Swailes S and Senior B (2007) The team
role self-perception inventory: Development,
validity and applications for team building,
Journal of Management Studies 44: 96-118.
Ashforth BE and Humphrey RH (1995) Emotion
in the workplace: A reappraisal, Human
Relations 48: 97-125.
Ashkanasy NM (2003) Emotions in organizations:
A multilevel perspective’, in Dansereau F &
Yammarino FJ (Eds) Research in multi-level
issues, vol 2: Multi-level issues in organizational
behavior and strategy, pp 9-54, Elsevier Science,
Oxford, UK.
Ashkanasy NM, Härtel CEJ and Zerbe WJ (Eds)
(2000) Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory
and practice Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Bagozzi RP and Phillips LW (1982) Representing
and testing organizational theories: A holistic
construal, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27:
459-489.
Barsade SG (2002) The ripple effect: Emotional
contagion and its influence on group behavior,
Administrative Science Quarterly 47: 644-675
Bentler PM and Wu EJC (2005) EQS 6 1 -
Structural equation modelling software for windows
Multivariate Software Inc, Encino, CA.
Browne MW and Cudeck R (1993) Alterative ways
of assessing model fit’, in Bollen K A & Long J
S (Eds) Testing structural equation models, pp
136-162, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Calne DB (1999) Within reason: Rationality and
human behavior, Pantheon Books, New York.
Christie A, Jordan PJ, Troth AC and Lawrence SA
(2007). Testing the links between emotional
intelligence and motivation. Journal of
Management & Organization 13: 212 – 226.
Cohen J and Cohen P (1983) Multiple
regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences (3rd
ed) Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ.
Cooper RK and Sawaf A (1997) Executive EQ,
Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations, Grossett/Putnam, New York.
Damasio AR (1994) Descartes, error: Emotion, reason
and the human brain, Grossett/Putnam, New York.
de Meijer M (1989) The contribution of general
features of body movement to the attribution of
emotions, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 13:
247-268.
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
DeVellis RF (1991) Scale development: Theory and
applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Donohue R and Stevensen L (2006) July The
relationship between emotional intelligence and
individual advancement and the mediating role of
transformational leadership ACREW Conference
Tuscany: Italy
Drevets WC and Raichle ME (1998) Reciprocal
suppression of regional cerebral blood flow during
emotional versus higher cognitive processes:
Implications for interactions between emotion and
cognition, Cognition and Emotion 12: 353-386.
Druskat VU and Wolff SB (2001) Building the
emotional intelligence of groups, Harvard
Business Review 79: 80-91.
Ekman P (1971) Universals and cultural differences
in facial expressions of emotion’, in J Cole (Ed ),
Nebraska symposium on motivation, pp 207-283,
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Elfenbein HA, Polzer JT and Ambady N (2007) Team
emotion recognition accuracy and team perform-
ance in Härtel CEJ, Ashkanasy NM and Zerbe WJ
(Eds) Research on Emotion in Organizations: Funct-
ionality, Intentionality and Morality, 3: 87-119.
Fitness J (2000) Anger in the workplace: An emotion
script approach to anger episodes between workers
and their superiors co-workers and subordinates,
Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 147-162
Folkman S and Lazarus RS (1988) The relationship
between coping and emotion: Implications for
theory and research, Social Science and Medicine
26: 309-317.
Gardner H (1983) Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences, Basic Books, New York.
George JM (2000) Emotions and leadership: the
role of emotional intelligence, Human Relations
53: 1027-1055.
Goleman D (1995) Emotional intelligence: Why it
can matter more than IQ, Bantam, New York.
Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ and Swann WB Jr (2003)
A very brief measure of the Big Five personality
domains, Journal of Research in Personality 37:
504 – 538.
Guppy A, Edwards JA, Brough P, Peters-Bean KM,
Sale C and Short E (2004) The psychometric
properties of the short version of the Cybernetic
Coping Scale: A multigroup confirmatory factor
analysis across four samples, Journal of Occupat-
ional and Organisational Psychology, 77: 39-62.
Hu L & Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,
Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1-55.
467
 Peter J Jordan and Sandra A Lawrence
Izard CE, Wehmer CM, Livsey W and Jennings IR
(1965) Affect awareness and performance in
Tomkins SS & Izard CE (Eds) Affect, cognition
and personality pp 2-41, Springer, New York.
Jehn KA and Mannix EA (2001) The dynamic
nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance,
Academy of Management Journal 44: 238-251.
Jordan PJ (2007) Emotional intelligence at work: A
review of research. In Glendon, I Myors, B &
Thompson B (Eds), Advances in organisational
psychology: An Asia-Pacific perspective. pp. 355-370,
Australian Academic Press, Brisbane, Australia.
Jordan PJ and Ashkanasy NM (2006) Emotional
intelligence, emotional self-awareness and team
effectiveness’, in Druskat, VU Sala, F & Mount
GJ (Eds) Linking emotional intelligence and
performance at work pp 145-164, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Jordan PJ, Ashkanasy NM, Härtel CEJ and Hooper
GS (2002) Workgroup emotional intelligence:
Scale development and relationship to team
process effectiveness and goal focus, Human
Resource Management Review 12: 195-214.
Jordan PJ, Ashton-James CE and Ashkanasy NM
(2006) Evaluating the claims in Murphy K R
(Ed) A Critique of emotional intelligence: What are
the problems and how can they be fixed?, pp 189-
210, Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ.
Jordan PJ, Lawrence SA and Troth AC (2006) The
impact of negative mood on team performance,
Journal of Management & Organization 12:
131-145.
Jordan PJ and Troth AC (2004) Managing emotions
during team problem solving: Emotional
intelligence and conflict resolution, Human
Performance 17: 195-218.
Jordan PJ and Troth AC (2006) Emotions and
coping with conflict: An Introduction, Journal
of Management & Organization 12(2): 98-100.
Kellett JB, Humphrey RH and Sleeth RG (2006)
Empathy and the emergence of task and relations
leaders, The Leadership Quarterly 17: 146-162.
Kelly JR and Barsade SG (2001) Mood and
emotions in small groups and work teams,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 86: 99-130.
Kline RB (1998) Principals and practice of struct-
ural equation modelling, The Guilford Press,
New York.
Lane RD, Reiman EM, Axelrod B, Yun LS, Holmes
A and Schwartz GE (1998) Neural correlates of
levels of emotional awareness: Evidence of an
468 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
interaction between emotion and attention in
the anterior cingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience 10: 525–535.
Law KS, Wong CS and Song LJ (2004) The construct
and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and
its potential utility for management studies,
Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 483-496.
Mathieu JE and Farr JL (1991) Further evidence for
the discriminant validity of measures of organiz-
ational commitment, job involvement and job
satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology 76:
127-134.
Mayer JD, Caruso DR and Salovey P (2001)
Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence:
The case for ability scales, in Bar-On R and
Parker JDA (Eds), The handbook of emotional
intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and
application at home, school and in the workplace,
pp 320-342, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Mayer J and Salovey P (1997) What is emotional
intelligence? in Salovey P and Sluyter D (Eds)
Emotional development and emotional intelligence:
Implications for educators pp 3-31, Basic Books,
New York.
Mayer JD, Salovey P and Caruso DR (2000)
Competing models of emotional intelligence, in
Sternberg R (Ed) Handbook of intelligence pp
396-420, Cambridge, New York.
Mischel W and DeSmet AL (2000) Self-regulation
in the service of conflict resolution in Deutsch M
& Coleman PT (Eds) The handbook of conflict
resolution: Theory and practice, pp 256-275,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Mischel W and Shoda Y (1998) Reconciling
processing dynamics and personality dispositions,
Annual Review of Psychology 49: 229–258.
Mooney AC, Holahan PJ and Amason AC (2007)
Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive
conflict as a mediator of affective conflict,
Journal of Management Studies 44: 733-758.
Moriarty P and Buckley F (2003) Increasing team
emotional intelligence through process, Journal
of European Industrial Training 27: 98-110.
Morrell K (2004) Decision-making and business
ethics: The implications of using image theory in
preference to rational choice, Journal of Business
Ethics 50: 239-252.
Mumby DK and Putnam LA (1992) The politics of
emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rational-
ity, Academy of Management Review 17: 465-486.
Ortony A, Clore GL and Collins A (1988) The
cognitive structure of emotions, Cambridge
University Press, New York
Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009
Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S)

Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM and Xin KR (1999)
Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity conflict and performance,
Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 1-28.
Pennebaker JW and Francis ME (1996) Cognitive:
emotional: and language processes in disclosure,
Cognition and Emotion 10: 601-626.
Periatt JA LeMay SA & Chakrabarty S (2004) The
selling orientation-customer orientation (SOCO)
scale: Cross-validation of the revised version,
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management
24: 49-54.
Rammstedt B and John OP (2007) Measuring per-
sonality in one minute or less: A 10-item short
version of the Big Five Inventory in English and
German, Journal of Research in Personality 41:
203-212.
Roberts RD, Zeidner M and Matthews G (2001)
Does emotional intelligence meet traditional
standards for an intelligence? Some new data and
conclusions, Emotion 1: 196-231.
Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Hall LE, Haggerty DJ,
Cooper JT, Golden CJ and Dornheim L (1998)
Development and validation of a measure of
emotional intelligence, Personality and
Individual Differences 25: 167-177.
Silvia PJ (2002) Self-awareness and emotional
intensity, Cognition and Emotion 16: 195-216.
Sosik JJ and Megerian LE (1999) Understanding
leader emotional intelligence and performance:
The role of self-other agreement on
transformational leadership perceptions, Group
and Organization Management 24: 367-390.
Sue-Chan C and Latham GP (2004) The
situational interview as a predictor of academic
and team performance: A study of the mediating
effects of cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment 12: 312-320.
Tannenbaum SI, Beard RL and Salas E (1992) Team
building and its influence on team effectiveness:
An examination of conceptual and empirical
developments, in K. Kelley (Ed) Issues, theory and
research in industrial/organizational psychology, pp
117-153, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.
Van Dyne L, Ang S and Botero IC (2003)
Conceptualizing employee silence and employee
voice as multidimensional constructs, Journal of
Management Studies 40: 1359-1392.
Van Rooy DL and Viswesvaran C (2004)
Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and
nomological net, Journal of Vocational Behavior
65: 71-95.
Watson D, Clark LA and Tellegan A (1988)
Development and validation of brief measures of
Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:
1063-1070.
Weiss H and Cropanzano R (1996) Affective events
theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,
causes and consequences of affective experiences
at work, Research in Organizational Behavior 18:
1-74.
Wolff SB, Pescosolido AT and Druskat VU (2002)
Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership
emergence in self-managing teams, Leadership
Quarterly 13: 505-522.
Received 7 August 2008 Accepted 15 July 2009

N O W
The Leading Way of Changing Meaning
(2007) By Sandra Sytsma
In studying leading as a way of changing
meaning, this research documents a
journey of inner exploration amongst five
self-nominated leaders in education.
ISBN: 978-1-921214-26-4
A V A I L A B L E
Awakening-Struggle: Towards
Buddhist Critical Social Theory (2004)
By Robert Hattam
The ground-breaking book offers the
first extensive comparison of critical
theory with socially-engaged Buddhism.
ISBN: 978-1-876682-57-6

Following Vygotsky to a Learner-Centred SoulWork: Finding the Work You Love,

School (2006) By Robert G Grandin Loving the Work You Have (2007)
The author describes his experiences in By Deborah P Bloch, Lee J Richmond
attacking the problem of individuality in Relates career to spiritual themes, and
learning. provide advice and support to people in
ISBN: 978-1-876682-96-5 working through their personal choices.
ISBN: 978-0-9775742-3-0
eContent Management Pty Ltd, PO Box 1027, Maleny QLD 4552, Australia
Tel.: +61-7-5435-2900; Fax. +61-7-5435-2911; subscriptions@e-contentmanagement.com
www.e-contentmanagement.com

Volume 15, Issue 4, September 2009 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 469