779109

research-article20182018
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244018779109SAGE OpenCole et al.

Special Collection - Entrepreneurial Teams

SAGE Open

SOAR as a Mediator of the Relationship

April-June 2018: 1­–12
© The Author(s) 2018
DOI: 10.1177/2158244018779109
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018779109

Between Emotional Intelligence and journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Collaboration Among Professionals

Working in Teams: Implications for
Entrepreneurial Teams

Matthew L. Cole1, John D. Cox2, and Jacqueline M. Stavros1

Abstract
A majority of ventures are started by entrepreneurial teams rather than individuals. More than half of team-based new
venture failures are believed to be due to problems with the entrepreneurial team. Collaboration among entrepreneurial
team members is important for increasing the likelihood of successful venture outcomes. We investigated collaboration
in professionals working in teams using survey methodology. Results found a framework for collaborative dialogue, SOAR
(strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results), mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and team
collaboration. We discuss practical recommendations to increase the strength of the relationship between emotional
intelligence and collaboration to increase entrepreneurial team performance. For example, behavioral coaches are
recommended to use dialogical exercises to help team members develop emotional intelligence competencies of awareness
and regulation of emtions in self and others. Entrepreneurs are recommended to create teams that build on member
strengths and aspirations, and identify opportunities for achieving measurable positive results.

Keywords
emotional intelligence, collaboration, SOAR, entrepreneurial teams, context, mediation analysis

An entrepreneurial team is a team consisting of two or more
individuals who hold shares in a firm, and who work actively
on the strategic direction and decision making in the venture
during the early developmental phase of the venture (Khan,
Breitenecker, & Schwarz, 2014, 2015). A majority of ven-
tures are started by entrepreneurial teams rather than indi-
vidual entrepreneurs (Schjoedt, Monsen, Pearson, Barnett, &
Chrisman, 2013; West, 2007). Of the roughly 40% of new
ventures that fail within the first year, more than half of the
failures are believed to be due to problems with the entrepre-
neurial team (Eisenhardt, 2013; Kaplan & Strömberg, 2004).
Research suggests the way in which entrepreneurial team
members collaborate with each other is important for deter-
mining successful venture outcomes (Chowdhury, 2005;
Gundry, Ofstein, & Monllor, 2016; Mol, Khapova, & Elfring,
2015). This article examines how a framework for collabora-
tive dialogue, SOAR (strengths, opportunities, aspirations,
and results), mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and team collaboration in a quantitative empiri-
cal study in a sample of U.S. professionals working in teams.
Results of our research have important implications for
increasing collaboration among entrepreneurial team mem-
bers through emotional intelligence and open dialogue lead-
ing to successful entrepreneurial outcomes.
A team approach is considered beneficial for meeting
such entrepreneurial objectives as creativity, innovation, and
new product development because of knowledge sharing and
collaboration between team members (Dayaram & Fung,
2012; Gundry et al., 2016; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998;
McDonough, Kahnb, & Barczaka, 2001; Zhang, Venkatesh,
& Brown, 2011). Collaboration involves people working
together toward a common goal (Slater, 2005). In teams, col-
laboration among team members is a critical factor in lever-
aging effectiveness of entrepreneurial teams (DeCusatis,
2008; Romero, Galeano, & Molina, 2008, 2009). For exam-
ple, collaboration has been shown to predict innovation and
entrepreneurial mind-set in entrepreneurs working together
on common projects (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003) and in social
entrepreneurs working together on new social ventures
(Sharir & Lerner, 2006).
1
Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, USA
2
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Clarkston, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Matthew L. Cole, Department of Management and Marketing, College of
Business and Information Technology, Lawrence Technological University,
21000 West Ten Mile Road, Southfield, MI 48075, USA.
Email: mcole@ltu.edu

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
Research on collaboration in teams identifies social
interactions among team members as a primary character-
istic of effective teams (Hattori & Lapidus, 2004). Social
interactions are enhanced through emotional intelligence
(Kerr, Garvion, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006). Emotional intel-
ligence is defined as a set of emotion-processing compe-
tencies involving awareness and management of emotions
in self and others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Emotional
intelligence in teams involves team members recognizing,
regulating, and managing emotions in themselves and in
others (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Research high-
lights the positive effect of emotional intelligence (Druskat
& Wolff, 2001; Goleman, 2006; Jordan & Ashkanasy,
2006; Mount, 2006; Sala, 2006) and collaboration
(Dietrich, Eskerod, Dalcher, & Sandhawalia, 2010; Hattori
& Lapidus, 2004; Romero et al., 2008, 2009; Whitaker,
2009) on team effectiveness.
One aspect of collaboration reviewed in the literature as
important for increasing team effectiveness is the use of col-
laborative strategies that draw upon the capacity of team
members for collaborative dialogue through shared strengths
of team members and the dynamic opportunities available to
the team (Bushe, 2013). A framework for collaborative dia-
logue that supports collaboration among team members
through shared understanding and a commitment to action is
SOAR (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2007). SOAR
involves a strengths-based and opportunity-focused inquiry
on the aspirations and desired results for the team (Stavros &
Cole, 2013). In support of research on the positive effects of
open communication and collaboration on innovation in
entrepreneurial teams (Khan, Breitenecker, Gustafsson, &
Schwarz, 2015), we consider SOAR as a framework for cre-
ating a reservoir of positivity to frame issues from a solution-
oriented perspective that generates collaborative dialogue
focused on new ideas, innovations, and the best in people
and teams to emerge (Bushe, 2007, 2013; Cooperrider,
Whitney, & Stavros, 2008; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,
2009; Stavros & Cole, 2013; Stavros & Wooten, 2012).
The purpose of this article is to advance research on the
role of collaboration in teams. To this end, we investigate
emotional intelligence as a positive predictor of collabora-
tion in U.S. professionals who have work team experience.
Next, we investigate SOAR as a mediator of the positive
impact that self-perceptions of emotional intelligence have
on self-perceptions of team member collaboration. As a
mediator, SOAR helps explain how or why emotional intel-
ligence influences collaboration. With mediation analysis,
we can gain insight about the mechanism of action of pre-
dictors of collaboration (Gunzler, Chen, Wu, & Zhang,
2013). We believe SOAR provides a dynamic framework
for dialogue to optimize the positive effects of team member
emotional intelligence on collaboration. We believe this
research is important for increasing the effectiveness of
entrepreneurial teams through emotional intelligence,
SOAR, and collaboration.
Conceptual Framework and
Hypotheses
Emotional Intelligence and Team-Based
Collaboration
Today’s business climate is characterized by increased use of
work teams for entrepreneurial objectives, such as innova-
tion and new product development (Dayaram & Fung, 2012;
Gudry et al., 2014; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998; McDonough
et al., 2001; Zhang et al., 2011). Emotional intelligence adds
value to team-based performance in terms of negotiating and
resolving conflict (Anand & Udayasuriyan, 2010; Blattner &
Bacigalupo, 2007; Jordan & Troth, 2004). Research suggests
entrepreneurs’ emotional intelligence has a positive impact
on the growth of new ventures, especially among team mem-
bers who are collaborating (Kerr et al., 2006; Yitshaki, 2012).
Collaboration in teams involves social interaction among
team members in terms of integration, compromise, and
open communication (Aram & Morgan, 1976; Rahim, 1983a,
1983b; Romero et al., 2008, 2009). Integration and compro-
mise involve the development and integration of positive
behaviors to support collaborative strategies that enhance
team capabilities (Rahim, 1983a, 1983b; Romero et al.,
2008, 2009). Team capabilities are also enhanced through
communication among team members and resource sharing
to reach team goals (Aram & Morgan, 1976).
Collaboration and emotional intelligence are linked
through inclusion of differing points of view among team
members (Shaw & Lindsay, 2008). Inclusion in teams draws
upon team members’ capacity for collaboration and an ongo-
ing commitment to the development of collaborative strate-
gies within a team (Shaw & Lindsay, 2008). Within a work
team, such as an entrepreneurial team, members who have
high emotional intelligence are aware of the emotional cli-
mate in the team. This leads to open and inclusive discus-
sions on shared goals (Mita & Debasis, 2008; Romero et al.,
2009). Collaboration and emotional intelligence are espe-
cially important in entrepreneurial teams because they help
team members to dispel the status quo in favor of innova-
tions. To this end, we expect that there is a significant posi-
tive relationship between team member’s self-perception of
emotional intelligence and team member’s self-perception of
collaboration.
Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence has a positive
impact on collaboration among team members.
The SOAR Framework and Collaborative
Dialogue
SOAR is a “strengths-based framework with a participatory
approach to strategic analysis, strategy development, and
organizational change” (Stavros & Saint, 2010, p. 380). As
shown in Figure 1, the SOAR framework emphasizes
Cole et al. 3

Figure 1.  The SOAR framework.

Source. Adopted from Stavros, Cooperrider, and Kelley (2007).
Note. SOAR = strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results.

Table 1.  Strategic Inquiry–Appreciative Intent: Inspiration to SOAR begins with an inquiry into what works well, fol-
SOAR. lowed by the identification of possible opportunities for
Planning growth. SOAR helps team members identify strengths, build
processes SOAR elements SOAR activities on what is working well, and discuss team goals, strategic
initiatives, and enabling objectives. SOAR also enables team
Strategic inquiry Strengths What are we doing well? leaders to plan strategies and methods to meet team objec-
What are our greatest
tives, define team outcome metrics aligned with team goals
assets?
Opportunities What are the best possible
and objectives, and discover innovative team opportunities.
market opportunities? SOAR has the potential to promote team members’ freedom
How do we best partner to imagine an innovative, creative, and collaborative future
with others? in which a strengths-based strategy or strategic plan is imple-
Appreciative Aspirations To what do we aspire? mented that is dynamic and enabling of positive outcomes.
intent What is our preferred SOAR is a framework for collaborative dialogue and
future? strengths-based information exchange that encourages all
Results What are the measurable team members to collaborate on a desired future. Table 1
results?
aligns the SOAR framework with specific activities that act
What do we want to be
known for? as enablers for successful collaboration among team mem-
bers (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003).
Note. SOAR = strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results. Emotional intelligence competencies are closely linked
to SOAR, insofar as emotionally intelligent team members
strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results. The SOAR are inclusive with collaborative dialogue and strengths-
framework is inherently team oriented, collaborative, and based information exchange. To help understand the role of
inclusive, and seeks to involve all team members in a col- SOAR in helping to explain how emotional intelligence has
laborative dialogue (Stavros & Cole, 2015). SOAR increases a positive impact on collaboration in team member, we
collaborative dialogue through generative, solution-oriented tested SOAR as a mediator of the relationship between emo-
communication among team members to frame issues in tional intelligence and collaboration (Gunzler et al., 2013).
terms of strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and desired Testing for mediated effects involves testing for the signifi-
results to build a positive future (Stavros et al., 2007; Stavros cance of indirect effects between the independent variables
& Wooten, 2012). (IVs) and dependent variables (DVs; MacKinnon,
4 SAGE Open
Figure 2.  Study model: SOAR as a mediator of the relationship between emotional intelligence and team-based collaboration as a
function of team role (leaders vs. members).
Note. SOAR = strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results; MED = mediating variable; IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable.
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002), and to this
end, we expect that there will be a significant indirect effect
of SOAR on the relationship between emotional intelligence
and collaboration.
Hypothesis 2: SOAR mediates the relationship between
team member’s self-perceptions of emotional intelligence
and team member’s self-perceptions of collaboration.
Method
Research Design
We used a quantitative cross-sectional design with mediating
variables to evaluate SOAR as mediator of the relationship
between emotional intelligence and collaboration in a sam-
ple of professionals who reported working in teams. To test
the positive impact of emotional intelligence on collabora-
tion (Hypothesis 1), we regressed collaboration on emotional
intelligence. To test the mediational effect of SOAR on the
relationship between emotional intelligence and collabora-
tion (Hypothesis 2), we tested the indirect effect of SOAR on
the relationship between emotional intelligence and collabo-
ration using a mediation path model (Preacher & Hayes,
2008). We invited LinkedIn Group members with self-
reported team experience to participate in an electronic sur-
vey that measured demographic characteristics, emotional
intelligence, collaboration, and SOAR.
Research Variables
This study investigated three study variables: emotional intel-
ligence, collaboration, and SOAR. Emotional intelligence is
operationally defined as team member self-perceptions of
awareness and management of emotions in self and others
(Mayer & Salovey, 1997), and collaboration is operationally
defined as team member self-perceptions that integration,
compromise, and communication occur in the team (Aram &
Morgan, 1976; Rahim, 1983a, 1983b). SOAR is operationally
defined as team member self-perceptions of strengths, oppor-
tunities, aspirations, and results (Cole & Stavros, 2013, 2014;
Stavros & Cole, 2013; Stavros et al., 2007). Figure 2 presents
the study model in which emotional intelligence is an IV that
affects the DV, collaboration, and SOAR is a mediator (MED)
of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
collaboration.
Study Sample
The study sample was obtained by distributing invitations to
participate across a wide range of U.S. professionals who
work in teams in industry, academia, and government via
LinkedIn groups in the following study areas: emotional
intelligence, leadership, appreciative inquiry, team work and
team effectiveness, strategic planning, change management,
project management, academia, financial management, gen-
eral business management, and several industrial organiza-
tions. Individuals who voluntarily consented to participate in
the study served as the unit of analysis for the study. The sur-
vey was administered over a 4-week period via the eSurvey
website SurveyMonkey. A total of N = 308 respondents pro-
vided voluntary consent to participate in the electronic survey
and provided responses to more than 90% of the survey items.
Research participants in this study were protected according
to the federal requirements specified by the Department of
Health and Human Services’ Code of Federal Regulations, 45
CFR 46. In accordance with federal requirements, approval to
conduct research with human participants was obtained from
the university institutional review board (IRB).
Cole et al. 5

Table 2.  Characteristics of Sample by Gender, Age, Ethnicity, Profile (Cole & Stavros, 2013, 2014), a self-report measure
Education, and Team Type. of SOAR-based strategic thinking comprised of items scored
Characteristic n % using a 10-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 10 = always)
and arranged in four factors: strengths, opportunities, aspira-
Total sample 308 100.0 tions, and results. Demographic questions asked respondents
Gender about their gender, age, ethnicity, education, and role in
 Female 152 49.4 teams (leader, member)
 Male 131 42.5
  No response 25 8.1
Age Data Analysis
 18-24 13** 4.2
 25-34 35 11.4 Survey data were entered into Excel via SurveyMonkey. Data
 35-44 54 17.5 were transferred from Excel to Minitab version 17 for reli-
 45-54 80 26.0 ability analysis and inferential quantitative statistical analysis
 55-64 80 26.0 to test Hypothesis 1. Reliability analysis was conducted by
 65-74 22 7.1 obtaining Cronbach’s alpha values for the study measures;
 75+ 0 0.0 Hypothesis 1 was tested using linear regression of collabora-
  No response 24 7.8 tion regressed on emotional intelligence (controlling for
Ethnicity demographic characteristics). In linear regression, a signifi-
  Asian/African American 34** 11.1 cant regression coefficient infers the predicted change in the
 Other 14 4.5 DV for a one-unit change in the IV. Data were also transferred
 White 236 76.6 to Mplus version 7 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
  No response 24 7.8 and path analysis. CFA was used to evaluate the construct
Education validity of the study measures by testing the model fit of
  High school/associate 17** 5.5 higher order CFAs conducted on the survey items that mea-
 Bachelor 51 16.6
sured emotional intelligence, collaboration, and SOAR.
 Master 217 70.4
Hypothesis 2 was tested using a mediation path model. In
  No response 23 7.5
path models, only the structural relationships between the
Team role
observed variables are modeled (i.e., composite scores for
 Leader 175** 56.8
emotional intelligence, collaboration, and SOAR were used).
 Member 108 35.1
  No response 25 8.1
In a mediation path model, mediation is inferred by a signifi-
cant indirect effect of the mediator on the relationship between
Note. Sample frequency is expressed as % of all participants, N = 308. the IV and the DV. When using composite scores in a media-
**p < .01, chi-square test for equality of distribution. tion path analysis, bootstrapped confidence intervals are gen-
erated for the indirect effect (5,000 bootstrapped sampled
Measures were used; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). For each statistical pro-
cedure, all available data were used. Study participants in this
The survey instrument consisted of 42 questions divided into study provided data for both the IV (emotional intelligence)
four sections: (a) emotional intelligence (16 questions), (b) and the DV (collaboration). When data for both the IV and
collaboration (nine questions), (c) SOAR (12 questions), and DV are collected from the same source, common method
(d) demographics (five questions). Emotional intelligence variance (CMV) may occur. CMV was tested using explor-
was measured by the 16-item Work Group Emotional atory factor analysis (EFA).
Intelligence Profile–Short Form (WEIP-S; Jordan &
Lawrence, 2009). The WEIP-S measures respondent compe-
tency in four emotional intelligence abilities helpful for Results
understanding how emotional intelligence works in teams
(Mayer & Salovey, 1997): self-awareness, self-management,
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
other awareness, and other management. Collaboration was Table 2 reports the demographic characteristics of the sam-
measured by the nine-item Team Collaboration Questionnaire, ple. As shown, the sample (N = 308) was essentially equally
an original measure of collaborative activity among team distributed among males and females. In contrast, age, eth-
members, adapted from Aram and Morgan (1976) and Rahim nicity, education, and team role were not equally distributed
(1983a, 1983b), that measured three factors: integration, among age groups, ethnicities, educational experience, and
compromise, and communication. Participants self-rated team role. More than half of the respondents were 45 to 64
both the emotional intelligence and the collaboration items years of age, more than three quarters were White, about two
using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = thirds obtained a graduate degree, and more than half
strongly agree). SOAR was measured by the 12-item SOAR reported serving as the team leader when working in teams.
6 SAGE Open

Table 3.  Reliability and Validity of the WEIP-S.

Emotional intelligence items Ma SD α Factorb

EI Full Scale (16 items) 5.32 0.79 .893  
  Self-awareness (awareness of own emotions) four items 4.76 1.36 .888 0.524
   I can explain the emotions I feel to team members 5.14 1.49 0.840
   I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members 4.85 1.56 0.920
   If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better 4.27 1.62 0.642
   I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience 4.76 1.58 0.812
  Self-management (management of own emotions) four items 5.96 0.84 .805 0.655
   I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong 6.00 1.06 0.636
   I can overcome my frustration with other team members 5.60 1.11 0.624
   I try to see all sides of a disagreement before I come to a conclusion 6.07 1.01 0.818
   I give a fair hearing to fellow team members’ ideas 6.18 1.00 0.791
  Other awareness (awareness of others’ emotions) four items 5.10 1.11 .886 0.646
   I can read fellow team members “true” feelings, even if they try to hide them 5.10 1.30 0.862
   I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling 5.03 1.26 0.890
   I can gauge true feelings of team members from their body language 5.20 1.22 0.785
   I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say 5.12 1.22 0.685
  Other management (management of others’ emotions) four items 5.47 0.99 .903 0.856
   My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team 5.54 1.16 0.847
   I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down 5.47 1.10 0.818
   I can get fellow team members to share my keenness for a project 5.46 1.08 0.754
   I can provide the “spark” to get fellow team members enthusiastic 5.41 1.13 0.855

Note. Psychometric properties conducted on EI data from N = 308 study participants. Tests of model fit for CFA: χ2 = 141.532, df = 98, p = .003, RMSEA
(90% CI) = 0.039 [0.023, 0.052], CFI = 0.984. WEIP-S = Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile–Short Form, 16 items; EI = emotional intelligence; CFI
= comparative fit index; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval.
a
Mean of items within scale where each item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree.
b
Factor loading scores from CFA significant at p < .05 unless otherwise noted as non-significant (ns).

Reliability and Validity intelligence) and DV (collaboration) were found to measure

Reliability and validity of the scales used to measure emo-
tional intelligence, collaboration, and SOAR are presented in
Tables 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Reliability was evaluated
using Cronbach’s alpha test of internal consistency
(Cronbach, 1951). As shown, Cronbach’s alphas for all study
measures in all participants, in team leaders and in team
members, ranged from .722 to .909, indicating acceptable
reliability. Construct validity was evaluated using CFA. Tests
of model fit were supportive of construct validity, with all
measures satisfying the goodness-of-fit indices used to eval-
uate CFA: chi-square/df ratio less than 2, root mean square
error approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08, comparative fit index
(CFI) > 0.900, and all factor loadings significant at p < .05
(Cheung & Lau, 2008).
CMV
Harman’s single-factor test (Sharma, Yetton, & Crawford,
2009) was used to test CMV, which is defined as “the amount
of spurious correlation between variables that is created by
using the same method, often a survey, to measure each vari-
able” (Craighead, Ketchen, Dunn, & Hult, 2011, p. 578).
This test was used to estimate CMV in the study by testing
whether the items that measured the student IV (emotional
one factor according to an EFA. Evidence for CMV occurs
when only a single factor emerges from the EFA. In contrast,
if multiple factors emerge from the EFA, the conclusion is
that the IVs and DVs can be considered to be independent
(i.e., no CMV). Results of an EFA found multiple factors
emerged, thereby refuting the presence of CMV in the study.
Inferential Statistics
Hypothesis 1.  As shown in Table 6, emotional intelligence
was found to be a significant predictor of team member self-
perceptions of collaboration after controlling for gender, age,
ethnicity, education, and team role (β = 0.472, p < .01), with
emotional intelligence accounting for approximately 26% of
the variance in collaboration. Also shown in Table 6 is the
regression of collaboration on the four emotional intelligence
factors controlling for gender, age, ethnicity, education, and
team role. As shown, self-management and other manage-
ment were found to be significant predictors of team collabo-
ration, with the regression coefficient higher for
self-management (UnBeta = 0.442, p < .01) than for other
management (β = 0.100, p < .05). The four emotional intel-
ligence factors accounted for approximately 38% of the vari-
ance in collaboration.
Cole et al. 7

Table 4.  Reliability and Validity of the Team Collaboration Questionnaire (Nine Items).

Collaboration items Ma SD α Factorb

Collaboration Full Scale (nine items) 5.86 0 .73 .853  
  Integration (three items) 6.19 0.86 .909 0.888
   I investigate an issue with my team to find acceptable solution 6.24 0.92 0.852
   I integrate my ideas with my team to come up with a joint decision 6.10 0.96 0.853
   I work with my team to find solutions to problems that satisfy our needs 6.24 0.91 0.951
  Compromise (three items) 5.36 1.12 .849 0.467
   I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse 5.18 1.39 0.674
   I negotiate with my team so that a compromise can be reached 5.53 1.19 0.968
   I use “give and take” so that a compromise can be made 5.43 1.25 0.732
  Communication (three items) 6.03 0.77 .721 0.903
   I consider suggestions of team members to maximize team effectiveness 6.17 0.82 0.723
   I share my expertise to satisfy the needs of my team 6.14 0.93 0.746
   I share my ideas with the team concisely 5.79 1.09 0.668

Note. Psychometric properties conducted on collaboration data from N = 308 study participants. Tests of model fit for CFA: χ2 = 35.695, df = 22, p =
.033, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.046 [0.013, 0.073], CFI = 0.990. CFI = comparative fit index; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation; CI = confidence interval.
a
Mean of items within scale where each item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree.
b
Factor loading scores from CFA significant at p < .05 unless otherwise noted as nonsignificant (ns).

Table 5.  Reliability and Validity of the SOAR Profile (12 Items). emotional intelligence predicting collaboration through
SOAR was significant (β = 0.110, p < .05), suggesting SOAR
SOAR items Ma SD α Factorb
is a mediator of the emotional intelligence–collaboration rela-
SOAR Full Scale (12 items) 8.00 1.05 .861   tionship. Investigating the indirect effects of emotional intel-
  Strengths (three items) 7.96 1.27 .722 0.893 ligence predicting collaboration through the four factors of
  Strengths 8.53 1.42 0.759 SOAR found strengths (β = 0.049, p < .05), aspirations (β =
  Assets 7.13 1.85 0.573 −0.49, p < .05), and results (β = 0.043, p < .01) were media-
  Capabilities 8.26 1.42 0.588 tors of the emotional intelligence–collaboration relationship.
  Opportunities (three items) 8.40 1.26 .795 0.887
  Opportunities 8.26 1.53 0.793
  Ideas 8.62 1.37 0.706
Discussion
  Possibilities 8.31 1.57 0.754 The way in which entrepreneurial team members collaborate
  Aspirations (three items) 7.52 1.54 .739 0.949 with each other is important for determining successful ven-
  Aspirations 7.24 1.83 0.821 ture outcomes (Chowdhury, 2005; Gundry et al., 2016; Mol
  Desires 7.01 1.95 0.822 et al., 2015). This study investigated collaboration in a sample
  Values 8.30 1.90 0.679 of professionals working in teams. First, this study suggests
  Results (three items) 8.13 1.37 .790 0.539 emotional intelligence is a significant predictor of collabora-
  Results 8.41 1.49 0.844 tion in team members primarily through management of emo-
  Completed tasks 7.57 1.88 0.584
tions in self and others. These results support previous research
  Outcomes 8.41 1.49 0.854
on the positive effects of emotional intelligence and collabora-
Note. Psychometric properties conducted on SOAR data from N = 308 tion on team performance (Dietrich et al., 2010; Druskat &
study participants. Tests of model fit for CFA: χ2 = 88.345, df = 49, Wolff, 2001; Goleman, 2006; Hattori & Lapidus, 2004; Jordan
p = .001, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.055 [0.036, 0.073], CFI = 0.970. SOAR = & Ashkanasy, 2006; Mount, 2006; Romero et al., 2008, 2009;
strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results; CFI = comparative fit
index; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; RMSEA = root mean square Sala, 2006; Whitaker, 2009). Second, study results suggest
error of approximation; CI = confidence interval. SOAR mediates the effect that emotional intelligence has on
a
Mean of items within scale where each item is measured on a 10-point collaboration, primarily through strengths, aspirations, and
Likert-type scale; 1 = never, 4 = rarely, 7 = often, 10 = always. results. These results suggest a framework for collaborative
b
Factor loading scores from CFA significant at p < .05 unless otherwise
noted as nonsignificant (ns). dialogue may help explain how emotional intelligence has a
positive impact on collaboration.

Hypothesis 2.  Table 7 and Figures 3 and 4 present the results

Implications for Practice and Recommendations
of mediation path analysis used to test Hypothesis 2: SOAR is
a mediator of the emotional intelligence–collaboration rela- Results of this study have important implications for
tionship in team members. As shown, the indirect effect of increasing collaboration among entrepreneurial team
8 SAGE Open

Table 6.  Collaboration Regressed on Demographic Characteristics and Emotional Intelligence.

Collaboration

  Demographic characteristics Emotional intelligence full score Emotional intelligence factors

  β SE Z β SE Z β SE Z
Constant 5.767 0.330 17.45 3.452 0.385 8.95 2.526 0.385 6.56
Gender −0.141 0.088 −1.59 −0.088 0.078 −1.12 −0.117 0.072 −1.62
Age 0.059 0.036 1.64 0.034 0.032 1.06 0.035 0.030 1.17
Ethnicity −0.019 0.120 −0.16 −0.138 0.106 −1.30 −0.182 0.100 −1.83
Education 0.046 0.050 0.91 0.042 0.044 0.96 0.039 0.041 0.96
Team role −0.152 0.091 −1.68 −0.044 0.080 −0.55 −0.059 0.076 −0.77
Emotional intelligence 0.472** 0.052 9.11  
Self-awareness 0.014 0.030 0.47
Self-management 0.442** 0.051 8.71
Other awareness 0.063 0.040 1.60
Other management 0.100* 0.049 2.04
R2a 3.8% 26.3% 37.7%  
Change in R2 22.5%** 33.9%**  

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficient beta, change in R2.

a 2
R adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 7.  Mediation by SOAR of EI Affecting Collaboration: All Participants.

Bootstrapa BC bootstrapb

Effect IV MED β SE Z p Lower Upper Lower Upper

All participants
Total direct EI 0.486 0.074 6.543 .000** 0.333 0.629 0.342 0.636
  Path a SOAR 0.617 0.098 6.317 .000** 0.432 0.815 0.433 0.820
  Path b SOAR 0.179 0.055 3.273 .001** 0.072 0.285 0.065 0.280
  Path c’ EI 0.376 0.099 3.796 .000** 0.177 0.564 0.193 0.577
 Indirect SOAR 0.110 0.045 2.444 .015* 0.035 0.196 0.034 0.210
Total indirect 0.110 0.045 2.444 .015* 0.035 0.196 0.034 0.210
Total direct EI 0.487 0.075 6.506 .000** 0.343 0.629 0.346 0.636
  Path a Strengths 0.552 0.114 4.869 .000** 0.336 0.781 0.334 0.779
Opportunities 0.699 0.110 6.339 .000** 0.485 0.923 0.492 0.932
Aspirations 0.818 0.152 5.377 .000** 0.529 1.121 0.525 1.115
Results 0.385 0.120 3.207 .001** 0.159 0.629 0.162 0.634
  Path b Strengths 0.089 0.041 2.161 .031* 0.008 0.170 0.007 0.168
  Opportunities 0.062 0.041 1.489 .136 −0.018 0.143 −0.020 0.141
  Aspirations −0.061 0.029 2.078 .038* −0.119 −0.005 −0.121 −0.007
  Results 0.112 0.028 3.930 .000** 0.053 0.164 0.053 0.164
  Path c’ EI 0.402 0.095 4.233 .000** 0.212 0.580 0.224 0.590
 Indirect Strengths 0.049 0.025 1.966 .049* 0.004 0.106 0.005 0.107
Opportunities 0.043 0.030 1.436 .151 −0.013 0.105 −0.011 0.107
Aspirations −0.049 0.023 2.151 .031* −0.096 −0.004 −0.102 −0.009
Results 0.043 0.016 2.655 .008** 0.015 0.077 0.018 0.085
Total indirect 0.085 0.043 1.966 .049* 0.010 0.182 0.011 0.182

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficient beta; 5,000 bootstrapping samples. SOAR = strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results; EI = emotional
intelligence; BC = bias corrected; IV = independent variable; MED = mediating variable.
a
Bootstrap confidence intervals (95%).
b
Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Cole et al. 9
Figure 3.  Test of SOAR as a mediator of the EI–collaboration
relationship in team leaders.
Note. SOAR = strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results; EI =
emotional intelligence; MED = mediating variable; IV = independent
variable; DV = dependent variable.
members through emotional intelligence and open dia-
logue leading to successful entrepreneurial outcomes.
This study first focused on investigating the positive
effects of emotional intelligence on collaboration among
individuals working in teams. Collaboration among team
members increases the likelihood that team members
working together will accomplish more than that which
could be accomplished by the individual members acting
alone (Gray, 1985; Romero et al., 2008, 2009). Team
members who acquire emotional intelligence to develop
awareness and management of emotions in themselves
and others have an immediate advantage compared with
those lacking in emotional intelligence abilities (Gohm,
2004). Study results suggest achieving collaborative goals
in entrepreneurial teams can actually be influenced by an
individual’s awareness and management of emotions in
themselves and others. The significance of this implica-
tion is important to entrepreneurial teams seeking to start
a successful venture within some framework of time, cost,
and performance.
Entrepreneurs concerned with increasing collaboration
in work teams are recommended to increase emotional
intelligence abilities in their team members. Behavioral
coaches are recommended to use open discussions, exer-
cises, dialogue, role-play, diaries, and one-to-one feedback
to help team members identify team-based biases, hot but-
ton issues, and resolve conflicts in diverse settings by
developing emotional intelligence competencies of aware-
ness and regulation of emotions in self and others (Dulewicz
& Higgs, 2004; Gardenswartz, Cherbosque, & Rowe,
2009).
Next, this study focused on considering SOAR, a
framework for collaborative dialogue, as a mechanism for
how emotional intelligence has a positive impact on col-
laboration. We believe the results of this study help to
understand SOAR as a putative mechanism for how emo-
tional intelligence affects team-based collaboration. For
entrepreneurial teams, shared vision, purpose, and respect
for each other’s roles are necessary to achieve break-
through results. The SOAR framework has the potential to
build strong and dynamic relationships, and it may help
team members to understand the importance of working
collaboratively to develop strategy, measurable objec-
tives, and methods to achieve a visionary future based on
strengths and opportunities. The manifestations of SOAR,
exemplified in self-reflection, mutual understanding, and
a consideration for the collaborative team as a whole, help
team members exchange ideas, aspirations, and desired
results (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009).
These results provide a focus for practical recommenda-
tions to increase the strength of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and collaboration to increase entre-
preneurial team performance. For example, to help increase
the positive effects of emotional intelligence on collabora-
tion in entrepreneurial teams, entrepreneurs should create
teams that build on team member strengths and aspirations,
and identify opportunities for achieving measurable posi-
tive results. Education and training in SOAR competencies
will help team members learn about SOAR and strengths-
based strategic thinking. When individuals are working in a
team context, especially when collaborating on innovation
or new product development, an SOAR-based framework
for collaborative dialogue may have the best likelihood of
maximizing the impact emotional intelligence has on
collaboration.
SOAR-based collaborative dialogue occurs “when peo-
ple collectively discover or create new things that they can
use to positively alter their collective future” (Bushe, 2007,
p. 33). For example, entrepreneurial team members can
have conversations about the strengths of the new venture
(“What is working well?”), current ideas for creative solu-
tions or innovations (“What can we possibly create
together?”), and current possibilities that would benefit
from creative solutions or innovations (“What does this
possibility look like?”). Next, collaborative and inclusive
conversations on any individual, team, and/or new venture
strengths as they relate to possibilities for solutions or inno-
vations (“What are our strengths as these relate to this pos-
sibility?”), opportunities that would benefit from solutions
or innovations (“What opportunities appear ?”), aspirations
of a future the team desires (“Who will we be—the vision—
where are we going?”), and measurable results indicating
progress toward a goal or objective that the team wants to
complete (“What are we trying to achieve?”). The SOAR
framework would conclude with appraisal of the team’s
behavior (“Who are we—what purpose do we serve—what
value do we add?”) and a plan for the next strategic dia-
logue (“What actions will you commit to? What resources
are needed?”).
10 SAGE Open
Figure 4.  Test of strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results as multiple mediators of the EI–collaboration relationship in team
members.
Note. EI = emotional intelligence; STR = strengths; MED = mediating variable; OPP = opportunities; IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable;
ASP = aspirations; RES = results.
Study Limitations and Future Directions
This study has potential limitations that should be consid-
ered. First, individual research participants served as the unit
of analysis for this study. Accordingly, study results are lim-
ited to individual team member data rather than aggregated
team-level data on perceptions of emotional intelligence and
team-based collaboration. Study results are also limited to
the cross-sectional nature of the data, which were collected
at one moment in time. Future research should aggregate
team member data at the level of the team to generate team-
level data. The use of team-level data may help with under-
standing the relationship between emotional intelligence and
collaboration at the team level. Future research should study
emotional intelligence, collaboration, and SOAR using lon-
gitudinal data to understand the interrelationship among
these constructs over time. Future research should also obtain
data on emotional intelligence, SOAR, and team collabora-
tion among actual entrepreneurial teams working on new
ventures. Finally, future research should seek to determine
whether other variables in addition to SOAR may explain the
positive effect that emotional intelligence has on collabora-
tion. For researchers, identifying additional mediating vari-
ables may provide even greater opportunity for increasing
the success of entrepreneurial teams.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anand, R., & Udayasuriyan, G. (2010). Emotional intelligence and
its relationship with leadership practices. International Journal
of Business and Management, 5(2), 65-71.
Aram, J. D., & Morgan, C. P. (1976). The role of project team col-
laboration in R&D performance. Management Science, 22,
1127-1137.
Blattner, J., & Bacigalupo, A. (2007). Using emotional intelligence
to develop executive leadership and team and organizational
development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 59, 209-219.
Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not about the positive.
OD Practitioner, 39(4), 33-38.
Bushe, G. R. (2013). Generative process, generative outcome:
The transformational potential of appreciative inquiry. In D.
L. Cooperrider, D. P. Zandee, L. N. Godwin, M. Avital, & B.
Boland (Eds.), Organizational generativity: The appreciative
Cole et al. 11
inquiry summit and a scholarship of transformation (Vol. 4,
pp. 89-113). Bingley, England: Emerald.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and sup-
pression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with struc-
tural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 1,
296-325.
Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an
effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important? Journal of
Business Venturing, 20, 727-746.
Cole, M. L., & Stavros, J. M. (2013, March). Creation of the
SOAR Profile: An innovative tool to evaluate strategic think-
ing capacity. Poster session presented at the meeting of
Research Day 2013, Lawrence Technological University,
Southfield, MI.
Cole, M. L., & Stavros, J. M. (2014, April). Psychometric proper-
ties of the SOAR profile. Paper Session Presented at Lawrence
Tech Research Day 2014, Southfield, MI.
Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. (2008). Appreciative
inquiry handbook: For leaders of change. Brunswick, OH:
Crown Custom Publishing.
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., Dunn, K. S., & Hult, G. T. M.
(2011). Addressing common method variance: Guidelines for
survey research on information technology, operations, and
supply chain management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 58, 578-588.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Dayaram, K., & Fung, L. (2012). Team performance: Where
learning makes the greatest impact. Research and Practice in
Human Resource Management, 20(1), 28-39.
DeCusatis, C. (2008). Creating, growing and sustaining efficient
innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2,
155-164.
Dietrich, P., Eskerod, P., Dalcher, D., & Sandhawalia, B. (2010).
The dynamics of collaboration in multipartner projects. Project
Management Journal, 41(4), 59-78.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Group emotional intelli-
gence and its influence on group effectiveness. In C. Cherniss
& D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace
(pp. 132-155). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004). Can emotional intelligence be
developed? The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(1), 95-111.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2013). Top management teams and the perfor-
mance of entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 40,
805-816.
Gardenswartz, L., Cherbosque, J., & Rowe, A. (2009). Coaching
teams for emotional intelligence in your diverse workplace.
T + D, 63(2), 44-49.
Gohm, C. (2004). Moving forward with emotional intelligence.
Psychological Inquiry, 15, 222-227.
Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence; why it can matter more
than IQ (10th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2009). Primal leadership.
Leadership Excellence, 26(10), 9-10.
Gray, G. (1985). Conditions facilitating inter-organizational col-
laboration. Human Relations, 38, 911-936.
Gundry, L. K., Ofstein, L. F., & Monllor, J. (2016). Entrepreneurial
team creativity: Driving innovation from ideation to imple-
mentation. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 24(1), 55-77.
Gunzler, D., Chen, T., Wu, P., & Zhang, H. (2013). Introduction
to mediation analysis with structural equation modeling.
Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 25, 390-394.
Hattori, R., & Lapidus, T. (2004). Collaboration, trust and innova-
tive change. Journal of Change Management, 4, 97-104.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entre-
preneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing,
18, 165-187.
Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1998). An examination of
collaboration in high-technology new product development
processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15,
237-254.
Jordan, P. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence,
emotional self-awareness, and team effectiveness. In F. Sala,
V. U. Druskat, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intel-
ligence and performance at work: Current research evidence
with individuals and groups (pp. 145-164). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in
teams: Development and initial validation of the short version
of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S).
Journal of Management & Organization, 15, 452-465.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during
team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict res-
olution. Human Performance, 17, 195-218.
Kaplan, S. N., & Strömberg, P. E. (2004). Characteristics, con-
tracts, and actions: Evidence from venture capitalist analyses.
The Journal of Finance, 59, 2177-2210.
Kerr, R., Garvion, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional
intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 27, 266-279.
Khan, M. S., Breitenecker, R. J., Gustafsson, V., & Schwarz, E. J.
(2015). Innovative entrepreneurial teams: The give and take of trust
and conflict. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 558-573.
Khan, M. S., Breitenecker, R. J., & Schwarz, E. J. (2014).
Entrepreneurial team locus of control: Diversity and trust.
Management Decision, 52, 1057-1081.
Khan, M. S., Breitenecker, R. J., & Schwarz, E. J. (2015). Adding
fuel to the fire: Need for achievement diversity and relation-
ship conflict in entrepreneurial teams. Management Decision,
53, 75-99.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G.,
& Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test media-
tion and other intervening variable effects. Psychological
Methods, 7, 83-104.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?
In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and
emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31).
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence:
Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15,
197-215.
McDonough, E. F., Kahnb, K. B., & Barczaka, G. (2001). An
investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new
product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 18, 110-120.
Mita, D., & Debasis, M. (2008). Assessing suitability of Rahim
organizational conflict inventory-II in Indian family-owned-
and-managed businesses. International Journal of Business
Insights & Transformation, 2(1), 28-38.
12 SAGE Open
Mol, E., Khapova, S. N., & Elfring, T. (2015). Entrepreneurial team
cognition: A review. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 17, 232-255.
Mount, G. (2006). The role of emotional intelligence in develop-
ing international business capability: EI provides traction. In
F. Sala, V. U. Druskat, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional
intelligence and performance at work: Current research evi-
dence with individuals and groups (pp. 97-124). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multi-
ple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Rahim, M. A. (1983a). A measure of styles of handling interper-
sonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376.
Rahim, M. A. (1983b). Rahim organizational conflict inventory—II:
Forms A, B, and C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Romero, D., Galeano, N., & Molina, A. (2008). Readiness for col-
laboration assessment approach in collaborative networked
organisations. In A. Azevedo (Ed.), Innovation in manufactur-
ing networks, IFIP (pp. 47-56). New York, NY: Springer.
Romero, D., Galeano, N., & Molina, A. (2009). Mechanisms for
assessing and enhancing organizations’ readiness for col-
laboration in collaborative networks. International Journal of
Production Research, 47, 4691-4710.
Sala, F. (2006). The international business case: Emotional intel-
ligence competencies and important business outcomes. In F.
Sala, V. U. Druskat, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional
intelligence and performance at work: Current research evi-
dence with individuals and groups (pp. 125-144). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schjoedt, L., Monsen, E., Pearson, A., Barnett, T., & Chrisman, J. J.
(2013). New venture and family business teams: Understanding
team formation, composition, behaviors, and performance.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1-15.
Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ven-
tures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of
World Business, 41, 6-20.
Sharma, R., Yetton, P. W., & Crawford, J. (2009). Estimating
the effect of common method variance: The method-method
pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS
Quarterly, 33, 473-490.
Shaw, L., & Lindsay, R. (2008). Renewing focus and building
capacity for enacting authentic collaboration in work rehabili-
tation. Work, 30, 215-218.
Slater, L. (2005). Leadership for collaboration. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 321-333.
Stavros, J. M., & Cole, M. L. (2013). SOARing towards positive
transformation and change. The ABAC ODI Visions.Action.
Outcome, 1(1), 10-34.
Stavros, J. M., & Cole, M. L. (2015). Promoting the positive effects
of team diversity through SOAR: An inclusive approach for
strategic thinking, planning, and leading. In L. Roberts, L.
Wooten, & M. N. Davidson (Eds.), Positive organizing in a
global society: Differences for capacity-building inclusion (pp.
202-207). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D., & Kelley, L. (2003, November).
Strategic inquiry—Appreciative intent: Inspiration to SOAR.
AI Practitioner, pp. 2-19.
Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D., & Kelley, L. (2007). SOAR: A new
approach to strategic planning. In P. Homan, T. Devane, & S.
Cady (Eds.), The change handbook: The definitive resource on
today’s best methods for engaging whole systems (2nd ed., pp.
375-380). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Stavros, J. M., & Hinrichs, G. (2009). Thin book of SOAR:
Building strengths-based strategy. Bend, OR: Thin Book
Publishing.
Stavros, J. M., & Saint, D. (2010). SOAR: Linking strategy and
OD to sustainable performance. In W. Rothwell, J. Stavros, R.
Sullivan, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organization devel-
opment: A guide for leading change (3rd ed., pp. 377-394). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stavros, J. M., & Wooten, L. (2012). Positive strategy: Creating and
sustaining strengths-based strategy that SOARs and performs.
In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The oxford handbook
of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 825-842). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
West, G. P. (2007). Collective cognition: When entrepreneur-
ial teams, not individuals, make decisions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31, 77-102.
Whitaker, D. (2009, February). Collaboration: The only ‘game’ for
team performance. Training Journal, 50-54.
Yitshaki, R. (2012). How do entrepreneurs’ emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership orientation impact new ven-
tures’ growth? Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
25, 357-374.
Zhang, X., Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Designing
­collaborative systems to enhance team performance. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 12(8), 556-584.
Author Biographies
Matthew L. Cole, PhD, is an associate professor at Lawrence
Technological University’s College of Business and Information
Technology and Founder of PRONEWS LLC. He teaches under-
graduate and graduate courses in business statistics, principles of
management, human resource management, entrepreneurship, and
organization development and change. His research focuses on
positive organizational scholarship, SOAR, teams, and research
methods in business.
John D. Cox, DM, is a manager of cross-functional product design
and development programs at FCA. He is involved with product &
process quality improvement initiatives, vehicle program manage-
ment, vehicle safety and regulatory compliance, advanced technol-
ogy R&D (PHEV), and component and vehicle assembly opera-
tions. He is also in charge of developing and supervising work
teams.
Jacqueline M. Stavros, DM, is a full professor at Lawrence
Technological University’s College of Business and Information
Technology, and Appreciative Inquiry Advisor at Flourishing
Leadership Institute. Her passion is working with others to dis-
cover their SOAR capacity (strengths, opportunities, aspirations
and meaningful results) for positive change and applying appre-
ciative inquiry (AI) in everyday conversations to lead self and
others.