SECTION 2.0

Emotions, Emotional Intelligence, and Projects

2.1 Critical Perspectives on Project Management: Projects are Emotional

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

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

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

2.2 The Concept of Emotional Intelligence

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

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

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

2.2.1 Ability Models of Emotional Intelligence

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

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

2.2.2 Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence

Mixed models of emotional intelligence are so called due to the inclusion of a range of noncognitive capabilities or personality traits as part of their overall conceptualization of the construct. As a result, many of the measures used to assess emotional intelligence from this perspective have received some degree of criticism due to sharing an extensive degree of overlap with existing measures of personality such that the independent and unique nature of the construct is compromised (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998).

These models include those that use sets of rating scales similar to those used in personality measures. The two most significant models in this category are Bar-On's (1997) model of emotional and social intelligence and Dulewicz and Higgs’ (2003) model of leader emotional intelligence. Bar-On (1997) defines EI as “an array of noncognitive capabilities, competences, and skills that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures (p.16).” Bar-On's (1997) model includes five components of emotional intelligence, with each dimension labeled as follows: (1) intrapersonal, (2) interpersonal, (3) adaptability, (4) stress management, and (5) general mood. The first area, intrapersonal skills, includes skills of emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard, self-actualization, and independence. Individuals who possess these skills are able to recognize and understand their own feelings, express their feelings, appraise themselves accurately, realize their potential, and think and act in a self-directed manner without being emotionally dependent on others. The second dimension of interpersonal skills includes skills related to interpersonal relationships, social responsibility, and empathy. Individuals with significant skills are able to establish and maintain mutual and emotionally close relationships and appreciate the feelings of others. The third EI dimension in this model is adaptability and includes skills in problem solving, reality testing, and flexibility. The fourth dimension involves stress management and includes skills related to stress tolerance and impulse control. Finally, the fifth dimension addresses general mood and includes measures of happiness and optimism. Bar-On's instrument to measure EI, Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) was developed in 1997 (Bar-On, 2004). The EQ-i is designed using a five-point scale ranging from not true of me to true of me on the scale, which is comprised of 133 items to obtain a total emotional quotient (EQ), based on five main components of Bar-On model: intrapersonal EQ, interpersonal EQ, adaptability EQ, stress management EQ, and general mood EQ.

The second model in this category is the EI model developed by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003). These authors presented a set of 15 competences which they considered to be associated with leadership effectiveness, grouped into three categories: emotional, managerial, and intellectual. Here they identified seven emotional competences comprising emotional intelligence as (1) motivation, (2) conscientiousness, (3) sensitivity, (4) influence, (5) self-awareness, (6) emotional resilience, and (7) intuitiveness. Similar to Bar-On's model previously mentioned, the EI model includes aspects that are similar to existing measures of personality. For example, Bar-On's model includes optimism, while Dulewicz and Higgs’ model include conscientiousness. These models therefore integrate both aspects of emotional intelligence that are more similar to a set of character traits or personality dispositions (Petrides & Furnham, 2003) as well as sets of competences or skills that also include noncognitive dimensions, such as stress tolerance (Bar-On, 1997) and motivation (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003).

2.2.3 Competence Models of Emotional Intelligence

The most widely known competence model of emotional intelligence is that based on Goleman's (1995, 1998) earlier work on emotional intelligence. In this model, EI is defined as “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions effectively in ourselves and others,” and emotional competences as “a learned capacity based on EI that contributes to effective performance at work” (Sala, 2006). This formed the basis for the development of the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), which proposes that emotional intelligence comprises four competency clusters pertaining to personal and social competence. Goleman's (1998) original theoretical model included five EI constructs: (1) self-awareness, (2) self-regulation, (3) self-motivation, (4) empathy, and (5) social skills. Later, Goleman and colleagues (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002) extended the earlier model and presented a model containing 18 competences, grouping these into four cluster areas: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. The four competence clusters are defined as follows: (1) self-awareness is the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions; (2) self-management involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances; (3) social awareness includes the ability to sense, understand, and react to others’ emotions while comprehending social networks; and (4) relationship management is the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict. Both self- and peer-assessed measures of these competences are obtained with generally a 360-degree assessment being advocated to provide an overall measure of emotional intelligence.

2.2.4 Limitations with Differing Models

These differing models of emotional intelligence that are used in researching emotional intelligence and underpinning developmental interventions, can cause much confusion to those new to the topic. It is important to differentiate between them, however, as the concept of emotional intelligence is perceived rather differently. Although all the models contain a focus on emotional awareness, some of them diverge significantly by also including many other aspects that individuals argue are not technically part of emotional intelligence. For example, aspects of motivation that are contained in the mixed models are thought by many not to be a valid component of emotional intelligence itself, although clearly it may be important in terms of individuals deciding to use their emotional intelligence. For some, the additional components contained in these models invalidate their use. Further, these differing models also reflect more fundamental disagreements among researchers as to whether emotional intelligence is fundamentally similar to an intelligence or to an aspect of personality. The uses of differing models by researchers, therefore, tends to reflect their positions on how they view the nature of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Schutte et al., 1997; Dulewicz, Higgs, & Slaski, 2003). However, a number of authors have pointed out significant limitations with both competence and mixed model conceptualizations of emotional intelligence.

There are perhaps two major criticisms that are targeted at the use of these models of EI. The first of these concerns is the significant overlap shared with measures based upon these models and existing measures of personality. This means that, although they are useful in directing us to aspects of personality that might be associated with emotional functioning, they may not in themselves represent a new and independent construct (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004). For example, a number of studies have shown Bar-On's (1997) EQ-i measure to have strong associations with measures of personality and, in some cases, on all five dimensions (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Dawda & Hart, 2000; Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000). This contrasts with findings examining the validity of the MSCEIT, which is the performance-based test designed to measure emotional abilities; in this construct, correlations with personality have been far more moderate (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; O’Connor & Little, 2003).

The second major concern relates to the use of self-report scales to measure EI competences or abilities. These rely upon self endorsements of descriptive statements about individuals, which have been found to have low validity. Self reports of general intelligence compared to actual ability test results have generally been found to weakly correlate (r = 0.00 to 0.35) (Paulus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). Research has also similarly found that self-report EI and actual performance-based measures of EI share little variance (r = 0.15 to 0.31) (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004), suggesting that these measures tap into separate, independent constructs (Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler, 2006). Some concerns remain with the use of performance-based tests for ability conceptualizations of emotional intelligence. For example, whether it actually measures knowledge of appropriate responses rather than one's actual capacity to implement these responses in real life or whether there is indeed a set of correct answers for an emotional intelligence test (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). Generally there has been far more widespread support for the validity of the ability model and its corresponding measure of emotional intelligence as opposed to other conceptualizations (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; O’Connor & Little, 2003). Despite limitations with a number of these models, a number of studies have, to date, been conducted which have shown some predictive validity of emotional intelligence with a range of important behaviors suggesting the importance of the concept for projects.

2.3 Emotional Intelligence and Projects: Findings From Relevant Research

2.3.1 Emotional Intelligence in Teams

There has been a significant amount of research over the past decade that has provided significant support for the notion that emotional intelligence may be an important area of individual difference which underpins an individual's capacity to engage in social interactions or an individual's level of social skills (Fox & Spector, 2000; Lopes, Salovey, & Strauss, 2003; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Indeed a number of studies have demonstrated significant relationships between emotional intelligence and a wide range of social interaction measures (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004; Lopes et al., 2004). Theoretically such relationships are to be expected based upon a functional perspective of emotions that recognize the important role played in helping us to both communicate our intentions and to understand others’ motivations, wants, and desires (Keltner & Haidt, 2001). It is against the background of such developments that a number of writers have considered that emotional intelligence may be particularly advantageous in the context of team working. To date, twelve empirical studies have appeared in the literature that have offered some key insights into the role that emotional intelligence may play in the effectiveness of teams, although the use of differing measures of emotional intelligence in these studies does make direct comparisons between studies difficult. A number of authors have found relationships between emotional intelligence and behaviors or individual dispositions considered important for working in teams and team processes. Rapisarda (2002), in a study of 18 teams of MBA students, found that emotional competences were positively associated with team cohesiveness while Ilarda & Findlay (2006), in a survey of 134 employees, found emotional intelligence was also positively associated with an individual's positive team orientation. Clarke (forthcoming) found that the ability model of emotional intelligence was positively associated with teamwork behaviors important to interpersonal and transition team processes. Emotional intelligence was also found to be associated with leader emergence in a team (Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002).

Other studies have assessed emotional intelligence at the team level, rather than individual level, and also found some very encouraging findings. Feyerherm & Rice (2002), for example, found that a composite measure of emotional intelligence from differing teams was positively associated with managers’ ratings of team performance. Similarly three studies by Jordan and his colleagues have found significant positive relationships between team level measures of emotional intelligence and measures of team effectiveness (Jordan, Ashkansay, & Hartel, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004; Jordan & Ashkanasy, 2006). Using a similar team-derived measure of EI, Ayoko, Callan, and Hartel (2008), in a study of 122 teams, demonstrated positive relationships between team levels of emotional intelligence and less task and relationship conflict. Clarke (2007a), presenting findings from a qualitative study of student project teams, has also suggested that team members’ emotional intelligence may play an important role in facilitating critical reflection and team learning, which corresponds with more recent research suggesting emotional intelligence may play a role in underpinning knowledge transfer mechanisms within projects (Decker, Landceta, & Kotnour 2009). Additional studies have also found positive relationships with both team level measures of emotional intelligence and team performance indices (Koman & Wolff, 2008; Offerman et al., 2004).

2.3.2 Emotional Intelligence and Leadership

Given the increasing prominence of the “soft” or human side of project management, it is not surprising that there has emerged a significant focus on project leadership as a key area of activity through which project managers engage in and achieve their goals in relationship management (Norrie & Walker, 2004; Pinto et al., 1998; Thambain, 2004). Key aspects of the work in this area, to date, have been attempts to identify how project leadership behaviors differ from other aspects of the project manager's role (Norrie & Walker, 2004; Turner, 1999; Verma 1996), and to show how different leadership styles may be appropriate for either differing types (Crawford, Hobbs, & Turner, 2005; Turner & Muller, 2005 Prabhakar, 2006) or life cycle stages in a project (Lee-Kelley, Leong, & Loong, 2003; Muller & Turner, 2007). Key findings from some of this research has been a recognition of both considerate leadership behaviors (Stogdill, 1974) and transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, 1998) as important leadership styles that project managers need as part of their skill set, given the significant role they play in motivating and inspiring project team members.

Importantly, a number of authors have argued that emotional intelligence is likely to underpin such leadership qualities (Carmeli, 2003; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; George, 2000; Prati et al., 2003). Many of the arguments are based on an increasing recognition that leadership is intrinsically an emotional process (Megerian & Sosik, 1996). Previous perspectives on leadership tended to focus purely on the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of leadership, and generally ignored this important aspect of the leadership relationship (George, 2000). A growing body of research however has been building, which shows that leaders, who are better able to recognize the emotional states of their followers and promote more positive emotional states in the teams they lead, are often effective within contemporary organizational settings (Humphrey 2002).

Importantly leadership practices that foster positive affectivity have been found to be associated with important job and work-related outcomes. Both Pirola-Merlo, Hartel, Mann, and Hirst (2002) and Sy, Cote, and Saavedra (2005), for example, have found that increased team performance was associated with team leaders fostering positive team climates. McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) showed that transformational leadership behaviors helped employees to feel more optimistic and deal more effectively with frustrating events at work. More recently, Ozcelik, Langton, and Aldrich (2008) found that leadership practices which were linked to creating a positive emotional climate were associated with organizational performance. George (2000) described in detail how emotional intelligence might be expected to be associated with these leadership processes. She suggests, for example, that leaders who are able to effectively appraise and manage emotions, are able to generate far more compelling visions for their followers, resulting in higher levels of motivation. Connecting on an emotional level with followers is also thought central to developing higher levels of trust and commitment (Jones & George, 1998; Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Leban and Zulauf (2004) suggest that project managers who understand the moods and emotions of stakeholders can help them to make better decisions about how strategies should be presented and therefore are able to gain greater goal acceptance from followers.

Empirical findings are also supporting a relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership. Barling, Slater, and Kelloway (2000) found EI to be associated with three characteristics of transformational leadership—namely, idealized influence, individualized consideration and inspirational motivation. Palmer, Walls, Burgess, and Stough (2001), who used the modified Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS), a self-report measure of emotional intelligence that captures an individual's ability to monitor and manage their emotions, also found a relationship with the idealized influence and individualized consideration dimensions of transformational leadership. Similarly, Gardner and Stough (2002) found that the ability to perceive and understand emotion in others, in particular, was significantly associated with individualized consideration, in addition to a significant relationship between transformational leadership and overall emotional intelligence scores. More recently, Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) also found positive findings when they examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and indices of leadership performance in an Australian public service organization using ability measures of emotional intelligence. Following on from this research, the potential significance of emotional intelligence for effectively leading projects becomes apparent. However it has been suggested that there are additional factors associated with projects specifically that place further emphasis on a particular role for emotional intelligence.

2.3.3 Emotional Intelligence and Projects

Over recent years there has become a “projectification” of work practices, referring to the extent to which project management as a form of work organization has been adopted in areas far beyond the traditional areas of construction, engineering, and information systems. More contemporary writings now recognize the spread of project management throughout a myriad of industries and sectors, including the creative industries, health care, and professional services, to name but a few (Turner & Keegan, 1999). With increasing applications being found for project management, combined with the need for project management to respond to changing business environments, the knowledge and skill base that underpins project management has continued to evolve. This has pushed the boundaries of knowledge and skills required beyond what has often been the more traditional focus on technical and administrative procedures and systems that are associated with project management. Such changes, however, have posed their own challenges, not least in the attempts to identify the appropriate competences to now underpin project management practice (Crawford, Morris, Thomas, & Winter, 2006; Thirty, 2004; Winter & Thomas, 2004).

Hodgson and Cicmil (2006), in identifying the limitations with the traditional knowledge base that has underpinned project management, point to its beginning to evolve in order to better understand the “actuality” of projects. The authors use this term to convey the extent to which the traditional concerns of both research and training in project management may be becoming increasingly detached from the lived experience and challenges arising from working in contemporary projects. In particular, they draw attention to the increasing importance of skill sets for project management that need to accommodate a far greater focus on the following:

(1)Controlling the performance of projects—that is, enforcing the particular set of actions project actors are required to undertake in order to produce the desired outcome by managing the motivations and actions of people.

(2)Managing relationships among people—that is, managing the whole “system” of interrelated roles and tasks and their interconnectedness.

(3)Managing the project team culture through project leadership—that is, designing and controlling the system of values and beliefs in order to motivate people to subscribe to identified goals.

(4)Designing and managing the learning process of project members.

(5)Capturing, managing, and transferring knowledge in project environments.

To some extent, this is in response to an increasing recognition that difficulties, and in some instances, failures that are frequently encountered in projects, are located in many of the key areas identified previously. Given the shift in emphasis to the relational management aspects of working in projects, together with recent research showing relationships between emotional intelligence in related areas, it is perhaps not surprising that some attention has now been directed to question as to the role that emotional intelligence may play in assisting project managers to work more effectively in these changing project environments. Druskat and Druskat (2006) for example, have suggested that the particular nature and characteristics of projects may well mean that emotional intelligence is of even more importance within this specific work arena than within more traditional forms of the work organization. Specifically, they highlight how the nature of effective project working places emphasize particular attributes of project workers that are highly likely to be underpinned by emotional intelligence. They draw attention to four key aspects in particular:

1) The temporary nature of projects. Given that projects are mostly formed around finite time spans, this requires project workers to be able to quickly form and facilitate good interpersonal relationships at the outset of each new project. Time pressures mean that the pattern of relationship building does not mirror other types of teams. For project managers, it means that aspects of projects found to be associated with successful working, such as trust and commitment which arise through interpersonal interaction, also need to be quickly established (Kloppenborg & Petrick 1999; Sweeney & Lee, 1999). Further, the nature of the project team does not mirror traditional teams but is characterized as more typically organic or “loose” subject to rapidly changing membership as expertise enters and leaves the project as required (Briner, Geddes, & Hastings, 1990). Emotional competences that underpin effective communication and social skills are therefore likely to be of major significance.

2) Projects are Unique. Each fresh, new project will involve new challenges that require to be addressed quickly without the benefit of learning from established or repetitive routines. Failure to identify and address these challenges in time may seriously jeopardize the success of the project. Similarly there is now far greater acknowledgement of the complexity associated with managing projects arising from their temporary and unique goal oriented characteristics (Frame, 1995). Again, emotional competences that underpin the building and consolidation of interpersonal relationships between project members as well as stakeholders should facilitate greater knowledge exchange between members and therefore increased likelihood of learning required to deal with uncertainty.

3) Projects involve Change. Both the increasing complexity associated with projects and the uncertainty it generates inevitably means that effectively managing change is critical to project work (Briner, Geddes, & Hasting, 1990; Slevin & Pinto, 1991). Change evokes significant emotions ranging from excitement to anxiety, frustration, and even anger. Effectively managing these emotions plays a significant role in determining whether positive emotions are channelled into productive behaviors, or whether negative emotions stifle effective teamworking, leave individuals impotent, or, worse still, degenerate into increasing self-serving sets of behaviors that may pose a risk to project success. Makilouko (2004), for example, argued that project managers needed emotional capacity in order to channel the stress caused in dealing with the ambiguity of multicultural situations. Effective leadership during change is paramount where emotional competences, which enable a project manager to inspire fellow project workers and motivate them towards change, play a significant role.

4) Increased Cross-Cultural Project Work. The very fact that projects nearly always involve a coalition of different organizations sometimes from different countries but nearly always involving parties from a wide range of differing professional backgrounds, brings unique challenges for working in projects. Inevitably there is considerable scope for misunderstanding and miscommunication arising from cultural differences, which can cause serious problems if not managed effectively. Emotional competences such as empathy and those associated with self-awareness, are seen as key strengths when working in projects that underpin attentive behavior and interpersonal understanding, which can play a role in minimizing such misunderstandings or enabling difficulties to be resolved should they arise.

Each of these aforementioned factors present compelling arguments for why emotional intelligence may be of particular relevance for project teams not just because they are teams, but, more significantly, because they are projects. To date, however, few studies have appeared in the literature that have specifically examined the role of emotional intelligence within project contexts. In particular, no studies have examined relationships between emotional intelligence and those specific project management competences posited to be important in those areas suggested by Druskat and Druskat (2006) for successful project outcomes. Furthermore, few studies have appeared in the literature that have specifically used ability-based measures of emotional intelligence as opposed to mixed-model or competence measures of EI which have often been criticized as having less validity. Given suggestions that emotional intelligence is associated with project management effectiveness, it follows that there is also a need to determine whether emotional intelligence, perceived as a set of emotional abilities, is amenable to development. This being the case, a pilot research project comprising two separate studies was undertaken in order to further our understanding of the role that emotional intelligence may play in projects. The research project was undertaken with project managers in the UK and sought to address the following objectives:

(1)Identify the relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and specific project management competences associated with effective project management.

(2)Identify relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership behaviors.

(3)Identify whether training can result in improvements in project managers’ emotional intelligence abilities and relevant project manager competences.

(4)Identify factors that may be associated with the effectiveness of emotional intelligence training.

(5)Develop a range of training materials that might be used in future training programs targeting project managers’ emotional intelligence.

The following two sections detail findings from two studies that were conducted to address the first two objectives and then the following two objectives respectively. Section five discusses the implications of the findings from both of these studies and considers areas for future research. Section six details the theoretical underpinnings of the training intervention that was undertaken. Finally, section seven contains the training materials that were specifically developed for use on the training program.