Article

Vision
20(3) 184–198
Modelling Enhancement of © 2016 MDI
SAGE Publications

Team Emotional Intelligence sagepub.in/home.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0972262916651532
http://vision.sagepub.com

Irameet Kaur1
Charu Shri2
K.M. Mital3

Abstract
This article aims to review the concept of team emotional intelligence (TEI) and propose a conceptual model for its enhancement.

SE
It seeks to analyze the past literature on TEI and attempts to identify and derive a relationship between different variables that influence
it. The technique of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) has been used to identify the strongest and weakest drivers of TEI. The

U
relationship between the individual- and team-level variables was established to develop a theoretical model for enhancement of TEI.
The model will help organizations to focus on the right variables to enhance TEI, thus producing effective teams and efficient results.

L
The article adds a new dimension to the approach of TEI by proposing a model for enhancing it. It also studies the different variables

IA
of TEI at individual and team levels and their interrelationships, which have not yet been explored extensively.

Key Words
C
ER
Team Emotional Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), Group Emotional Intelligence
M
M
O

Introduction of the group competencies is receiving increased attention

C

from researchers and substantial work is now being dedi-

The proliferating global competition is inspiring organiza- cated towards understanding group emotions as an emergent
R

tions to think, invent and adapt more. The economic and

group-level phenomenon. Personal emotions are elevated to
FO

technological advances have initiated a series of transfor-

group level and transformed into group emotions (Adams &
mations in the business arena. The most significant of these
Anantatmula, 2010) through group interactions. Positive
being the transition from individual-level focus to group-
based approaches. The revolutionary growth of the Internet individual emotions tend to bring about closeness and cohe-
T

allows sharing of large amounts of data across diverse sion, while negative emotions can result in dissociation and
O

geographies, thereby bringing individuals together and avoidance (Smith, Seger & Mackie, 2007; Rhee, 2006) also
N

boosting the growth of teams. Work groups or teams are
the building blocks of organizations fulfilling the needs of
diverse skill set, expertise and experience (Kozlowski &
Bell, 2003, 2008) by developing various group-level prop-
erties through interpersonal interactions.
The social nature of a group fosters the emergence of
collective cognitive and affective (emotional) competencies
(Curseu et al., 2014). The affective emotional component
discuss about the group level emotions.
As the groups/teams mature, group emotions can
develop to a group mood which can be further elevated to
the level of emotional intelligence (EI) in the group (Adams
& Anantatmula, 2010). Since group is a distinct social entity
governed by shared attitudes, beliefs and norms, it can
develop a collective EI during their interactions within the
group (Kim et al., 2011). Jordan and Troth (2004) identify

1 University Fellow, The Northcap University (Formerly ITM University), Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
2 Associate Head, School of Management, The Northcap University (Formerly ITM University), Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
3 Honorary Distinguished Research Professor, The Northcap University (Formerly ITM University), Gurgaon, Haryana, India.

Corresponding author:
Irameet Kaur, University Fellow, The Northcap University (Formerly ITM University), Gurgaon, Haryana 122017, India.
E-mail: irameetkr@gmail.com
Kaur et al. 185
this occurrence as a group-level phenomenon that utilizes
the synergistic processes of the group to become more
emotionally intelligent as a collective for enhancing overall
group performance. Druskat and Wolff (2001) define this
group-level EI as the ‘ability of a group to develop a set of
norms that promote awareness and regulation of member
and group emotions’. Such mature emotionally intelligent
teams learn to observe and control the group emotions
(Adams & Anantatmula, 2010), and enjoy an increased
level of trust, safety and comfort within the group leading
to higher productivity (Druskat & Wolff, 1999). For build-
ing an emotionally intelligent team, there is a need to
develop emotional competence for the group as a whole.
To build and enhance the group emotional intelligence
(GEI)/team emotional intelligence (TEI), it becomes impor-
tant to explore the variables that influence it.
While majority of the literature on group emotions has
been devoted towards understanding GEI as an emergent
group-level competence (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Goyal &
Akhilesh, 2007; Jordan & Troth, 2004; Koman & Wolff,
2008), limited literature has been observed that discusses
the enablers and variables for GEI (Elfenbein et al., 2006;
Ghuman, 2011). This article hence aims to explore such
variables of GEI/TEI and examine their interplay to under-
ER
stand and enhance this team-level construct in a better way.
In the research presented, the authors seek to make
M
conceptual contributions to an emerging research domain
by proposing a consolidated framework of this collective
M
team-level construct. The article is organized in seven
O
sections. The initial section reviews the concept of EI and
the emergence of team emotions. It further explains the
C
drift from individual EI (IEI) to GEI/TEI and the concept as
viewed by different authors. The second section examines
R
the literature to identify different variables that influence
FO
GEI. The third section extracts the most widely referred
variables that have been associated with group-level intel-
ligence. The next section involves the application of the
T
technique of interpretive structure modelling (ISM) to
O
derive a relationship between the identified variables and
N
their influence. The later part of the article focuses on the
results, interpretations, discussions and conclusion. In the
concluding section, the article also proposes a model that
incorporates the interplay of those variables to enhance
TEI. Lastly, the managerial implications and further scope
of the study have been discussed.
Literature Review
It becomes important to first define the two critical terms—
group and emotional intelligence—that constitute the
concept of GEI. Kozlowski and Bell (2003) have defined
work group or work team as
(a) composed of two or more individuals, (b) who exist to
perform organizationally relevant tasks, (c) share one or
more common goals, (d) interact socially, (e) exhibit task
interdependencies (i.e. workflows, goals, outcomes), (f)
maintain and manage boundaries, and (g) are embedded in
an organizational context that sets boundaries, constraints
the team and influences changes with other units in the
broader entity.
They make no distinction between the terms ‘group’ and
‘team’ and have used them interchangeably. The current
article also uses the same assumption and henceforth
GEI will be referred to as TEI.
From the time when it was wise to keep emotions at bay,
there has been a significant change where emotions are
playing a major role in team processes today. The concept
of EI has thus emerged and flourished providing insights to
understand the emotions that influence team outcomes.
Emotional intelligence is generally referred to as the ability
SE
to identify, evaluate and control emotions of self, others
and groups, mainly at the workplace. The term EI has
evolved from a simple concept of social intelligence
U
(Thorndike, 1920) to a more complex term comprising
L
emotional competence, maturity and sensitivity (Singh &
IA
Chadha, 2003).
The concept of EI expanded from the simple concept of
C
intelligence which is differentiated into intellectual and
emotional abilities. This transformation and evolution of
the concept has been summarized by Sharma (2008) who
classifies the concept under different perspectives, namely,
cognitive, non-cognitive, neurological and mixed. The
cognitive perspective includes the ‘ability model’ by
Mayer and Salovey (1997) who defined EI as the ‘ability to
perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought,
understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion
in the self and others’. The non-cognitive theories included
the initial proposition by Thorndike (1920) and later by
Bar-on (1997). He proposed the ‘emotional-social intelli-
gence’ model (2006) comprising traits and abilities related
to emotional and social knowledge, which influence our
ability to cope with environmental demands. He also deve-
loped a Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQ) to measure EI.
The neurological perspective was studied in the 1990s
and focused on the neuro-psychology theory of different
manners of thinking by left brain and right brain. It was
soon realized that neither the cognitive nor the non-
cognitive aspects could explain this concept in isolation.
Therefore, mixed perspectives emerged providing the base
for the modern understanding of EI. The most popular
mixed view has been proposed by Goleman (1995). He
gets the credit for popularizing the term ‘emotional intelli-
gence’ and defines it as the ‘capacity for recognizing our
own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves
and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our
relationships’. Petridis and Furnham (2001) later proposed
a trait model of EI. Trait EI refers to an ‘individual’s self-
perceptions of their emotional abilities’. The broad models
of EI have been defined in Table 1.
Extensive research in the later years, especially in the
Indian context, has been conducted to gain a broader
186 Vision 20(3)

Table 1. Three Major Models of Emotional Intelligence

Model Type Given by Summary

Ability Model Mayer and Salovey (1997) ‘The capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions, to enhance thinking.
It includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate
emotions to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge,
and to effectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual
growth.’
Mixed Model Goleman (1995), Model outlines five main constructs—self-awareness, self-regulation, social
Bar-On (1997) skill, empathy and motivation.
Trait Model Petrides et al. (2007), Model focuses on the personality framework and defines EI as ‘a constellation
Petrides & Furnham (2001) of behavioural dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one’s ability
to recognize process and utilize emotion-laden information’.
Source: Authors’ own.

insight into the concept and related aspects (Sharma, 2011, of a team directly affects the team performance by modify-

SE
2013), its evolution (Sharma, 2008) and its measurement ing the team dynamics that emerge. Their studies indicate
(Sharma, 2012). Emotional intelligence is particularly that either the average member EI or the EI of the team
relevant in the Indian context as emotions and bonds reign

U
leader is positively associated with team performance.
supreme and go beyond the rational concept to adopt an Therefore, understanding of EI at group level demands

L
integrated perspective (Sharma, 2012). It virtually impacts all increased attention from researchers and practitioners alike.

aspects of management across all industries, as suggested
by a study on 400 managers from diverse industries
(Sharma, 2006a, 2007b). The study found that emotional
ER
and social intelligence competencies predicted transforma-
tional leadership style. Studies by Mandell and Pherwani
(2003) also showed a relationship between emotional
M
IA
As IEI contributes towards effective and positive inter-
actions between individuals, it is possible that groups can
C
develop a collective EI during their interactions within the
group (Jordan & Troth, 2004). Jonsen (2011) posits that
teams have intelligence just like individual people do;
however, the intelligence factor of a group is simply not

intelligence and transformation leadership style. the average EI of its members but something beyond it.
M

Ashkanasy (2003) also affirms that such collective EI is

greater than the sum of its constituent individual intelli-
O

From Individual Emotional gences. This collective intelligence enables the group to
Intelligence to Team Emotional
C

creatively devise solutions for dissolving disagreements

Intelligence (George, 2000) and leads to understanding relationships
R

It has been observed that people display different emotions better, appraising and understanding others emotions and
FO

and perform differently when they work in a team. Just as avoiding conflicts, hence contributing positively towards
the individuals understand, manage and regulate their own group effectiveness (Curseu, Boros & Oerlemans, 2012;
emotions, groups should also take due regard of the group Van Den Berg, Curseu & Meeus, 2014; Yang & Mossholder,
T

feelings. Working in a group involves displaying a caring 2004). An emotionally intelligent group can learn faster
O

orientation, appreciation and respect through display of and perform better (Woolley, Malone & Chabris, 2010) due
emotions, such as support, validation and compassion to better understanding, trust and coordination amongst
N

(Druskat & Wolff, 2001). If these emotions are managed
properly, the quality of social interactions tends to improve
(Lopes et al., 2005) thereby leading to improved team-
work and better effectiveness (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).
This managing and regulation of emotions brings in the
concept of EI at team level.
Several studies have demonstrated that IEI of group
members promotes group cohesion and effectiveness
(Beal et al., 2003; Prati et al., 2003; Nicholas, 2010; Troth,
Jordan & Lawrence, Maini et al., 2012). However, not much
focus has been given to TEI as a group-level property
and its impact on team productivity. A team comprising
emotionally intelligent members is not necessarily an
emotionally intelligent group because a team has its own
character different from the individuals comprising it.
Chang, Sy and Choi (2012) have proposed that average EI
the members. Groups equipped with better emotional
competencies are more cohesive and experience less
conflict than less emotionally intelligent groups (Curseu
et al., 2014). The need to develop separate models of EI
at individual and group levels was earlier also posited by
Cherniss (2001) who viewed IEI and group-level intelli-
gence as contributors towards organizational effectiveness.
Gantt and Agazarian (2004) supported this theory by deve-
loping a systems phenomenon of EI which was applicable
at individual, group and organizational level thereby estab-
lishing that EI prevails at all three levels. Druskat and
Wolff (2001) and Koman and Wolff (2008) have intro-
duced a formulation of GEI significant for development of
effective work teams. They identify three conditions neces-
sary for group effectiveness—trust, sense of group identity
and sense of group efficacy—which can be achieved by
Kaur et al. 187

Table 2. Definitions of Team Emotional Intelligence

No. Author Definition

1 Druskat and Wolff (2001) Ability of the group to develop a set of norms that encourage expression, awareness and
regulation of the affective dynamics within the group, improving the ability of group members
to work together effectively.
2 Goyal and Akhilesh (2007) A concept that comprises the following four components—emotional perception of the
group, facilitating cognition of the group, emotional understanding of the group and emotional
management of the group.
3 Jordan and Lawrence (2009) Ability to increase one’s awareness and management of behaviour that contributes to positive
performance.
4 Jonsen (2011) Ability of group of individuals to tackle and manage complex and non-routine situations
together and those intelligent teams can outperform their most knowledgeable members.
5 Dunaway (2013) Emergent collective human ability that enhances interactions.
6 Ghuman (2011) A developed competency of behaviours and capabilities that allows for the perception,
recognition, understanding and management of emotions by the group such that the group
is able to successfully manage its own emotional state and also understand its context,

SE
purpose and interaction with the larger organizational emotional system.
Source: Authors’ own.

U
emotionally intelligent norms of the group and a cordial of combination of individual-level affective factors and

L
team atmosphere. Mote (2011) explains that elements of group-level contextual factors. They defined group

TEI—emotional awareness and management, internal and
external relationship management—correlate with a team’s
decision-making ability and open communication, thus
ER
developing high morale and achievement of results. The
various definitions given by different authors (Table 2)
have established TEI as a collective affective competency
M
IA
emotions as the ‘group’s affective state that arises from the
combination of its “bottom-up” components—affective
C
compositional effects—and its “top down” components—
affective context’. The top-down perspective explains how
individual feelings and behaviours arise as a result of group

dynamics. This characterizes group emotions as ‘(a) power-

of groups. ful forces which dramatically shape individual emotional
M

Efforts have also been made to measure EI at group response, (b) social norms that prescribe emotional feel-
level by Jordan et al., (2002). Their study regarded TEI as
O

ings and expression, (c) the interpersonal glue that keeps

an aggregated phenomenon of IEI and have succeeded in groups together and (d) a window to viewing a group’s
C

developing a scale for measuring Workgroup Emotional maturity and development’. This also indicates that group
Intelligence Profile, version 3 (WEIP-3). The scale was
R

emotional effect exists beyond the average of individual

further used to measure TEI in relation with the team emotions. Individuals feel and exhibit different behaviours
FO

performance and it was observed that teams with high EI
showed consistent high performance, whereas teams with
low EI initially showed low team performance but matched
T
while in a group as they might be influenced by the group
mood. The bottom-up perspective analyzes how emotions
at individual level combine at team level to influence

the high-performance team in due course of time. The

the outcome. The three focus areas in this approach are
O

reasons for the eventual decreasing gap in performance

(i) mean-level affect (mean emotions of group members),
were however unclear. The researchers suggested possible
N

(ii) affective homogeneity/heterogeneity (degree of vari-

reasons such as training, familiarity with other members or
dominance by some members; however, a conclusion
regarding these factors could not be reached.
The factors that impact TEI have not been reached upon
a consensus due to divergent opinions on the emergence of
TEI and the debate on whether it is a compositional or
compilation effect (Curseu et al., 2014). Currently, two main
perspectives have been proposed towards the approach of
TEI. The first perspective views TEI as the sum of individual-
level emotional competencies of the team members
(Jordan & Troth, 2004; Troth, 2009; Troth et al., 2012) and
the other refers to EI displayed as a result of interactions
within the group (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).
The foundation of these perspectives was laid by the
work of Barsade and Gibson (1998) on group emotions.
Their work suggests that group emotions are a resultant
ance of homogeneity or heterogeneity of emotions) and
(iii) the effects of minimum–maximum team member
effect on the group (the effect of most emotionally weak or
strong member of the group). The feelings and tendencies
of the individual members of a team club together to create
team emotion and hence the team mood is the average
of the team’s individual mood. The contagion effect of
emotions is an example of this approach. Cheerfulness
and gloom spread contagiously in a group especially when
it is cohesive.
On the same platform of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’
approach by Barsade and Gibson (1998), Elfenbein (2006)
presented two ways of conceptualizing EI of teams: one by
examining the EI of individual members and the other
by examining the EI that members display when they
188
interact with each other. The first perspective enables in
understanding the individual emotional framework that
members possess, while the second perspective helps in
understanding how teams use their emotional skills as
a ‘whole’ as a result of group dynamics (Shaw, 1976).
Through his longitudinal study on both these perspectives,
he concluded that both perspectives complement each
other rather than giving competition. Extending this
approach further, Ghuman (2011) has proposed a model of
GEI based on similar yet detailed perspectives—the norm
building ability (Druskat & Wolff, 2001) and the systems
perspective (Gantt & Agazarian, 2004). The norm-based
perspective takes into consideration the group synergy and
group culture (communications within the group, the
knowledge within the group and its assimilation and the
group value system and culture) and the group emotional
competence and emotional capability (a result of group
member interactions and group leader’s behaviour). The
systems perspective views a group as a single unit on the
lines of collective EI. The group processes of shared effect,
emotional contagion, transactive memory systems (TMS)
and team mental models (TMMs) allow the group to
develop collective understanding of its emotional self.
Figure 1 illustrates the three different yet parallel
approaches towards TEI.
The three approaches speculate two distinct perspec-
M
tives for viewing TEI and how they separately lead to the
construct of TEI. Though Elfenbein (2006) emphasizes on
M
the complementary relationship between the two perspec-
O
tives, the comprehensive interplay between the two remains
unexplored.
C
R
FO
T
behaviour
O
N
Figure 1. The Three Approaches for Group Emotions
Source: Authors’ own.
Vision 20(3)
To explore this relationship between variables of TEI, it
becomes imperative to first identify the various enablers
that can impact TEI. Scant literature has been devoted
towards these variables and hence this article attempts to
identify these variables by considering the two perspec-
tives (individual and team levels) and derive a relationship
between them to gain a deeper insight into TEI. This will
be achieved by proposing a conceptual model for enhance-
ment of TEI by incorporating the relationship between
various individual-level and team-level variables that
influence TEI.
Variables of Team Emotional
Intelligence
SE
The aim of this part of literature review is to identify vari-
ables that can help shape up TEI in organizations. Initially,
15 variables were identified for TEI on the basis of exten-
U
sive literature review across various industries. After the
identification of the variables, the relationship matrix is
L
achieved with a group problem-solving technique such as
IA
brainstorming sessions (Grzyorbowska, 2012) and seeking
C
opinion from experts (Attri, Dev & Sharma, 2013; Kumar,
Khan & Haleem, 2012). Since the study is based on expert
ER
opinion and relates to a specific topic, it was not possible to
reach out to many experts in this field. Hence, a select
group of experts was chosen to be a part of this study. In
the present study, three experts from HR domain having
more than 15 years of experience and four from academics
were identified for a focused group discussion related to
these variables. A focused group discussion was conducted
Kaur et al. 189
and eight variables for TEI were chosen through extensive
discussion. A separate discussion session amongst the
same participants was held to establish the mutual relation-
ship between these variables.
Individual Emotional Intelligence
An individual in a team with the highest or lowest level of
emotional skills might enhance or weaken the performance
of others or the overall team performance (Elfenbeim,
2006). Jordan and Lawrence (2009) through their theoreti-
cal model of examining TEI have established that IEI abili-
ties lead to a consistent pattern of behaviour in individual
members and collectively they form stable behaviour
patterns of the team. Studies by Woolley, Malone and
Chabris (2010) confirmed this concept that collective team
intelligence leads to team performance through team func-
tions. It is also believed that EI of a leader affects group
behaviour and EI due to emotional contagion theory by
Sharma (2011, 2013), and in reverse, group EI can also
affect an individual’s EI.
Training
ER
Barsade and Gibson (1998) argue that in sensitivity train-
ing, the groups tend to move from preoccupation resulting
M
from authority to preoccupation from personal relations.
Through this, training groups foster openness and trust and
M
build emotional confidence around them. This helps in
O
successfully achieving group goals. Findings by Clarke
(2010a, b) suggest that training when supported by active
C
participation in team-based learning activities brought
about a positive and strong relationship for development of
R
emotional abilities. Mote (2011) has also established how
FO
appropriate behavioural training can contribute towards
team intelligence.
T
Team Diversity
O
N
The studies by Woolley et al., (2010) as referred above
also came up with the conclusion that diversity in team
plays an important role in stimulating group intelligence
and creativity. The more diverse a group is, better is the
effect on group intelligence. The study also revealed a very
interesting point that gender diversity plays an equally
important part and inclusion of more women in the team
appears to increase collective intelligence. This is attrib-
uted to the reason that since women score higher on social
sensitivity and skills, they read other’s emotions better. The
findings of Curseu et al. (2014) have also showed that
increased presence of women in a group increases the
collective emotional intelligence of that group and leads
to improved teamwork and group effectiveness. Milliken
and Martin (1996) focused on the relationship between
team heterogeneity and team process and outcomes. They
proposed that people are attracted towards people of similar
nature and attitude and hence gel along well. Elfenbein
(2006) also regards the amount of diversity across individ-
uals as another way of examining EI at team level. Diversity
is considered as an individual-level attribute and includes
personality traits, work goals, work values, demographics
and functional backgrounds. Diversity is considered as an
individual level attribute and includes personality traits,
work goals, work values, demographics and functional
backgrounds (Riasudeen & Srinivasan, 2012).
Social Interactions
Social skills and interactions in a team also seem to have a
huge impact on TEI. One of the major findings of the same
study was that GEI was significantly associated with
SE
average social sensitivity of its group members. It is further
supported by the biological research by Trinity College,
Dublin (2012). Chopra and Kanji, Gopal and Kanji (2010)
U
also cited social economic factors and social interactions as
L
important factors that influence team intelligence. Ghuman
IA
(2011) states that group interactions and group socializa-
tion practices enhance a culture that fosters emotional
C
management of group members. Aslan et al., (2008) also
believed that social skills of a group impacted team effec-
tiveness. The study by Druskat and Wolff (2008) implies
that successful implicit and explicit communication
between group members facilitates the creation of a group
culture and value system that makes them more emotion-
ally aware as a collective unit.
Leadership
The research by Koman and Wolff (2008) shows that team
leader EI influences the development of group-level EI.
It is related to the emotionally competent group norms
(ECGN), which in turn leads to team performance. Studies
by Hur, Van den Berg and Wilderom (2011) also suggest
that transformational leadership acts as a mediator between
EI and team outcomes. Rafaeli and Worline (2001) also
emphasized that team leaders are essential for team success
as they are responsible for not only their own emotions but
also emotions of team members. Ghuman (2011) believes
that the ‘promotion of explicit behavior by group leader
foster the development of group emotional capability’.
Stubbs (2005) also found that EI of team leader also has an
effect on team performance. Barsade and Gibson (2014)
consider a group leader’s emotion as an important element
in shaping up of group emotions and moods and this also
depends on his power of influence.
Team Cohesiveness
Team cohesiveness refers to the emotional attraction and
liking in the group members (Barsade & Gibson, 1998) and
acts as a glue to keep the members bonded for increasing
190
productivity. Moore and Mamiseishvili (2012) recently
indicated through their studies that there is a significant
positive correlation between overall EI and total group
cohesiveness.
Team Knowledge and Sharing
Team knowledge refers to the collective knowledge of
members in a team. Team knowledge sharing refers to the
activity of sharing information and knowledge amongst
team members. Knowledge sharing helps in achieving a
collaborative culture and leads to improved levels of team
knowledge. An acquisition of advanced knowledge can
lead to higher intellect and hence a higher EI level. Lewis,
Belliveau, Herndon and Keller (2007) use the terminology
TMMs for ‘shared division of cognitive labor with respect
to encoding, storing and retrieving knowledge from differ-
ent domains’ and Ghuman (2011) further posits that TMMs
determine the ‘means that groups employ when dividing
the responsibility of knowledge creation and task perfor-
mance between group members’. Another related aspect
that is associated here is TMS which implies that each
member of the team becomes cognitively aware of know-
ledge base and experience base of other members through
past interactions and experiences which then leads to
shared understanding of group intelligence.
M
Team Environment
M
O
This refers to the team culture, team mood and relations
including trust, group efficacy and group identity. Positive
C
team relations promote a healthy atmosphere to work, in
turn leading to better communication and social inter-
R
actions. This gives a positive and healthy mental attitude to
FO
work in a team. Barsade and Gibson (1998) also consider
team culture as a top-down variable where cultural under-
standings in team tend to generate strongly felt emotions
T
and then strive towards controlling those emotions. Kelly
O
and Barsade (2001) and Ghuman (2011) discuss about the
shared affect, that is, group mood where individual moods
N
combine to create an affective group mood which plays a
major role in fostering TEI. On a similar concept, transfer-
ence of emotions or emotional contagion leads to crea-
tion of empathy and understanding of other’s emotions
(Ghuman, 2011). Dunaway (2013) while studying TEI and
team effectiveness found that trust, group identity and
group efficacy reinforce TEI leading to increased partici-
pation and better results.
Methodology
For deriving the relationship between the variables identi-
fied above, the technique of ISM has been applied. ‘ISM is
an interactive learning process in which a set of different
and directly related elements or variables of interest are
structured into a systematic hierarchical model known as
Vision 20(3)
structural model’ (Sage, 1977; Warfield, 1974). The mental
models developed with the various variables are generally
vague in terms of interrelationship between the variables.
Interpretive structural modelling helps in shaping a clear
understanding of the variables and their relationship with
other variables (Singh & Sushil, 2013). Interpretive struc-
tural modelling can hence be defined as ‘a process that
transforms unclear and poorly articulated mental models of
systems into visible, well-defined models useful for many
purposes’ (Sushil, 2012). It is a well-established methodo-
logy for identifying relationships among specific items,
which define a problem or an issue. This methodology is
termed as interpretive as it is based on group judgements
and the group decides how the various elements are related.
It is structured as on the basis of interrelationships, the
structure is derived from complex elements. It is also a
SE
modelling technique as the overall structure is portrayed in
the form of a directed graph or digraph (Agarwal, Shankar
U
& Tiwari, 2007; Ramesh et al., 2008). It is used to repre-
sent interrelationships between the various variables of an
L
issue and helps to impose order and direction of complex-
IA
ity of relationships among systems (Agarwal et al., 2007;
Ramesh et al., 2008). Since ISM is a powerful technique to
C
develop relational models, it finds its relevance in various
ER
areas, such as engineering, HRM, e-commerce, knowledge
management and logistics. A number of researchers have
also applied ISM for studies pertaining to human variables,
such as group perceptions regarding complex issues
(Malone, 1975), perception differences (Bolanos, Fontela,
Nenclares & Pastor, 2005), behavioural factors (Muduli
et al., 2013), performance shaping and human reliability
(Toriizuka, 2001). The application of ISM by various con-
tributors from varied research fields is shown in Table 3.
The technique enables to form a structured pattern
among the elements that are directly or indirectly related
to each other but leading to a common complex issue
(Janes, 1988). There are a number of factors that can help
in the enhancement of TEI that may or may not be related
to each other. Also, a few of them can function indepen-
dently and few can only function in conjunction and depen-
dency on others. When considered independently and in
isolation, these factors seem equally important even though
some variables might have stronger driving power than
others. These issues prevent the researcher from having
a holistic view of the problem. In the current article, ISM
helps combat these issues to develop a systematic relation-
ship that explains how these variables are related to each
other and how this relationship can lead to enhancement of
TEI. It also enables to classify the variables on the basis of
their driving power and dependence so that strategic deci-
sions can be taken and right variables can be focused upon.
Since there were different views on the emergence and
development of TEI, it is important to analyze the relation-
ship between these variables and TEI. The use of ISM
gives a definite directed model illustrating the way these
identified variables interact with each other to enhance
Kaur et al. 191

Table 3. Application of ISM

S. No. Application Authors

1 Modelling barriers for implementation Attri et al. (2012), Raj and Attri (2011)
of total quality management (TQM)
2 Supply chain Faisal, Banwat and Shankar (2006), Grzybowska (2012), Ramesh et al. (2008),
Ravi and Shankar (2005)
3 Knowledge management and Singh and Kant (2008), Anantatmula (2008), Anantatmula and Kanungo (2010),
knowledge sharing barriers Sharma, Singh and Kumar (2012)
4 Vendor selection Mandal and Deshmukh (1994)
5 Bionic systems Agarwal and Vrat (2015a; 2015b)
6 R&D, production Haleem et al. (2012)
Source: Authors’ own.

TEI. The relationships and their degree of impact (on basis Initial Reachability Matrix
of driving power) can enable the researchers and practitio-

SE
ners to present a more clear and different perspective on The four symbols (V, A, X and O) in SSIM are then substi-
the emergence of TEI. The variables are to be defined first tuted by 1s and 0s to convert it into the initial reachability
matrix (Table 5).

U
and the contextual relationship between them is deter-
mined. Based on this contextual relationship, the structural
(1) If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry

L
self-interaction matrix (SSIM), reachability matrix, lower
in the reachability matrix is 1 and the (j, i) entry

IA
triangular format of reachability matrix, digraph for ISM
model and the ISM model are developed (Saxena, 1990, becomes 0.

C
Sushil & Vrat, 2006). The various steps in this technique (2) If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry
in the matrix is 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
ER
have been explained below.
(3) If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry
in the matrix is 1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1.
Structural Self-interaction Matrix
M

(4) If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry
After the identification of eight variables by extensive in the matrix is 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.
M

literature review, brainstorming and focused group discus-

O

sions between industry experts and academicians, the con- Final Reachability Matrix
textual relationship among the identified variables was
C

determined. The experts and academicians are well con- 1* entries are included to incorporate transitivity to fill
the gap, if any, in the opinion collected during development
R

versant with practical team dynamics issues. The contex-

tual relationship chosen was ‘leads to’ type which means of SSIM. After incorporating the transitivity, the final
FO

variable i leads to variable j. The relationship between any reachability matrix is obtained in Table 6.
two factors (denoted by i and j) is considered and the direc-
tion of the relationship is depicted by the following four Partitioning the Reachability Matrix
T

symbols V, A, X and O in SSIM (Table 4):

O

From the final reachability matrix, for each factor, reacha-

bility set and antecedent sets are derived. The reachability
N

(1) V if factor i will influence factor j

(2) A if factor i will be influenced by factor j set represents the factor itself and the other factor that
(3) X when factors i and j will influence each other it may impact, whereas the antecedent set consists of
(4) O for no relation between the factors, i and j are the factor itself and the other factor that may impact it.
unrelated The intersection of these sets is then derived. The top level

Table 5. Initial Reachability Matrix for TEI

Table 4. Structural Self-interaction Matrix (SSIM) for TEI
Elements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Elements 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
1 X X V X X O A 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
2 O V V V V A 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
3 V O V O V 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
4 X V V A 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
5 V V V 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
6 A X 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
7 A 8 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
Source: Authors’ own. Source: Authors’ own.
192 Vision 20(3)

Table 6. Final Reachability Matrix for TEI Conical Matrix (Lower triangular matrix)
Elements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Conical matrix is developed by clustering factors in the
1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 same level across the rows and columns of the final reach-
2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1* ability matrix. The driving power of a factor is derived by
3 0 1 1 1 0 1 1* 1 summing up the number of ones in the rows and its depend-
4 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 ence power by summing up the number of ones in the
5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 columns. The driving power and dependence power ranks
6 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
are calculated by giving highest ranks to the factors that
7 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
8 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
have the maximum number of ones in the rows and columns
respectively. The matrix is provided in Table 8.
Source: Authors’ own.
Notes: * indicates transitive link.
Development of Digraph
in the ISM hierarchy is occupied by factors for which the From the conical form of reachability matrix, the prelimi-
nary digraph including transitive links is obtained. After

SE
reachability and the intersection sets are the same. These
factors will not lead the other factors above their own removing the indirect links, a final digraph is developed in
Figure 2.
level and once identified, they are removed from consider-

U
In the figure, the highest level variables called perfor-
ation. Then, the same process is repeated to find out the
mance variables are team cohesion and team knowledge.
factors in the next level. This process is continued until

L
In the next level, the operational variables are IEI, social
the level of each factor is found. These levels help in build-

IA
interactions and team environment. The base strategic
ing the diagraph and the ISM model. For TEI, the levels
level is formed by leadership, training and team diversity.

C
that emerged are given in Table 7.
Applying appropriate strategies by incorporating these
ER
variables and by focusing on the operational variables can
Level I—Team cohesion (6), team knowledge and help to reach the desired performance and skill levels.
sharing (7)
M

Level II—IEI (1), social interactions (4) and team

MICMAC Analysis
M

environment (8)
Level III—Leadership (5) Matrice d’Impacts Croises-Multiplication Appliqúean
O

Level IV—Training (2) Classment (cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to

C

Level V—Team diversity (3) classification) is abbreviated as MICMAC. The purpose of

R
FO

Table 7. Levels of Variables of TEI

T

Iteration Element Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Set Level

O

I 1 1,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 1,4,5,6,7,8

2 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 2,3 2
N

3 2,3,4,6,7,8 3 3
4 1,4,6,7,8 1,2,3,4,5,8 1,4,8
5 1,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,5 1,5
6 1,6,7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,6,7 I
7 1,6,7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,6,7 I
8 1,4,6,7,8 1,2,3,4,5,8 1,4,8
II 1 1,4,5,8 1,2,4,5,8 1,4,5,8 II
2 1,2,4,5,8 2,3 2
3 2,3,4,8 3 3
4 1,4,8 1,2,3,4,5,8 1,4,8 II
5 1,4,5,8 1,2,5 1,5
8 1,4,8 1,2,3,4,5,8 1,4,8 II
III 2 2,5 2,3 2
3 2,3 3 3
5 5 2,5 5 III
IV 2 2 2,3 2 IV
V 3 3 3 3 V
Source: Authors’ own.
Kaur et al. 193

Table 8. Conical Matrix for TEI

Elements 6 7 1 4 8 5 2 3 DP
6 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
7 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6
4 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
8 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
3 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6
Dep 7 7 6 6 6 3 2 1
Source: Authors’ own.

SE
U
L
IA
C
ER
M
M
O
C
R
FO
T
O
N

Figure 2. Digraph of TEI

Source: Authors’ own.

MICMAC analysis is to analyze the drive power and
dependence power of factors. Based on their drive power
and dependence power, the factors have been classified
into four categories, that is, autonomous factors, linkage
factors, dependent and independent factors. ‘Autonomous
variables’ are characterized by weak driving power and
weak dependence. They are relatively disconnected and
bear no relevance to the system. ‘Linkage variables’ have a
strong driving power and strong dependence. Any action
on these factors will have an effect on others and also an
impact on themselves. ‘Dependent variables’ have weak
drive power but strong dependence and finally ‘independent’
variables have a strong drive power but weak dependence.
In Figure 3, the MICMAC shows the following results:
Cluster I—Linkage variables: IEI (1), social interac-
tions (4) and team environment (8)
Cluster II—Independent variables (drivers): training
(2), team diversity (3) and leadership (5)
Cluster III—Autonomous variables: none
Cluster IV—Dependent variables: team cohesion (6)
and team knowledge (7)
194
Figure 3. MICMAC for TEI
Source: Authors’ own.
Results and Discussion
The results have been interpreted by combining the results
of ISM method and the MICMAC analysis. The bottom
levels of the digraph are termed as ‘strategic variables’
which have the maximum driving power, fairly independ-
M
ent in nature and decisions about these variables are mostly
M
taken at strategic level. From the digraph (Figure 2), it can
be deciphered that team diversity acts as the first strategic
O
variable and further decisions are based on it. Team diver-
C
sity leads to taking appropriate training decisions by the
management. Proper training to the individuals in the right
R
stream can lead to enhancing of leadership qualities and
FO
developing effective leaders. A leader is responsible for
maintaining cordial social interactions and collaborative
team environment. Effective and trained leaders help in
elevating the EI levels of individual members and also lead
T
to increase in social interaction amongst teammates. Thus,
O
the strategic variables, namely, team diversity, training and
N
leadership, lead to the second level of ‘operational vari-
ables’ of IEI, social interactions and team environment.
The more the members interact with each other, the more
understanding and emotional concern they would develop,
thereby resulting in a positive team culture, mutual trust
and a sense of association with the team. These changes in
the overall team environment ultimately lead to advanced
levels of cohesion and bonding in the team. The boosted
cohesiveness helps in better sharing of information and
leads to enriched collective team knowledge. Team cohe-
sion and team knowledge and sharing thus represent
the ‘performance or outcome variables.’ These variables
exhibit the final outcome, that is, TEI through the interplay
of strategic and operational variables. These variables
cannot influence any other variable further, rather they
exhibit the final outcome by representing the resultant
effect of variables at lower levels.
Vision 20(3)
The analysis of MICMAC (Figure 3) reiterates the point
that team diversity, training and leadership are independent
variables and strongest drivers of TEI as these are repre-
sented in cluster II which corresponds to the strategic vari-
ables in digraph. Cluster I represents the linkage variables
which are similar to the operational variables and are
strong drivers of TEI but at the same time, they are depen-
dent on other variables for their functioning. Individual
EI, social interactions and team environment belong to
this category. The changes can be made on these variables
for achieving the objective of enhancing TEI. Cluster IV
represents the dependent variables with least driving power
and highest dependence. They do not drive any variable
further except the final outcome of enhancement of TEI.
Such variables are team knowledge and sharing and team
cohesiveness which do not lead to achievement of any
SE
other variable but the performance outcome itself. Cluster
III represents the autonomous variables which are not
U
related to the system. None of the variables fall in that
category which justifies the selection of right variables for
L
this study.
IA
The interplay between the variables deduced from the
digraph (Figure 2) is observed to resemble closely the basic
C
systems model of input–process–output (IPO) as shown
ER
in Figure 4.
McGrath (1964) adopted this approach to develop an
IPO model for team effectiveness. Inputs refer to the ante-
cedent factors which include individual team member
characteristics and team-level and organizational-level
factors. These input factors combine to drive the team
processes related to team interactions and are further trans-
formed to outputs that represent the team results. Gladestein
(1984) advanced it further to apply the same for studying
variables of group behaviour. The model predicts that
group processes lead to group effectiveness and are a result
of intergroup and intragroup interactions. The IPO model
has laid a valuable foundation for researchers and has
been adapted in several ways (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Ilgen
et al., 2005; McGrath, Arrow & Berdahl, 2001). In the
current article, the IPO model has provided a different
perspective for analyzing the individual- and team-level
variables of TEI.
It has been observed from the results that TEI is influ-
enced by the strategic interplay among both individual-
and team-level variables. Individual-level variables have
been referred to as the factors whose effect is not viewed
as a collective or overall team effect. The effect is rather
considered separately for each individual team member.
Every member of the team can be regarded as a lone
contributor towards TEI. Variables that can be included in
this category are IEI, team diversity, social interactions,
Figure 4. IPO Systems Model
Source: Authors’ own.
Kaur et al. 195
Figure 5. Model for TEI
Source: Authors’ own.
leadership and training. Individual EI implies that EI level
of each member of the team contributes towards enhance-
ment of TEI. Similarly, every member makes the team
ER
diverse and brings newness to the team by bringing in his
own views, ideas and thoughts which have an impact on
TEI. Social interactions between the team members lead
M
to the formation of collective team relations and team
M
cohesion which result in better understanding of emotions
of each other. Trainings are imparted to different members
O
to strengthen their knowledge, skill and personality.
C
Each member’s expertise and personality traits contribute
towards enhancement of TEI. The effect of these variables
R
on TEI can hence be termed as ‘lone effect’. The other set
FO
of variables consider team as a single entity and their effect
is viewed as the collective collaborative effect of the
individual variables. This set can include team environ-
T
ment, team knowledge and team cohesiveness as they are
shaped up by the intermingling of variables at individual
O
level. The effect of such variables on TEI can be termed
N
as ‘collaborative effect’.
A conceptual model is thus proposed (Figure 5) to
explain that lone effect of individual-oriented variables
results in the collaborative effect of team-oriented vari-
ables which then leads to the enhancement of TEI.
The ‘lone effect’ can be related to the bottom-up
approach, individual-level and norm-based conceptualiza-
tion, while the ‘collaborative effect’ can be compared to the
top-down approach, team EI and systems-level approach
proposed by Barsade and Gibson (1998), Elfenbein (2006)
and Ghuman (2011), respectively.
Conclusion and Implications
The proposed model is in sync with the generic systems
IPO model as discussed in the earlier part of the article.
SE
U
L
IA
The ‘lone’ variables are representing the inputs, ‘collabora-
tive’ variables form the process part as these are the
C
operational variables and TEI is the resultant output.
Enhancement of TEI is thus a sequential process where
individual-level attributes form a collaborated attribute that
has an impact on TEI. The proposed model takes the earlier
three approaches (Figure 1) a step forward by establishing
the unidirectional link towards enhancement of TEI, in
contrast to the divergent approach described in the earlier
models.
The article allows managers to examine the make-up of
the team emotions through the individual- and team-level
approaches of team emotions. Managers can thus focus on
the right kind of diversity, leadership, training and interac-
tions to promote enriched knowledge level, a conducive
team environment and elevated cohesiveness for shaping
up TEI. The model will help organizations to focus on the
right variables to enhance TEI, thus producing effective
teams and efficient results. The major limitation of the
study of choosing a small group of experts can be utilized as
a future scope for conducting a survey on a broader group.
The models developed through ISM are not statistically
validated; however, structural equation modelling (SEM)
also called as linear structural relationship approach has the
capability of testing such models. The findings and the con-
ceptual model proposed herein contribute to an emergent
concept of literature and suggest that better understanding
of TEI can effectively contribute to team productivity. The
insights into the factors that influence TEI can provide a
foundation for building theory and empirically validating
the construct to explain team dynamics.
References
Adams, S.L., & Anantatmula, V. (2010). Social and behavioral
influences on team process. Project Management Journal,
41(4), 89–98.
196
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. (2007). Modeling
agility of supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management,
36(4), 443–457.
Agarwal, A., & Vrat, P. (2015a). A TISM based bionic model
of organizational excellence. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 16(4), 361–376.
Agarwal, A., & Vrat, 0050. (2015b). Line and staff functions in
organizations revisited: A bionic systems analogy using ISM.
Vision, 19(2), 89–103.
Anantatmula, V.S., (2008). Leadership role in making effective
use of KM.VINE, 38(4), 445–460.
Anantatmula, V.S. and Kanungo, S. (2010). Modeling enablers
for successful KM implementation. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(1), 100–113.
Ashkanasy, N. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level
perspective. Multi-level issues in organization behaviour and
strategy. Research in Multilevel Issues, 2, 9–54.
Aslan, S., Ozata, M., & Mete, M. (2008). The investigation of
effects of group emotional intelligence on team effectiveness.
Humanity and Social Science Journal, 3(2), 104–115.
Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2012). Interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Research Journal
of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3–8.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i):
Technical manual. Toronto: Multi Health Systems.
Barsade, D.G.S., & Gibson, E. (1998). Group emotion, a view
from top and bottom. Research on Managing Groups and
Teams, 1(82), 81–102.
Barsade, S.G., & Gibson, D.E. (2014). Work teams have emo-
M
tions, too (and you need to understand them). The European
Business Review, 8–10.
M
Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J., McLendon, C.L. (2003).
Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarifi-
O
cation of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
C
88(6), 989–1004.
Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A., & Pastor, P. (2005). Using
R
interpretive structural modelling in strategic decision-making
groups. Journal of Management History, 43(6), 877–895.
FO
Chang, J., Sy, T., & Choi, J. (2012). Team emotional intelligence
and performance: Interactive dynamics between leaders and
members. Small Group Research, 43(1), 75–104.
T
Cherniss, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and organiza-
O
tional effectiveness. In Goleman, D. and Cherniss, C (Eds),
The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 182–206). San
N
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clarke, N. (2010a). Developing emotional intelligence abilities
through team-based learning. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 21(2), 119–138.
———. (2010b). Emotional intelligence abilities and their
relationships with team processes. Team Performance
Management, 16(1/2), 6–32.
Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. (1997). What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive
suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.
Curseu, L.P., Pluut, H., Boros, S., & Meslec, N. (2014). The
magic of collective emotional intelligence in learning groups:
No guys needed for the spell!. British Journal of Psychology,
106(2), 217–234.
Curseu, P.L., Boros, S., & Oerlemans, L.A. (2012). Task and
relationship conflict in short-term and long-term groups—
The critical role of emotion regulation. International Journal
of Conflict Management, 23(1), 97–107.
Vision 20(3)
Druskat, V.U., and Wolff, S.B. (1999). Effects and timing of
developmental peer appraisals in self-managing work groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 58–74.
Druskat, V.U., & Wolff, S.B. (2001). Reprint. Building the
emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review,
March, 80–90.
Dunaway, M.M. (2013). IS learning: The impact of gender and
team emotional intelligence. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 24(3),189–202.
Elfenbein, H., Polzer, J., & Ambady, N. (2006). Can teams have
emotional skills? The case of recognizing others’ emotions. In
C.E.J. Härtel, N.M. Ashkanasy & W.J. Zerbe (Eds), Research
on emotion in organizations: Functionality, intentionality
and morality (pp. 87–120). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Elfenbein, Hillary Anger. (2007). 7 Emotion in Organizations.
The Academy of Management Annals. 1(1), 315–386.
Faisal, M.N., Banwat, D., & Shankar, R. (2006). Supply chain
SE
risk mitigation: Modeling the enablers. Business Process
Management Journal, 12(4), 532–552.
U
Gantt, S.P., & Agazarian, Y.M. (2004). Systems centred emo-
tional intlligence: Beyond individual systems to organiza-
L
tional systems. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 147–169.
IA
George, J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emo-
tional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.
C
Ghuman, U. (2011). Building a model of group emotional intel-
ligence. Team Performance Management, 17(7/8), 418–439.
ER
Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task
group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4),
499–517.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
———. (2013). Improving emotional intelligence. Industrial
Management, 18–22.
Gopal, P.K.C., & Kanji, K. (2010). Emotional intelligence: A cat-
alyst for inspirational leadership and management excellence.
Total Quality Management, 21(10), 971–1004.
Goyal, A., & Akhilesh, K. (2007). Interplay among innovative-
ness, cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence and social
capital of work teams. Team Performance Management,
13(7/8), 206–226.
Grzybowska, K. (2012). Sustainability in the supply chain:
Analysing the enablers. In P. Golinska & C. Romano (Eds),
Environmental issues in supply chain management (pp.
25–40). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Haleem, A., Sushil, Qadri, M.A., & Kumar, S. (2012). Analysis
of critical success factors of world-class manufacturing prac-
tices: An application of interpretative structural modelling
and interpretative ranking process, Production Planning &
Control, 23(10/11), 722–734.
Hur, Y., Van Den Berg, P., & Wilderom, C. (2011).
Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional
intelligence and team outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 22(4),
591–603.
Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams
in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI
models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
Janes, F.R. (1988). Trans Inst MC, 10(3).
Jonsen, K. (2011). Something new: Measuring team IQ. Retrieved
8 February 2014, from http://www.imd.org/research/challenges/
team-intelligence-challenge-management-karsten-jonsen.cfm
Kaur et al. 197
Jordan, P., Ashkanasy, N., Hartel, C., & Hooper, G. (2002).
Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale development and
relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.
Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 195–214.
Jordan, P., & Troth, A. (2004). Managing emotions during team
problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolu-
tion. Human Performance, 17(2), 195–218.
Jordan, P.J. and Lawrence, S.A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in
Teams: Development and initial validation of the Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile – Short Version (WEIP-S).
Journal of Management & Organization, 15(4), 452–469.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kelly, J.R., & Barsade, S.G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small
groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 86(1), September, 99–130.
Kim, P., Lee, D., Lee, Y., Huang, C. and Makany, T. (2011).
Collective intelligence ratio: Measurement of real-time
multimodal interactions in team projects. Team Performance
Management, 17(1/2), 41–62.
Koman, E.S., & Wolff, S. (2008). Emotional intelligence compe-
tencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examina-
tion of the impact of emotional intelligence on team perfor-
mance. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 55–75.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and
ER
teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12):
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (333–375). New
M
York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2008). Team learning, devel-
M
opment and adaptation. In Group learning (pp. 15–44).
O
Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Kumar, S., Khan, J., & Haleem, A. (2012). Enablers of techno-
C
logy management: An ISM approach. Faridabad, Haryana:
YMCA University of Science & Technology.
R
Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007).
FO
Group cognition, membership change, and performance:
Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective
knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 103(2), 159–178.
T
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Coté, S., Beers, M. (2005). Emotion
O
regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.
N
Emotion, 5(1), 113–118.
Maini, J., Singh, B., & Kaur, P. (2012). The relationship among
emotional intelligence and outcome variables: A study of
Indian employees. Vision, 16(3), 187–199.
Malone, D. (1975). An introduction to the application of inter-
pretive structural modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(3),
397–404.
Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. (1994). Vendor selection using
interpretive structural modeling (ISM). International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 14(6), 52–59.
Mandell Barbara, P.S. (2003). Relationship between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 387–404.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?
In Emotional development and emotional intelligence:
Implication for educators. New York, NY: Basic Books.
McGrath, J. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
McGrath, J., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. (2001). The study of
groups: Past, present, and future. Personality & Social
Psychology Review, 4(1), 95–105.
Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching forcommon
threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in
organizational groups. Academy of Management Review,
21(2), 402–433.
Moore, A., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Examining the relation-
ship between emotional intelligence and group cohesion.
Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 296–302.
Mote, G. (2011). Build emotional intelligence of your team.
Corridor Business Journal, October, 17–23.
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., Kannan, D., Geng, Y.
(2013). Role of behavioural factors in green supply chain
management implementation in Indian mining industries.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 76, 50–60.
Nicholas, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence abilities and their
SE
relationships with team processes. Team Performance
Management, 16(1/2), 6–32.
Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:
U
Psychometric investigation with reference to established
trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6),
L
425–448.
IA
Petrides, K., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of
trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British
C
Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289.
Prati, Melita L., Douglas, C., Gerald, R.F., Ammeter, A.P.,
Buckley, M.R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership
effectiveness, and team outcomes. The International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21–40.
Rafaeli, A., & Worline, M. (2001). Individual emotions in work
organisations. Social Science Information, 40(1), 95–123.
Raj, T., & Attri, R. (2011). Identification and modelling of barri-
ers in the implementation of TQM. International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, 28(2), 153–179.
Ramesh, A., Banwet, D., & Shankar, R. (2008). Modelling the
enablers of supply chain collaboration. International Journal
of Logistics System Management, 4(6), 617–633.
Ravi, V., & Shankar, R. (2005). Analysis of interactions among
the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 72(8), 1011–1029.
Rhee, S.-Y. (2006). Group emotions and group outcomes: The
role of group-member interactions. In E.A. Mannix, M.A.
Neale & P. Cameron (Eds), Affect and groups (research on
managing groups and teams) (Vol. 10, pp. 65–95). Binglay,
U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Riasudeen, S., & Srinivasan, P. (2012). Work group diversity and
their relationship with individual well being: An empirical
study. Abhigyan, 30(2), 24–33.
Sage, A. (1977). Interpretive structural modeling: Methodology
for large-scale systems. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Saxena J.P., Sushil, J., & Vrat, P. (1990). The impact of indi-
rect relationships in classification of variables: A MICMAC.
System Research, 7(4), 245–253.
Saxena, J.P., Sushil & Vrat, P. (2006). Policy and strategy
formulation: An application of flexible systems methodo-
logy. Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management,
New Delhi: GIFT Publishing.
Sharma, B., Singh, M., & Kumar, A. (2012). Knowledge
sharing barriers: An integrated approach of ISM and AHP.
Singapore, Singapore: IACSIT Press.
198
Sharma¸ Radha R. (2006). Emotional Intelligence as a Mediator
in Executive Burnout, Cutting Edge Monograph,¸ Academy
of Human Resource Development¸ USA¸ pp.7–13.
Sharma¸ Radha R. (2007). Indian Model of Executive Burnout.
Vikalpa (Journal of Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmedabad), 32(2), April-June, 23–38.
Sharma, R. (2008). Emotional intelligence from 17th to 21st
century: Perspectives and directions for future research.
VISION—The Journal of Business Perspective, 12(1), 59–66.
———. (2012). Measuring social and emotional intelligence
competencies in the Indian context. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 19(1), 30–47.
Sharma, R.R. (2011). Intertwining 360 degree feedback & multi-
method to enhance emotional intelligence of managers in
India. Academy of Taiwan Business Management Review,
7(2), 1–14.
Sharma, R.R. (2013). Primal leadership: An imperative for effec-
tive public service management in accountable governance
for development: Setting agenda beyond 2015. In ANSA
(pp. 349–379). Bagladesh: South Asia Region & BRAC
University.
Shaw, M. (1976). Group dynamics: The psychology of small
group behaviour. New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill.
Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers:
An interpretive structural modeling approach. International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Manage-
ment, 3(2), 141–150.
Smith, E.R., Seger, C.R., & Mackie, D.M. (2007). Can emotions
be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual cri-
M
teria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3),
M
431–446.
Stubbs, S.E. (2005). Emotional intelligence competencies in
O
the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the
impact of emotional intelligence on group performance. s.l.:
C
Case Western Reserve University.
Sushil (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model.
R
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2),
FO
87–106.
Thorndike, E. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s
Magazine, 140, 227–235.
T
Toriizuka, T. (2001). Application of performance shaping factor
O
(PSF) for work improvement in industrial plant mainte-
nance tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
N
28(3/4), 225–236.
Vision 20(3)
Troth, A. (2009). A model of team emotional intelligence,
conflict, task complexity and decision making. International
Journal of Organization Behaviour, 14(1), 26–40.
Troth, A., Jordan, P., Lawrence, S., & Tse, H.H. (2012). A multi-
level model of emotional skills, communication performance,
and task performance in teams. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 33(5), 700–722.
Warfield, J. (1974). Developing interconnected matrices in struc-
tural modelling. IEEE Transactions on Systems Men and
Cybernetics, 4(1), 51–81.
Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., &
Malone, T.W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence
factor in the performance of human groups. Retrieved
on 27 May 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2010/09/100930143339.htm
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K.W. (2004). Decoupling task and
relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional
SE
processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589–605.
U
Authors’ Bio-sketch
L
Irameet Kaur has 13 years of research, teaching and
IA
industry experience in various human resource functions in
pharmaceutical and recruitment industry. She is presently
C
working as Faculty at The Northcap University (formerly
ER
ITM University), Gurgaon, India.
Charu Shri is Head—School of Management, The
Northcap University (formerly ITM University), Gurgaon,
India. She has more than 12 years of experience as a
management educator and trainer. She has more than 30
research papers and articles to her credit. She also has one
edited book and many chapters in different books to her
credit.
K.M. Mital is the Director—Strategic HR, Knowledge
Podium Systems Pvt. Ltd, Dehradun, India. He is Distin-
guished Research Professor, The Northcap University,
Gurgaon, Haryana, India. He has over 37 years of experi-
ence with different public sector enterprises. He has 300
publications to his credit which include 200 papers and
six books.