Ohio State Finding the Emotional Intelligence to Be a Real Leader Case Discussion

User Generated

4HEbal

Writing

Ohio State University

Description

CaSe StuDy 4.2 – “Finding the Emotional Intelligence to be a Real Leader”

Finding the Emotional Intelligence to Be a Real Leader Recently, Kathy Smith, a project manager for a large industrial construction organization, was assigned to oversee a multi million-dollar chemical plant construction project in Southeast Asia. Kathy had earned this assignment after completing a number of smaller construction assignments in North America over the past three years. This was her first overseas assignment and she was eager to make a good impression, particularly given the size and scope of the project. Successfully completing this project would increase her visibility within the organization dramatically and earmark her as a candidate for upper management. Kathy had good project management skills; in particular, she was organized and highly self-motivated. Team members at her last two project assignments used to joke that just trying to keep up with her was a full-time job.

Kathy wasted no time settling in to oversee the development of the chemical plant. Operating under her normal work approach, Kathy routinely required her staff and the senior members of the project team to work long hours, ignoring weekend breaks if important milestones were coming up, and generally adopting a round the-clock work approach for the project. Unfortunately, in expecting her team, made up of local residents, to change their work habits to accommodate her expectations, Kathy completely misread the individuals on her team. They bitterly resented her overbearing style, unwillingness to consult them on key questions, and aloof nature. Rather than directly confront her, however, team members began a campaign of passive resistance to her leadership. They would purposely drag their feet on important assignments or cite insurmountable problems when none, in fact, existed. Kathy’s standard response was to push herself and her project team harder, barraging subordinates with increasingly urgent communications demanding faster performance. To her bewilderment, nothing seemed to work.

The project quickly became bogged down due to poor team performance and ended up costing the project organization large penalties for late delivery.Although Kathy had many traits that worked in her favor, she was seriously lacking in the ability to recognize the feelings and expectations of others and take them into consideration.

Questions

1. Discuss how Kathy lacked sufficient emotional intelligence to be effective in her new project manager assignment.

2. Of the various dimensions of emotional intelligence, which dimension(s) did she appear to lack most? What evidence can you cite to support this contention?

Note:

1.Every paper typed in this course should be in APA formatting (title page, reference page, NO abstract page, in-text citations, running head, page numbers, Times New Roman 12 font, 1 inch margins, double-spacing, etc…).

2.Your research papers should include only these types of sources, the textbook and all the scholarly case/articles(as attached along with the question). Do not use outside resources.

3.References (this does not count toward the required paper length).Use only the attached material.



Unformatted Attachment Preview

PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 5 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership and Key Project Manager Competences Nicholas Clarke, School of Management, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom ABSTRACT ■ INTRODUCTION ■ Key dimensions of project manager behaviors considered to be associated with successful project outcomes have included both appropriate collaborative behaviors and transformational leadership. More recently, emotional intelligence has been suggested as a unique area of individual differences that is likely to underpin sets of behaviors in this area. Based on a sample of 67 UK project managers, it was found that emotional intelligence ability measures and empathy explained additional variance in the project manager competences of teamwork, attentiveness, and managing conflict, and the transformational leadership behaviors of idealized influence and individualized consideration, after controlling for cognitive ability and personality. iven that the interest in the concept of emotional intelligence is a rather recent phenomenon, it is surprising that the importance of emotionally associated abilities or skills in project management was recognized over three decades ago. Hill (1977) identified how high-performing project managers were more likely to adopt greater listening and coaching behaviors, as well as facilitate openness and emotional expression. More recently, these skills or abilities have again resurfaced as a major focus of attention within project management, driven by the wider research in emotional intelligence (EI) and the increasing literature that voiced concerns over the appropriate knowledge and skill base required for project managers to be effective (Crawford, Morris, Thomas, & Winter, 2006; El-Sabaa, 2001; Sizemore House, 1988; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). Writers such as Winter, Smith, Morris, and Cicmil (2006), for example, have suggested that emotional competences are associated with the intuition and skills necessary for project managers to become reflective practitioners. As a result, project managers with high emotional intelligence should be better equipped to solve the new challenges and problems that each new project brings. Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) initial paper on emotional intelligence identified EI 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 broader notion of intelligence, EI is described as the ability to reason about a particular type of information 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). A significant body of research has been building over the past two decades that has found these emotional intelligence abilities to be associated with a range of important work-related behaviors. Particularly significant from a project’s perspective have been associations found between EI and leadership (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005), team effectiveness (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002), and workgroup effectiveness (Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Druskat and Druskat (2006) suggested that the nature and characteristics of projects place a particular emphasis on the need for project managers to KEYWORDS: emotional intelligence; project competences; leadership. Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 5–20 © 2010 by the Project Management Institute Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20162 G April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 5 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 6 PAPERS Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership possess emotional intelligence. They put forward four key arguments in this respect. First, the temporary nature of projects means that trust and commitment, which arise through interpersonal interaction, need to be quickly established (Kloppenborg & Petrick, 1999; Sweeney & Lee, 1999). Emotional competences that underpin effective communication and social skills are therefore likely to assist project managers to more easily form good interpersonal relations. Second, and related to the former, emotional intelligence that facilitates interpersonal relationships should also support greater knowledge exchange, thus enabling project managers to deal with the uniqueness of differing projects (Frame, 1995). Next, the complexity associated with projects often involves dealing with considerable ambiguity and change (Briner, Geddes, & Hastings, 1990; Slevin & Pinto, 1991), and emotional intelligence should play a role in enabling project managers to inspire fellow project workers and generate higher levels of motivation and commitment toward change. Finally, emotional intelligence and empathy are likely to be key strengths in helping project managers to successfully manage conflict, especially where there is scope for misunderstanding and miscommunication arising from cross-cultural projects. Findings from recent studies examining emotional intelligence within a project management context have found emotional intelligence to be a significant area of individual difference associated with effective leadership, and transformational leadership more specifically (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Muller & Turner, 2007; Sunindijo, Hadikusumo, & Ogunlana, 2007). However, a significant limitation of these studies is that in neither instance was there an attempt to control for personality effects. In addition, as yet no studies have examined relationships between emotional intelligence and those specific project management competences posited to be 6 important for successful project outcomes, as discussed by Druskat and Druskat (2006) earlier. This study therefore aims to build on this previous literature by presenting findings from a study that examined relationships between emotional intelligence, project management competences, and transformational leadership. Based on a sample of project managers in the United Kingdom, the findings suggest that emotional intelligence abilities and empathy may be a significant aspect of individual difference that contributes to behaviors associated with project manager competences in the areas of teamwork, attentiveness, and managing conflict, as well as dimensions of transformational leadership. Importantly, these findings add to the growing body of literature that suggests emotional intelligence may be a new and independent area of individual difference that may predict sets of project manager behaviors that are increasingly recognized to be associated with successful outcomes in projects. Previous Findings Examining Emotional Intelligence in Projects Five studies have appeared in the literature specifically investigating emotional intelligence in project contexts. Four of these examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership in projects. Leban and Zulauf (2004) conducted a study of 24 project managers from six different organizations drawn from a wide range of industries. Data on the project manager’s leadership style was obtained from team members and stakeholders, while the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso-Emotional Intelligence Ability Test (MSCEIT) (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) was used to assess the emotional intelligence of project managers. Overall emotional intelligence scores and the ability to understand emotions were found to be significantly related with the inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership. April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj Butler and Chinowsky (2006) investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership among senior-level (vice president or above) construction executives; however, this study used Bar-On’s (1997) model of emotional intelligence, the EQ-I. This is a multifactorial model of emotional, personal, and social abilities that includes the five EI domains of interpersonal skills, intrapersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general mood. Collecting data from 130 executives, they found a significant relationship between the total EQ-I score and transformational leadership. Of significance, this accounted for 34% of the variance of transformational leadership behavior. Of all of the emotional intelligence dimensions that they examined, interpersonal skills were found to be the most significant. Muller and Turner (2007) sought to determine whether different types of leadership were more important depending upon the type of project. In a survey of 400 project management professionals, they identified which sorts of leadership competences were associated with success in different project types. Their overall results point to the variegated nature of leadership and how different sets of competences are appropriate for leadership in projects depending upon its degree of complexity (high, medium, or low), and the application area (e.g., engineering and construction, information systems, business). However, here they used a further model of emotional intelligence to underpin their study, drawing upon Dulewicz and Higgs’ (2003) 15 leadership competences. Within this EI model, 15 leadership competences are identified. Seven of these competences are categorized as emotional leadership competences that encompass (1) motivation, (2) conscientiousness, (3) sensitivity, (4) influence, (5) selfawareness, (6) emotional resilience, and (7) intuitiveness. Among their results, they found that the leadership competences of emotional resilience 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 7 and communication accounted for the most success in projects of medium complexity, while the emotional competency of sensitivity was found to be most important for high-complexity projects. Different competences were also found to be associated with greater success, depending upon the application area in which the project was based. Finally, Sunindijo et al. (2007) investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence competences and leadership styles in 54 projects based in Bangkok, Thailand. They identified 13 leadership behaviors from the literature and collected usable data on four dimensions of emotional intelligence from 30 project managers and engineers (PMEs). They also collected data on their leadership behaviors from their supervisors. This time they used a fourth differing model of emotional intelligence to underpin their study, an instrument they obtained commercially that they suggest was based on Goleman’s (1995) EI competency model. Their results showed that those PMEs with higher EI mean scores demonstrated a greater frequency in the use of key leadership behaviors compared to PMEs with low EI scores. This included behaviors such as stimulating, rewarding, delegating, leading by example, open communication, listening, participating, and proactive behavior. However, it is important to note that statistically significant differences were found only for the leadership behaviors of open communication and proactive behavior, and these were both at the 10% level of significance. The final study focused instead on examining relationships between emotional intelligence and project management competences. Mount (2006) presented results from a study that was designed to identify the job competences that were associated with superior performance in a major international petroleum corporation. Using a range of data-collection techniques including focus groups, interviews, and surveys, as well as data from critical incidents, data was collected on job roles performed by, among other staff groups, 74 asset construction project managers. The roles these project managers occupied was under transition, moving from a traditional engineering role to one that was more strategically aligned to individual business units. Using Goleman’s (1995) set of emotional competences, they found that seven emotional competences (influence, self-confidence, teamwork, organizational awareness, adaptability, empathy, and achievement motivation) accounted for 69% of the skill set that these project managers considered most significant for their success on projects. Together these studies suggest a significant role for emotional intelligence in terms of underpinning both leadership and important project manager behaviors. However, these studies suffer from a number of limitations. The first of these relates to criticisms associated with the validity of the particular EI measures used. Two studies used either Goleman’s (1995) and Bar-On’s (1997) measures of emotional intelligence. These contain a number of dimensions (such as achievement motivation and organizational awareness in relation to the former, and assertiveness, stress management, and general mood in relation to the latter) that have been argued as technically not falling within the EI domain. The use of such measures to capture emotional intelligence has led a number of authors to raise serious doubts as to whether these conceptualizations and measures of EI are able to offer anything new over other existing measures already well known in the literature (Conte, 2005). Instead, the ability model of emotional intelligence and its associated measure has received far greater support as offering a more valid and conceptually distinct approach to considering the EI construct (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; O’Connor & Little, 2003). Studies using this measure of EI within the project management field may therefore be able to more clearly delineate the specific contribution that emotional intelligence may make in actually explaining key project manager behaviors. Focus of the Current Study This study builds on the current literature in two major ways. First, it investigates whether emotional intelligence is associated with a number of behaviors posited as key for successfully working in project contexts. Druskat and Druskat (2006) have previously suggested that the specific characteristics of projects are unique from other forms of work organization that place an additional premium on the importance of emotional intelligence. They identified four specific characteristics alongside specific project manager behaviors that are necessary for successful project management. However, much of this has yet to receive any empirical support based upon research in projects. Second, the study examines the relationship between emotional intelligence and the project manager’s transformational leadership style through using an ability-based model of emotional intelligence and importantly controls for both cognitive ability and personality. Five specific hypotheses were tested in the study. Each of these and their rationale are as follows. Teamwork skills have been identified in a number of studies as among the “critical success factors” of projects (Rudolph, Wagner, & Fawcett, 2008; Tisher, Dvir, Shenhar, & Lipovetsky, 1996). Many authors have suggested that emotional intelligence is either responsible for or underpins an individual’s ability to engage in social interactions (Caruso & Wolfe, 2001; Lopes, Salovey, & Strauss, 2003) such that it may well be an underlying construct of social skills (Fox & Spector, 2000). Supporting this proposition have been a number of studies that have demonstrated significant relationships between EI measures and a range of social interaction indices, including more positive social interactions with peers and friends (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 7 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 8 PAPERS Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership 2004). Individuals scoring higher on emotional ability (e.g., managing emotions) have reported more satisfying interpersonal relationships [Lopes et al., 2003; Lopes et al., 2004]). Elsewhere, research examining emotional intelligence within a team context has found positive relationships between EI and a propensity for teamwork (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006). This therefore leads to the first hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence abilities and empathy will be positively associated with the project management competence of teamwork. Differences in individuals’ emotional skills have long been suggested as accounting for variations in the extent to which they are able to decode nonverbal and emotional communication (Hall & Bernieri, 2001). Both emotional intelligence abilities and empathy have been identified as underpinning more effective communication (Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003). Previously, Sunindijo et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between emotional intelligence competences and project manager competences that included communication. This gives rise to the second hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence abilities and empathy will be positively associated with the project management competence of communication. Addressing the individual needs and concerns of team members and involving them in decisions have long been recognized as important behaviors associated with effective leadership of teams (Fleishman, 1974). These attentiveness behaviors have been identified as important for relationship building, social integration, enhancing group identification, and developing commitment and trust, all seen as key elements associated with the effectiveness of teams (Bishop & Scott, 2000). More recently, these behavioral dimensions 8 of project managers have also been suggested to be important to success in projects (Dvir, Ben-David, Sadeh, & Shenhar, 2006; Taborda, 2000). These attentiveness behaviors are likely to assist project managers in building high-quality interpersonal relationships within short periods of time important given the unique and temporary nature of projects (Druskat & Druskat, 2006). Emotional sensitivity and emotional expression are key aspects associated with emotional intelligence and empathy that have been suggested to be associated with performing attentiveness behaviors (Rapisarda, 2002; Riggio & Reichard, 2008). This gives rise to the third hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: Emotional intelligence abilities and empathy will be positively associated with the project management competence of attentiveness. Relationship conflict between partners and members has often been cited as a major factor undermining effectiveness or contributing to failure in projects (Nordin, 2006; Terje & Hakansson, 2003). Previous research has found relationships between emotional intelligence and better conflict management strategies in team settings (Ayoko, Callan, & Hartel, 2008; Jordan & Troth, 2004); however, these studies used team-level measures. Rahim and Psenicka (2002) reported findings examining emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies at the individual level using Goleman’s model (1995) of EI. They found that self-awareness was associated with selfregulation and empathy. Empathy was associated with Goleman’s motivation measure, which in turn was positively associated with more effective approaches to conflict management. A positive relationship between self-regulation and the use of positive approaches to managing conflict have also been found, using a trait measure of EI (Kaushal & Kwanters, 2006). This gives rise to the fourth hypothesis: April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj Hypothesis 4: Emotional intelligence abilities and empathy will be positively associated with the project management competence of conflict management. Transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2000) comprises the four key dimensions of (1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individualized consideration. This type of leadership is associated with higher levels of motivation in followers through activating their higher-level needs and generating a closer identification between leaders and followers. A number of authors have suggested that underpinning transformational leadership is the enhanced emotional attachment to the leader (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003) that arises as a result of leaders using emotional intelligence. Through accurately identifying emotions in followers, leaders are able to respond more effectively to their needs. Through expressing emotions effectively, leaders can generate compelling visions for followers and gain greater goal acceptance (George, 2000). The use of positive affect can also influence followers’ mood states, which in turn have an impact on different outcomes (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). A number of studies previously have found significant relationships between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership (Barling et al., 2000; Downey, Papageorgiou, & Stough, 2005; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003), as well as a number specifically within project contexts (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004). This gives rise to the fifth hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: Emotional intelligence abilities will be positively associated with project management transformational leadership. The Study and Method Sixty-seven project managers were recruited from two organizations based in the United Kingdom and from the 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 9 U.K. chapter of the Project Management Institute to take part in the study. Both organizations were actively engaged in projects as their major form of work process. The first was a national arts organization involved in commissioning and developing projects within the cultural sector. The second was a national organization comprising a number of divisions ranging from construction to research and development to professional services, working across a range of differing business sectors. The average age of participants was 39.6 years (SD ⫽ 7.9), and ages ranged from 23 to 58 years old. Eighteen of these participants (27%) were qualified in project management. Participants identified their functional areas as follows: general management (20) (30%), marketing/sales (2) (3%), HRM/training (3) (4.5%), finance (2) (3%), R&D (2) (3%), technical (6) (9%), and other (32) (47.5%). The relatively large number of participants identifying “other” as a functional area can be explained by the significant number of participants working in specialist fields in either education or the arts. All participants were asked to complete online instruments to assess emotional intelligence, empathy, cognitive ability, personality, transformational leadership, and project management competences within a two-week period in 2008. Measures Independent Measures Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence was measured using the MSCEIT V2.0 available from MHS assessments. The MSCEIT V2.0 consists of 141 items divided into eight sections, or tasks, that correspond with the four branches or abilities of Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) ability model of emotional intelligence: (1) perceiving emotions (B1), (2) using emotions to facilitate thinking (B2), (3) understanding emotions (B3), and (4) managing emotions in oneself and others (B4). Reliabilities for the scales have previously been reported as 0.90, 0.76, 0.77, 0.81, and 0.91 for each of the four branch scales and the full scale, respectively (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). Reliabilities obtained here for each of the four branches were 0.88, 0.69, 0.90, and 0.55, respectively, and 0.92 for the full scale (total EI). Empathy. Mehrabian and Epstein’s (1972) used 33 items of emotional empathy to assess empathetic tendency. Responses to each item are given on a scale ranging from ⫹4 (very strong agreement) to –4 (very strong disagreement). Reviews on 17 items are negatively scored in that the signs of a participant’s response on negative items are changed. A total empathy score is then obtained by summing all 33 items. Sample items include (1) (⫹) It makes me sad to see a lonely stranger in a group and (24) (–) I am able to make decisions without being influenced by people’s feelings. The scale authors previously reported the split-half reliability for the measure as 0.84. Here the Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient was found to be 0.82, suggesting good reliability. Dependent Measures Project Manager Competences. An instrument for measuring four project management competences posited to be associated with emotional intelligence was constructed. Each project management competence contained three or more behaviors within an overall scale. Participants were asked to rate how well they performed each behavior in the last project in which they were involved. Each item was assessed using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all well) to 7 (very well). A score for each competence was then obtained by summing all relevant behavioral items and obtaining the mean score for each scale. Details of scale validation are provided below. Sample items for each of the four scales and reliability coefficients obtained are as follows: A. Communication (alpha ⫽ 0.70): Sample items include (1) understood the communication from others involved in the project and (2) maintained informal communication channels. B. Teamwork (alpha ⫽ 0.78): Sample items include (1) helped to build a positive attitude and optimism for success on the project and (2) helped others to see different points of view or perspectives. C. Attentiveness (alpha ⫽ 0.68): Sample items include (1) responded to and acted upon expectations, concerns, and issues raised by others in the project and (2) actively listened to other project team members or stakeholders involved in the project. D. Managing conflict (alpha ⫽ 0.86): Sample items include (1) helped to solve relationship issues and problems that emerged on the project and (2) managed ambiguous situations satisfactorily while supporting the project’s goals. All scales were found to have good reliabilities. Project Managers’ Transformational Leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 2000) was used to measure transformational leadership behaviors. All of the MLQ-5X responses are made on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). Transformational leadership is measured by four subscales: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Items from these subscales were summed, and then the mean was used to provide a total score for each scale. Previous research has shown good reliability and validity of the total scales and subscales, ranging from 0.74 to 0.94 (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Reliabilities for each of the subscales obtained here were 0.68, 0.52, 0.85, and 0.55 for idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, respectively. Reliability for the overall scale was 0.84. Control Variables Personality. Personality was assessed using the Individual Perceptions April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 9 PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 10 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership Inventory (IPI; Goldberg, 1999). This consists of a 50-item questionnaire designed to capture the personality dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. Previous studies have shown the IPI to have strong convergent validity with other personality measures such as the 16PF and the NEO-PI (Goldberg, 1999). Scale reliabilities were found here to be: extraversion (0.89), agreeableness (0.83), conscientiousness (0.78), emotional stability (0.84), and openness (0.81). General Mental Ability. General mental ability (GMA) was measured using the 50-item Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT; Wonderlic & Associates, 1983). Participants completed the timed test online, and a single score is provided indicative of an individual’s overall level of GMA. Reported reliabilities for the Wonderlic test range from 0.78 to 0.95 and has been shown to have good convergent validity with other measures of intelligence such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS; Wonderlic & Associates, 1983). Project Management Qualification. Previous certification in project management is likely to have familiarized participants with those competences that were being self-assessed in the study and might therefore influence more positive responses. Thus, in order to control for the effects of familiarity with project management competences, certification in project management was entered as a further control variable. This was similarly entered as a simple dichotomous coding, with 1 ⫽ certified in project management and 0 ⫽ not certified. Procedure for Validation of Project Manager Competence Scales Druskat and Drukat (2006) put forward arguments suggesting that the characteristics of projects placed particular emphasis on project manager behaviors associated with communication, teamwork, building interpersonal relationships (attentiveness), and managing 10 conflict. In order to ground behavioral items associated with these competences within project management, items were initially selected from the Project Manager Competency Development Framework (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2008) that appeared to correspond with these four competences. Although project type and characteristics are acknowledged as perhaps placing more emphasis on some competences than on others, the competences identified within the framework are suggested to have a broad application. The competency framework categorizes competences into two groups: those pertaining to performance and those pertaining to personal dimensions. Personal competences are those identified as capturing the specific sets of skills to “enable effective interaction with others” (PMI, 2008, p. 23). These are further arranged into six unit areas (communicating, leading, managing, cognitive ability, effectiveness, and professionalism) containing 25 elements overall. The first stage thus involved selecting items for inclusion in each of the four competence areas from the complete range of behaviors identified in the framework, which on face content appeared to be associated with the four project manager competences that are the focus of the study. This resulted in 24 project management behaviors that were grouped into the four project manager competence domains. These are shown in Table 1, mapped against the specific PMI competence elements listed in the PMI framework. Face validity of these items was then further investigated with a small group of six project managers not participating in the research. This resulted in all 24 items being retained for each of the competences as follows: communication (four items), teamwork (seven items), attentiveness (five items), and managing conflict (eight items). All 24 items were then organized into an instrument that formed part of a April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj larger questionnaire that participants completed online. Participants’ responses were subject to an exploratory factor analysis using principal components with a varimax rotation. The rotation converged in 15 iterations, resulting in a six-factor solution, accounting for 36.4%, 9.6%, 7.5%, 5.6%, 4.6%, and 4.5% of the variance, all with eigenvalues greater than 1. The factor loadings are presented in Table 2. Items were retained for factors where weights were greater than 0.40, where there was no cross loading, and where items appeared theoretically consistent. Nearly all items retained on scales were consistent with those initially identified through face validity. The major exceptions were the teamwork scale, where only one item was retained from those initially posited, and with two further items loading, which were drawn from the attentiveness and managing conflict behavioral domains. These three items were seen as having theoretical integrity when compared to the literature relating to effective teamwork behaviors and therefore were retained (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Rickards, Chen, & Moger, 2001; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Data Analyses All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 15. Initial tests began by performing bivariate correlations in order to explore initial relationships between variables measured in the study. This was then followed by conducting a series of regressions analyses where each of the four project manager competences was regressed in turn against emotional intelligence measures and empathy. The next set of analyses followed the same procedure as before but regressing each of the four dimensions of transformational leadership. Both investigations were undertaken by entering IQ, personality measures, and certification as control variables in the first step, followed by the four EI branch scores, total EI score, and empathy in the second step. 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 11 PMCD Framework Element Project Manager Competences Communication 1. Understood the communication from others involved in the project? 2. Maintained formal communication channels? 3. Maintained informal communication channels? 4. Communicated appropriately with different audiences? 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.4 Teamwork 5. Encouraged teamwork consistently? 6. Shared your knowledge and expertise with others involved in on the project? 7. Maintained good working relationships with others involved on the project? 8. Worked with others to clearly identify project scope, roles, expectations, and tasks specifications? 9. Built trust and confidence with both stakeholders and others involved on the project? 10. Helped to create an environment of openness and consideration on the project? 11. Helped to create an environment of confidence and respect for individual differences? 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 11.4 11.4 11.4 Attentiveness 12. Responded to and acted upon expectations, concerns, and issues raised by others in the project? 13. Actively listened to other project team members or stakeholders involved in the project? 14. Expressed positive expectations of others involved on the project? 15. Helped to build a positive attitude and optimism for success on the project? 16. Engaged stakeholders involved in the project? 6.1 6.1 7.3 7.3 10.2 Managing Conflict 17. Helped others to see different points of view or perspectives? 18. Recognized conflict? 19. Resolved conflict? 20. Worked effectively with the organizational politics associated with the project? 21. Helped to solve relationship issues and problems that emerged on the project? 22. Attempted to build consensus in the best interests of the project? 23. Managed ambiguous situations satisfactorily while supporting the project’s goals? 24. Maintained self-control and responded calmly and appropriately in all situations? 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.3 Table 1: Grouping PMI project management competence elements into key project management competence measures. Results Correlational analyses were used as an initial examination of relationships between the variables studied. Table 3 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all the variables used in the study. Total EI was significantly correlated with all four of its constituent branches: perceiving emotions (r ⫽ 0.82, p ⬍ 0.01), using emotions to facilitate thinking (r ⫽ 0.81, p ⬍ 0.01), understanding emotions (r ⫽ 0.52, p ⬍ 0.01), and managing emotions (r ⫽ 0.59, p ⬍ 0.01). The significant correlations found are to be expected if these individual branches are part of a much wider overall construct of emotional intelligence. A number of significant correlations were found between EI measures and the dependent measures examined in the study. Branch 2 (using emotions to facilitate thinking), Branch 3 (understanding emotions), and the overall EI score were all found to positively correlate with the project manager competence of managing conflict (r ⫽ 0.27, p ⬍ 0.05), (r ⫽ 0.31, p ⬍ 0.05), and (r ⫽ 0.30, p ⬍ 0.05), respectively. Both the abilities of using emotions and of understanding emotions also positively correlated with the project manager competence of teamwork (r ⫽ 0.29, p ⬍ 0.05) and (r ⫽ 0.31, p ⬍ 0.05). Using emotions to facilitate thinking was the only EI ability found to have any significant correlations with transformational leadership, and this was in relation to the two dimensions of idealized influence (r ⫽ 0.26, p ⬍ 0.05) and individualized consideration (r ⫽ 0.27, p ⬍ 0.05). Both total EI and branch scores showed minor correlations with personality measures, offering further support for the predominantly independent nature of these two aspects of individual difference. Results of the first set of hierarchical regressions are shown in Table 4. The emotional intelligence ability, using emotions to facilitate thinking, was found to be significantly associated with the project manager competence of teamwork (b ⫽ 0.28, p ⬍ 0.05, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.07). The two personality dimensions April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 11 PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 12 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership Factor 1: Managing Conflict Factor 2: Communication Factor 3: Teamwork Factor 4: Attentiveness Factor 5 Comm 1 –0.01 0.57 0.03 0.30 0.25 –0.31 Comm 2 0.03 –0.02 0.14 0.87 –0.16 –0.03 Comm 3 0.11 0.58 0.16 0.26 0.27 0.09 Comm 4 0.16 0.58 0.14 0.33 0.17 0.07 Team 5 0.37 –0.04 0.75 0.14 0.02 0.04 Team 6 0.77 0.16 0.20 0.08 –0.02 –0.06 Team 7 0.14 0.38 0.12 0.45 0.42 –0.13 Team 8 0.00 0.12 0.48 0.45 0.32 0.16 Team 9 0.28 0.49 0.20 0.36 0.20 0.00 Team 10 0.35 0.02 0.44 0.29 0.48 0.16 Team 11 0.30 0.26 0.23 –0.08 0.72 0.16 Atten 12 0.28 0.17 0.38 0.49 0.10 –0.33 Atten 13 0.14 0.37 0.20 0.52 0.13 –0.43 Atten 14 0.04 0.61 0.57 0.05 0.21 0.02 Atten 15 0.15 0.22 0.66 0.14 0.17 0.36 Atten 16 0.10 0.16 0.04 0.70 0.08 0.18 Conflict 17 0.38 0.20 0.74 0.13 0.16 –0.17 Conflict 18 0.41 0.67 –0.21 –0.01 –0.09 0.20 Conflict 19 0.77 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.16 –0.02 Conflict 20 0.16 0.12 0.21 0.16 0.22 0.72 Conflict 21 0.73 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.37 0.18 Conflict 22 0.65 0.26 0.12 0.14 0.41 0.04 Conflict 23 0.69 0.07 0.33 –0.03 0.16 0.14 Conflict 24 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.82 0.02 Competence Factor 6 Table 2: Varimax-rotated loadings on a six-factor solution of project manager competences (N ⫽ 67). of openness and emotional stability together accounted for 13% in the variation of this competence, with this EI ability explaining a further 7%. Partial support was therefore found for Hypothesis 1. None of the relationships with EI measures or empathy with the project manager competence of communication was found to be significant (F (6.61) ⫽ 0.85, p ⬎ ns), providing no 12 support for Hypothesis 2. Empathy was found to be significantly associated with the project manager competence of attentiveness (b ⫽ 0.28, p ⬍ 0.05). However, no significant relationships were found between this project manager competence and any of the EI measures. Partial support was therefore found for Hypothesis 3. Of note, neither cognitive ability nor personality were April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj found to be associated with this competence, with empathy alone accounting for 7% variation in this competence. The overall EI score was also found to be significantly associated with the project manager competence of managing conflict (b ⫽ 0.26, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.06). Partial support was therefore found for Hypothesis 4. Finally, the emotional ability, using emotions to –0.14 0.40** 0.05 41.03 (5.08) 4. Conscientiousness 36.97 (6.09) 5. Emotional Stability 33.78 (7.15) 30.87 (4.50) 94.54 (17.72) 95.52 (14.88) 98.05 (8.85) 94.48 (7.48) 94.52 (12.49) 31.33 (22.15) –0.07 5.43 (0.82) 5.55 (0.68) 5.59 (0.65) 5.30 (0.78) 2.79 (0.48) 2.55 (0.54) 2.40 (0.71) 2.80 (0.59) 3. Agreeableness 6. Openness 7. Perceiving Emotions 8. Using Emotions 9. Understanding Emotions 10. Managing Emotions 11. Total EI 12. Empathy 13. Teamwork 14. Communication 15. Attentiveness 16. Managing Conflict 17. Influence 18. Motivation 19. Stimulation 20. Consideration Table 3: Intercorrelations between all variables. *p ⬍ 0.05. **p ⬍ 0.01. 0.11 –0.02 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.13 –0.07 0.07 0.26* 0.09 0.12 0.24 0.06 –0.05 0.39** 0.24 0.34** 0.29* 0.38** 0.26* 0.10 0.04 0.23 0.10 –0.07 –0.04 –0.08 0.03 –0.07 0.07 4 0.27* 0.29* 0.08 0.30* 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.16 0.59** 0.25* 0.21 0.01 0.33** 0.14 0.18 0.25* 0.02 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.20 0.12 0.17 0.05 0.24 0.33** 0.01 0.06 0.24 0.32** –0.03 –0.09 0.12 3 0.33** 0.12 0.44** 0.20 0.25* 0.36** 0.13 0.18 0.27* –0.28* 0.03 0.09 0.12 –0.03 –0.00 –0.02 5 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.16 0.52** 0.03 0.05 0.51** –0.07 0.46** 0.42** 0.42** 8 0.16 0.27* –0.04 0.08 0.26* 0.27* 0.21 0.21 0.29* 0.24* 0.82** 0.81** 0.28* 0.22 0.51** 7 0.46** –0.02 0.20 0.43** 0.13 0.12 0.28* 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.11 –0.02 6 10 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 –0.03 0.11 0.12 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.31* 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.31* 0.14 0.21 0.52** 0.59** 0.14 9 0.07 0.07 0.59** 0.46** 0.58** 0.12 –0.07 0.16 –0.06 0.60** 0.42** 15 16 17 0.17 0.07 0.22 0.17 0.05 18 19 20 0.62** 0.71** 0.85** 0.83** 0.80** 0.45** 0.47** 0.54** 0.53** 0.53** 0.37** 0.65** 0.26* 0.28* 0.53** 0.55** 0.33** 0.27* 0.49** 0.41** 0.40** 0.61** 14 –0.02 –0.25* 0.46** –0.03 0.07 0.23 0.36** 13 0.28* 0.46** 0.20 0.10 12 0.30* –0.04 0.17 0.18 0.25* 0.28* 11 12:21 PM 0.17 0.04 –0.08 0.23 2 3/12/10 21. Transformational –0.07 33.54 (7.47) 2. Extraversion –0.10 118.85 (9.55) 1. GMA 1 Mean (SD) Variables 05-20PMJ0312.qxd Page 13 PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 14 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership Teamwork B Step 1 Certification GMA Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness R2 ⌬R 2 Communication F 0.01 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.08 0.29* 0.13 0.05 0.26* 0.07 0.07 B R2 ⌬R 2 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.26 0.10 Step 2 Perceiving (B1) –0.07 0.42 Using (B2) 0.28* 0.20 0.07 6.33** 0.43 Understanding (B3) 0.16 0.17 Managing (B4) –0.03 0.16 Total EI –0.01 –0.75 Empathy 0.13 0.17 Attentiveness B F R2 –0.12 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.85 n.s. 0.28* 0.07 ⌬R 2 Managing Conflict F B R2 ⌬R 2 F 0.22 –0.06 0.21 0.07 0.16 0.37* 0.30 0.12 0.43** 0.18 0.18 –0.14 0.09 0.12 –0.02 0.26** 0.36 0.06 5.62* –0.02 13.41** Note. Standardized regression coefficients are from the full model. R 2 is adjusted. *p ⬍ 0.05. **p ⬍ 0.01. Table 4: Results of hierarchical regression analysis of project competences (N ⫽ 67). facilitate thinking, was found to be significantly associated with the transformational leadership dimensions of idealized influence (b ⫽ 0.23, p ⬍ 0.05, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.04) and individualized consideration (b ⫽ 0.26, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.06) (see Table 5). Partial support was therefore found for Hypothesis 5. Significantly, the personality dimensions of emotional stability (b ⫽ 0.31, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.08) and openness (b ⫽ 0.26, p ⬍ 0.05, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.06) were also found to be positively associated with teamwork and with managing conflict (emotional stability: [b ⫽ 0.27, p ⬍ 0.05, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.15]; openness [b ⫽ 0.38, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.08]. In addition, personality attributes were also found to be significantly associated with all four transformational leadership dimensions. Four out of the five measures of personality were found to be associated with the overall transformational leadership scale: openness (b ⫽ 0 .48, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.26), emotional stability (b ⫽ 0.31, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.10), extraversion (b ⫽ 0.31, p ⬍ 0.01, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.08), and conscientiousness (b ⫽ 0.20, p ⬍ 0.05, ⌬R2 ⫽ 0.03). Together, personality 14 characteristics were found to account for 26% variation in the measure of overall transformational leadership behavior. Discussion The results from this study take forward our understanding of the role that emotional intelligence may play in projects in two major ways. The first concerns demonstrating relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and project manager competences that have been suggested as important for successful outcomes in projects. Both the emotional intelligence ability, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and an overall measure of EI ability were found to be associated with the project manager competences of teamwork and managing conflict, respectively. Druskat and Druskat (2006) suggested that emotional intelligence is likely to underpin behaviors associated with these competences. This study is the first to offer some empirical support for this proposition. Of importance, both of these measures of emotional intelligence were found to provide additional April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj explanatory power in these competences after controlling for both cognitive ability and personality. These findings are also in broad support of previous findings in the literature that have found significant relationships using ability conceptualizations of emotional intelligence and the use of better conflict management strategies ( Jordan & Troth, 2004), as well as the limited studies that have investigated their relationships with key behaviors associated with teamwork (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006). The finding obtained here that cognitive ability was not associated with either of these two project manager competences would also seem to offer some support for the view that cognitive ability plays a far more limited role in these particular relationship management behaviors. The study also found a significant positive relationship between empathy and the project manager competence of attentiveness. This competence captures key behaviors associated with engaging with project members in order to build strong relationships, responding to their concerns, and building 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 15 Idealized Influence R2 B Step 1 Certification GMA Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness 0.02 0.09 0.39** 0.25* 0.05 0.22 0.12 0.13 0.19 Step 2 Perceiving (B1) 0.02 Using (B2) 0.23* Understanding (B3) 0.06 Managing (B4) 0.03 Total EI 0.04 Empathy –0.04 0.23 ⌬R 2 Inspirational Motivation B F ⫺0.03 0.23 0.22* 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.42*** 0.13 0.06 0.04 R2 ⌬R 2 0.23 0.03 0.20 0.20 Intellectual Stimulation F B 11.03*** 0.05 –0.01 0.24** 0.02 –0.10 0.44*** 0.48*** 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.05 7.62*** Step 1 Certification GMA Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness 0.03 –0.04 0.18 0.27* 0.12 0.11 0.47*** Step 2 Perceiving (B1) Using (B2) Understanding (B3) Managing (B4) Total EI Empathy 0.51 0.79* 0.19 0.30 –1.24 –0.10 ⌬R 2 R2 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.04 ⌬R 2 0.48 0.04 0.44 0.24 0.20 0.24 F 21.69** –0.05 –0.09 –0.12 0.09 –0.05 –0.17 Individualized Consideration B R2 Transformational Leadership F B 0.03 –0.01 0.31** 0.20* 0.06 0.31** 0.48** 4.50** R2 ⌬R 2 F 0.44 0.47 0.08 0.03 15.71** 0.36 0.26 0.10 0.26 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.06 –0.03 Note. Standardized regression coefficients are from the full model. R 2 is adjusted. *p ⬍ 0.05. **p ⬍ 0.01. ***p ⬍ 0.001. Table 5: Results of hierarchical regression analysis of transformational leadership (N ⫽ 67). positive attitudes for project success. More recently, it has also been linked to effective leader behaviors such as showing consideration and attentiveness to the needs of followers (House & Podsakoff, 1994; Yukl, 1998). Emotional abilities such as perceiving and understanding emotions in others may also underpin empathy (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000). It may well be that the failure to find any significant relationships between emotional intelligence abilities and this project manager competence is due to the fact they are mediated by empathy. The second major contribution of the study is that this is the first study to show a relationship between emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership, after controlling for both cognitive ability and personality. Here the emotional ability, using emotions to facilitate thinking, was found to account for a further 4% in variation of both the transformational leadership dimensions of idealized influence and individualized consideration after first controlling for personality. However, it should be borne in mind that, to date, there have been mixed results regarding the significance of transformational leadership within project contexts. Keller (2006) studied 118 research and development project teams from five firms. He found transformational leadership predicted 1-year-later technical April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 15 PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 16 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership quality, schedule performance, and cost performance, and 5-years-later profitability and speed to market. By contrast, Keegan and Den Hartog (2004), in their study of project managers who also had line-manager responsibilities, found that transformational leadership correlated positively with commitment and motivation in the line team, but that there was no significant link within the project team. They suggested that although the performance of these leadership behaviors was the same in both contexts, their effects appear to be diluted or have less effect in project contexts. Similarly, Strang (2005), in his case study of four project leaders, found that project leadership did not always require strong transformational leadership behavior to produce effective outcomes. Osborn and Marion’s (2009) study of transformational leadership in network alliances also offers further support for the notion that leadership within such systems is about creating order from chaos rather than focused on motivation. To the extent that some projects may reflect contexts with greater uncertainty associated with “near-edge chaos,” the importance of transformational leadership, and therefore its association with emotional intelligence, may be of less significance. Finally, the failure to find any significant relationships between any of the independent variables and the project manager competence of communication was surprising. The measure used was found to have good reliability (alpha ⫽ 0.70) and captured behaviors associated with both informal communication and understanding communication from others involved in the project. Emotional intelligence abilities are believed to be associated with more effective communication through emotional expressivity and in recognizing the emotional content of others’ communication (emotional sensitivity) (Riggio & Reichard, 2008). It may be that the measure of project manager competence utilized here is far too 16 broad in its domain to sufficiently capture the type of communication more likely to be associated with either emotional intelligence or empathy. A number of limitations are associated with the study that suggest exercising some caution in reaching any firm conclusions at present. The most significant of these concerns the approach used to measure both project manager competences and transformational leadership behaviors. This approach relied on self-report ratings from those taking part in the study. Subjective selfratings of performance have consistently been found to be more lenient than those provided by observers (Carless, Mann, & Wearing, 1998), and a number of authors have urged caution in relying on such measures within organizational research (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). This has often resulted in researchers using peer report measures, believing that these offer improved validity in performance measures. However, recent research suggests that the picture is somewhat more complicated. Recent research by Atkins and Wood (2002) comparing self, peer, and supervisor ratings of performance with objective measures of performance in an assessment center found that peer and supervisor ratings of performance were not always predictive of objective performance measures. It is not at all clear, then, that using aggregated peer measures of either project manager competence or transformational leadership behavior would necessarily have offered more objective measures. A further limitation of the study is problems of validity due to common method variance. However, following recommendations by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Lee (2003), a number of procedural strategies were used to attempt to minimize these effects. The first of these related to a proximal separation of measures. Measures were obtained from participants completing two tests and one questionnaire. The two tests measured EI and cognitive ability and presented April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj items in a format different than that of the questionnaire. In addition, where scales were used to assess differing measures, these varied in length, including 5-, 7-, and 9-point scales. A psychological separation was also made between these measures, in that individuals had to log onto three different websites, with each individual having his or her own passcode, in order to complete each measure. Instructions given to respondents were to complete each of the instruments at different sittings over the 2-week data-collection period, thereby also providing a temporal separation between measures. Assurances of confidentiality were also made in order to reduce problems associated with social desirability in answering. It should also be borne in mind that the study only used crosssectional data to analyze relationships between emotional intelligence and dependent measures, thus precluding any definitive statements relating to causality. Relatively low reliabilities were also found for a number of scales used in the study. A reliability coefficient of only 0.55 was obtained for the managing emotions ability branch of EI. This is lower than has been reported in previous studies and suggests that there were problems encountered here with the validity of this measure. Previously Clarke (2006) has raised concerns specifically regarding the use of a test to satisfactorily capture an ability such as managing emotions, where strategies used are so varied and dependent on context. This may represent a wider problem with the measure itself or related to the particular sample. The low reliability may then have accounted for the failure to detect any significant relationships with this particular branch of EI. In addition, the two measures of transformational leadership dimensions representing inspirational motivation and individualized consideration similarly were found to have low reliabilities of 0.52 and 0.55, respectively. The use of self-report measures 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 17 may well account for these low reliabilities. However, it does suggest that the significant relationship found between the emotional ability, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and individualized consideration should be treated as tentative at this stage. Finally, the relatively modest sample size of 67 should also be noted. This may have increased the risk of statistical Type I errors where results are found to be significant. The population upon which this study is based was drawn from two organizations involved in arts, education, research and development, and construction, as well as a small number from the U.K. chapter of the Project Management Institute predominantly involved in consultancy and professional services. These arguably represent a far more diverse project management base than has been traditionally studied. In addition, just over a quarter of these (27%) were certified in project management. The extent to which the results found here are able to generalize beyond this particular sample to project managers more widely operating in traditional project management industries and sectors is therefore unknown. Conclusions and Practical Implications Emotional intelligence has been suggested to be particularly important in projects due to the nature of this form of work organization. This places specific emphasis on project manager behaviors associated with communication, teamwork, attentiveness, and managing conflict and their importance to successful project outcomes. This is the first study to use the ability measure of EI and examine its relationship with specific behaviors associated with project manager competence in these areas. Both the emotional intelligence ability, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and participants’ overall EI scores were found to be significantly associated with the competences of teamwork and managing conflict, respectively. Project managers’ empathy was also found to be significantly associated with the competence of attentiveness. In addition, the emotional intelligence ability, using emotions to facilitate thinking, was also found to be significantly associated with the transformational leadership dimensions of idealized influence and individualized consideration. The results suggest that emotional intelligence abilities and empathy offer a means to further explain aspects of individual differences between project managers that can influence their performance in projects. These findings do need to be placed in context given that in both instances, personality was found to account for far greater variation in both teamwork (13%) and managing conflict (20%). Personality differences would therefore seem to be far greater predictors for these two competences. It would seem logical to conclude that, certainly in terms of implications for selecting project managers to perform in projects where these competences are a premium, agencies or organizations would do better to screen based on personality differences in the first instance, with emotional intelligence providing a subsidiary mechanism. However, this is of little help to those organizations considering how best to improve the performance of project managers in these competence areas, given that personality is a relatively stable set of individual characteristics. Instead, the finding that emotional intelligence does contribute to both these competence areas does suggest potential avenues for organizations to consider in terms of improving the emotional intelligence of project managers. This is especially true given arguments that these emotional intelligence abilities may be susceptible to development through organizationally sponsored interventions (Clarke, 2006; Moriarty & Buckley, 2003). The study’s findings are promising, but future research could improve on the current study in a number of ways. First, more objective means for measuring the project manager competences of teamwork, attentiveness, and conflict management would be preferable. Previous studies in conflict management, for example, have assessed this competence through videotaped performance simulations that could be adapted for project management contexts (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1999). Similarly, in relation to transformational leadership, the use of ratings from others involved in a project, combined with supervisory ratings, might offer an advance on the methodology employed here. Next, although it is intuitive to consider that differences in emotional abilities may account for variations in particular project manager competences, it is possible that proficiency in such competences could lead to the enhancement of these emotional intelligence abilities. Future studies that employ a longitudinal design may therefore reveal insights into the direction of causality here. Future studies should also seek to identify whether the significant relationships found here can be replicated using much larger populations. There is also a need to identify more clearly the extent to which these project manager competences that are thought to be associated with emotional intelligence abilities actually account for variations in project outcomes. This should involve researchers specifying a priori which specific project manager competences or behaviors are likely to be more important within differing project contexts. A major area of research here involves identifying how differences in managing change, complexity, and ambiguity may be defining features that affect the relative influence of emotional intelligence. Given empirical findings elsewhere suggesting that emotional intelligence may differentiate how individuals manage change (Groves, 2006) and theoretical propositions suggesting that emotional intelligence may influence how individuals April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 17 PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 18 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership respond to change (Huy, 2002), this is a further area that would seem to warrant future research. Acknowledgment The author would like to express gratitude to the Project Management Institute for funding this research. ■ References Ashkanasy, N. N., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 221–235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Atkins, P. W. B., & Wood, R. E. (2002). Self- versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360 degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55, 871–904. Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2008). The influence of emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39(2), 121–149. Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157–161. Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence. In Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (2000). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden Inc. Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439–450. Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminate and incremental validity of competing measures 18 of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 147–158. female managers. Leadership & Organization Development, 27(4), 250–264. Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and the prediction of behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387–1402. Druskat, V., & Druskat, P. (2006). Applying emotional intelligence in project working. In S. Pryke & H. Smyth (Eds.), The management of complex projects: A relationship approach (pp. 78–96). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Briner, W., Geddes, M., & Hastings, C. (1990). Project leadership. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Company. Butler, C. J., & Chinowsky, P. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(3), 119–125. Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (1998). Leadership, managerial performance and 360 degree feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 481–496. Caruso, D. R., & Wolfe, C. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence in the workplace. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life (pp. 150–167). New York: Psychology Press. Clarke, N. (2006). Developing Emotional Intelligence through workplace learning: Findings from a case study in healthcare. Human Resource Development International, 9, 447–465. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433–440. Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., & Winter, M. (2006). Practitioner development: From trained technicians to reflective practitioners. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 722–733. Downey, L., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2005). Examining the relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence, and intuition in senior April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 81–90. Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. J. (2003). Design of a new instrument to assess leadership dimensions and styles. Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 0311. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley Management College. Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., & Shenhar, A.J. (2006). Critical managerial factors affecting defense project success: A comparison between neural network and regression analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19, 535–543. El-Sabaa, S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 1–7. Fleishman, E. A. (1974). Leadership climate, human relations training and supervisory behavior. In E. A. Fleishman & A. R. Bass (Eds.), Studies in personnel and industrial psychology (3rd ed., pp. 315–328). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It’s not all just “G.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 203–220. Frame, D. J. (1995). Managing projects in organizations. How to make the best use of time, techniques and people. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055. 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 19 Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. Dr Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27, 566–583. Hall, A. J., & Bernieri, F. J. (Eds.). (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hill, R. E. (1977, Winter). Managing interpersonal conflict in project teams. Sloan Management Review, 18(2), 45–61. House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 45–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31–69. Ilarda, E., & Findlay, B. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence and propensity to be a team player. E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Emotional Intelligence, 2(2), 19–29. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence. Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195–214. Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem-solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218. Kaushal, R., & Kwanters, C. T. (2006). The role of culture and personality in choice of conflict management strategy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 579–603. Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 609–618. Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210. Kloppenborg, T. J. & Petrick, J. A. (1999). Leadership in project life cycle and team character development. Project Management Journal, 13(2), 83–88. Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and leadership styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25, 554–564. Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018–1034. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Strauss, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641–658. Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 387–404. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Educational development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. North York, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543. Moriarty, P., & Buckley, F. (2003). Increasing team emotional intelligence through process. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(2/3/4), 98–110. Mount, J. (2006). The role of emotional intelligence in developing international business capability: EI provides traction. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala, & J. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work (pp. 97–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Muller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 21–32. Nordin, F. (2006). Identity in intraorganizational and interorganizational alliance conflicts—A longitudinal study of an alliance pilot project in the high technology industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 116–127. O’Connor, R. M., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1893–1902. Osborn, R. N., & Marion, R. (2009). Contextual leadership, transformational leadership and the performance of international innovation seeking alliances. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 191–205. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, Y. L. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 19 PAPERS 05-20PMJ0312.qxd 3/12/10 12:21 PM Page 20 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide)—Fourth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author. Rahim, M.A., & Psenicka, C. (2002). A model of emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies: A study in seven countries. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 302–326. Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 363–380. Rickards, T., Chen, M.-H., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership, and performance relationships. British Journal of Management, 12, 243–250. Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C., & Cole, E. J. (2003). The role of social and communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7(2), 83–103. Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership. An emotional and social skill approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 169–185. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition & Personality, 9, 185–211. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Sizemore House, R. (1988). The human side of project management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1991). Project leadership: Understanding and consciously choosing your style. Project Management Journal, 22(1), 29–47. Strang, K. D. (2005). Examining effective and ineffective transformational project leadership. Team Performance Management, 11(3/4), 68–103. Sunindijo, R.Y., Hadikusumo, B. H. W., & Ogunlana, S. (2007). Emotional intelligence and leadership styles in construction project management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(4), 166–170. Sweeney, P. J., & Lee, D. R. (1999). Support and commitment factors of project teams. Engineering Management Journal, 11(3), 13–18. Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26, 388–399. Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305. Rudolph, T., Wagner, T., & Fawcett, S. (2008). Project management in retailing: Integrating the behavioral dimension. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18, 325–341. Taborda, C. G. (2000). Leadership, teamwork, and empowerment: Future management trends. Cost Engineering, 42(10), 41–44. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599. 20 Terje, I. V., & Hakansson, H. (2003). Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 127–138. April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj Tisher, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A., & Lipovetsky, S. (1996). Identifying critical success factors in defense development projects: A multivariate analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 51(2), 151–171. Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1999). Marital conflict management skills, parenting style and early onset conduct problems: Processes and pathways. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 917–927. Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government funded research network. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 638–649. Wonderlic & Associates. (1983). Wonderlic Personnel Test Manual. Northfield, IL: Wonderlic, Inc. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998). A leadership profile of American project managers. Project Management Journal, 21(1), 31–38. Nicholas Clarke is a senior lecturer in organizational behavior at the University of Southampton School of Management where he teaches and researches in the areas of human resource development and emotional intelligence, particularly within team-based contexts. He has spent the past 6 years specifically researching business applications of emotional intelligence and speaks on the topic at conferences and public seminars. He is a visiting professor at Toulouse Business School and the University of Greenwich Work and Employment Research Unit. PAPERS Rallying the Troops or Beating the Horses? How Project-Related Demands Can Lead to Either High-Performance or Abusive Supervision Erin C. Gallagher, PhD, The University of Queensland, UQ Business School, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Alicia K. Mazur, PhD, Queensland University of Technology, QUT Business School, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia Neal M. Ashkanasy, PhD, The University of Queensland, UQ Business School, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia ABSTRACT ■ In today’s high-pressure work environment, project managers are often forced to “do more with less.” We argue that this imperative can lead project managers to engage in either high-performance or abusive supervision behaviors. To understand this process, we develop a model and associated propositions linking a project manager’s cognitive appraisal of project-related demands to high-performance work practices versus abusive supervision behaviors—both of which impact three project outcomes: stakeholder relationships, people-related project success factors, and employee well-being. We propose that the choice between highperformance work practices and abusive supervision behaviors is moderated by a project manager’s personal resources (psychological capital, emotional intelligence, and dark triad personality). KEYWORDS: high-performance work practices; abusive supervision; stressor– strain model; psychological capital; emotional intelligence; dark triad personality; project manager Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, 10–24 © 2015 by the Project Management Institute Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21500 10 June/July 2015 I n today’s economic environment, and particularly since the 2009 global financial crisis, employers have been under pressure to cut costs; traditionally, staff reductions have been the strategy of first resort to achieving such cuts (Parker, Chmiel, & Wall, 1997). In the Australian context, since 2009 for example, there have been large-scale staff reductions in the private (Holden, Scuffham, Hilton, Vecchio, & Whiteford, 2010) and public (McKenna, 2012) sectors, resulting in plummeting morale, as employees struggle to complete additional work with less staff (Wiltshire, 2012). Following such cuts, “survivors” are inevitably placed under increasing pressure to “do more with less” (e.g., see Unikel, 2013)—often working longer hours (Holden et al., 2010). Moreover, survivors’ supervisors are under increased pressure to maintain or increase productivity (Carter et al., 2011). This increased pressure to perform can result in supervisors engaging in over-zealous supervision practices that can be interpreted by employees as abusive. In this article, we focus on how supervisors deal with such situations within the specific context of project-oriented organizations. Although emerging research is providing insight about the overall negative consequences of abusive supervision, less is known about the negative consequences of abusive supervision within a project management environment. In this regard, Kerzner (2013) defines project management as use of company resources to achieve an objective within a set timeframe and budget. Moreover, and as Jugdev and Müller (2005) point out, an organization’s reliance on a project approach to achieving objectives generally requires sustained project success. Thus, as put by Huemann, Keegan, and Turner (2007, p. 317), an “ideal project-oriented company has a specific management culture expressed in the empowerment of employees, process orientation and teamwork, continuous and discontinuous organizational change, customer orientation, and networking with clients and suppliers.” Given the nature of projects as transient, complex, and continuously evolving, however, this ideal might be difficult to achieve because projects inevitably comprise numerous job demands. Demerouti and Bakker (2011, p. 2) define job demands as “physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj psychological costs.” Within the context of project-oriented organizations, these job demands are likely to include constant change, multiple concurrent and sequential activities, numerous stakeholders, constant deadlines, and budgeting constraints (Leung, Chan, & Dongyu, 2011). Demerouti and Bakker (2011, p. 2) have stated that, while job demands are not necessarily negative in and of themselves, an individual may perceive them as stressors when “meeting those demands requires high effort from which the employee fails to recover adequately.” In this article, therefore, our specific objective is to explore how a project manager’s cognitive appraisal of project-related demands might cause the project manager (in the role of supervisor) to practice high performance supervision1 (through engagement in high-performance work practices) versus abusive supervision.2 We identify project managers’ supervision (i.e., high-performance versus abusive) in particular as having the potential to impact project outcomes either positively or negatively. Consistent with this objective, we seek to answer two questions: (1) When does a project manager’s cognitive appraisal of project-related demands result in high-performance supervision and when does it result in abusive supervision? (2) How do project managers’ high-performance versus abusive supervision practices impact key project outcomes such as stakeholder relationships, people-related project success factors, and employee well-being? High-Performance Work Practices As noted in the introduction, today’s managers often face the challenge of 1For the purpose of this article, we refer to “highperformance supervision” as supervision in which the project manager engages in, or is perceived as engaging in, high-performance work practices. 2We use the term “abusive supervision” to represent all behaviors associated with abusive supervision practices. “doing more with less.” As a consequence, the way in which employees are managed and treated to achieve ambitious organizational goals and objectives has become a frequently discussed topic in organizational research (Tamkin, 2004). Practices that enhance employee engagement, empowerment, productivity, and effectiveness are collectively referred to as high-performance work practices (HPWPs; see Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Kirkman, Lowe, & Young, 1999). Becker and colleagues (see Becker & Huselid, 1998; Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997; see also Way, 2002) note that outcomes of HPWPs are intended to be increased job satisfaction and motivation. In turn, these attitudes are seen to result in high-performance work organizations and the attainment of a sustainable strategic competitive advantage. In this regard, Thompson (2000, as cited in Tamkin, 2004) reduced over thirty high-performance practices into three clusters: (1) Opportunities for engagement through high-involvement practices (e.g., participative decision making); (2) building employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities and motivation through human resource practices (e.g., strategic recruitment and selection); and (3) building trust, loyalty, and organizational identity through employee relations practices (e.g., via formal grievance procedures). Organizations and organizational leaders empower employees to act and to increase knowledge, skills, and attributes when they engage in these practices; HPWPs are meant to motivate employees to work to their full potential with a high level of organizational commitment (Combs et al., 2006; Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007). The success of HPWPs is not a result of the combination of bundles of practices; rather, it is the result of aligning different HPWPs with each other and with the strategic goals of the organization (Timiyo, 2014) in conjunction with developing strong internal organizational social roles and sophisticated management and leadership capabilities to promote information sharing, communication, and employee cooperation. As such, HPWPs are intended to “rally the troops” to enhance individual and organizational performance (Combs et al., 2006; Evans & Davis, 2005). Positive Project Manager Influence In the specific context of project management, project managers who seek to use HPWPs often face unique and complex environments. Consequently, requirements for successful project management have garnered considerable attention in the project management research sphere. Most recently, project management researchers have given increased consideration to the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for success in the role of project manager—shedding light on how project managers’ competencies impact overall project success (e.g., see Geoghegan & Dulewicz, 2008; Keegan & Den Hartog, 2004; Mazur, Pisarski, Chang, & Ashkanasy, 2014; Müller & Turner, 2010). Though differences vary as a function of project type (Müller & Turner, 2007), some knowledge, skills, and abilities have emerged as especially relevant to the success of all projects— regardless of project type, complexity, or size. These include implementation, participation, documentation, development, maintenance of quality assurance processes, project reviews, critical thinking, communication, flexibility, and leadership (e.g., see the O*NET® Content Model, http://www . o n e t c e n t e r. o r g / c o n t e n t . h t m l ) . Moreover, the competencies identified across all project management domains (which are therefore seen to be the most important for project managers to possess in relation to project success) include: critical thinking, vision and imagination, self-awareness, sensitivity, influence, motivation, and conscientiousness (Geoghegan & Dulewicz, 2008; Müller & Turner, 2010). June/July 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 11 PAPERS Project-Related Demands Negative Project Manager Influence In this article, we focus in particular on some of the murkier aspects of a project manager’s role as a supervisor. In this regard, and despite research into the positive behaviors of leaders and their effects on employee and organizational performance, many researchers also acknowledge the detrimental effects of bad leaders and abusive supervision behaviors (Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Tepper, 2000). Tepper (2000, p. 178) uses the term “abusive supervision” to refer to “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in sustained display of hostile, verbal, and non-verbal behaviors excluding physical contact.” Related constructs include: bullying (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), aggression (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006), victimization (Aquino, 2000), and negative mentoring (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000). Moreover, since the perceptual basis of the person targeted by the behaviors is perpetually biased (see Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, 2011), abusive supervision behaviors are often nonphysical and subjective. More importantly, such practices are systematic and repeated rather than a once-off event or just someone “having a bad day at the office.” They can consist of personal attacks (e.g., humiliation), task attacks (e.g., excessive monitoring), or a combination (e.g., isolating an employee from colleagues; see Rodwell, Brunetto, Demir, Shacklock, & Farr-Wharton, 2014). Characteristics of abusive supervision include privacy invasion, degrading treatment, ridiculing, and scapegoating. Abusive supervisors are prone to angry outbursts and taking credit for subordinates’ success (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Tepper, 2007). Note, however, that behaviors can be perceived as abusive supervision even if there is no intent to harm; outcomes, rather than the intentions behind the behaviors, matter. 12 June/July 2015 Engagement in abusive supervision can be exacerbated by supervisors’ perceptions of injustice. In this regard, Tepper (2007) and Aryee, Chen, Sun, and Debrah (2007) found that supervisors are more likely to engage in abusive behaviors when they perceive themselves as victims of interpersonal or organizational injustice. In addition, Aryee and his colleagues report that the interactive effects between the supervisor’s perception of interactional justice and his or her authoritarian style of leadership tend to be associated with abusive supervision. Moreover, as supervisors’ authoritarian styles of leadership increase so does the strength of the association between their perceptions of procedural injustice and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. Other antecedents of abusive supervision include supervisors’ psychological contract violations, which can be intensified by hostile attribution bias (Hoobler & Brass, 2006); supervisors’ perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity between themselves and their subordinates (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011); supervisor–coworker conflict, which is often attributed to a displaced response to the conflict by the supervisors (Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011); supervisors’ perceptions of aggressive norms within their organization, which can be attributed to the likelihood of supervisors being more ready to adopt preexisting sanctioned behaviors (Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011); subordinates’ hostile attribution styles (Martinko et al., 2011); and subordinates’ neuroticism (Park, 2012). We note further that nonwork related events can contribute to the likelihood of abusive supervision occurring (e.g., a history of family undermining), thereby indicating a potential dispositional tendency toward abusive behaviors (Kiewitz et al., 2012). Thus, cognitive appraisal processes appear particularly pertinent in determining whether an individual will or will not be prone to engaging in abusive behaviors. ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj In other research, Burton, Hoobler, and Scheuer (2012) reported that increased stress experienced by the supervisor also increases the likelihood of engaging in behaviors perceived by subordinates as abusive. Similarly, in an investigation of individual differences associated with abusive supervision, Kiazad, Restubog, Zagencyzk, Kiewitz, and Tang (2010) found that subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision are positively associated with supervisor Machiavellianism. Moreover, Kiazad and colleagues posited that individuals often engage in abusive behaviors to obtain resources to which they believe they are entitled and that narcissistic individuals are more likely to engage in abusive behaviors than nonnarcissistic individuals—especially when low in political skill and self-regulation behaviors (see also Grijalva, Harms, Newman, & Gaddis, 2015). Finally, Whitman, Halbesleben, and Shanine (2013) found that leaders low on the ability to regulate their emotions tend to be more likely to engage in abusive supervision behaviors than in behaviors intended to promote positive high performance. Project Manager Supervision: High Performance or Abusive? Research into organization-level factors and industry-specific abusive supervision seems to be lacking. As far as we can ascertain, it looks like researchers have yet to examine abusive supervision per se within the specific context of project management. This represents an issue for the field because there is evidence to suggest a project environment may be particularly conducive to abusive supervision practices. Tepper (2007) posits that abusive supervision might be more prevalent in industries characterized by high pressure work demands, risks, and high costs associated with failure. Hostile work climates may also foster abusive supervision (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012). Bassman and London (1993) argue that a stressful work environment (i.e., one characterized by a lack of top management support, job insecurity, pressure to perform, job ambiguity, inability to influence top management, and inability to meet job demands) can trigger abusive management practices. These authors note further that abuse appears more likely to occur when the manager perceives the costs or risks of the abuse to be lower than the benefits. In this case, a perception of low costs or risks might arise if the subordinate is dependent on the supervisor, is unable to make a complaint, or is perceived by others to be difficult or incompetent. In turn, benefits might be perceived as high if the supervisor enjoys the abuse or believes the abuse is necessary to achieve an outcome. Given the inherent capacity for project managers to influence the outcomes of projects (Anantatmula, 2010; Fisher, 2011; Mazur et al., 2014), it is necessary to identify the specific factors that might lead project managers to engage in abusive supervision. Research within the context of a large construction project by Toor and Ogunlana (2009) identified four organizational factors liable to impact project managers’ leadership performance: (1) insufficient top management support, (2) lack of planning and control, (3) lack of resources, and (4) a lack of synergy between the performance goals. Although these particular factors are more likely to be present in projects based in developing countries, this research nonetheless supports the notion that factors outside of project managers’ personal attributes can impact their leadership performance. An additional factor to consider is that project managers performing supervision roles possess legitimate sources of organizational power. As such, and as Lloyd-Walker and Walker (2011, p. 388) note, “project managers are good at ‘cracking the whip’ to ensure that … performance is achieved.” In “whip cracking” situations, project managers can thus be expected to consider abusive behaviors as necessary to exert their influence and achieve organizational goals (Ferris et al. 2007). Clearly, goals may be achieved but … at what cost? We discuss the consequences of abusive supervision next. Consequences/Outcomes of Abusive Supervision Though abusive supervision has only recently been a focus in academic literature, interest has grown substantially in the past decade and documentation of the negative outcomes is now plentiful (see Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013, for a recent review). Research indicates that the consequences of abusive supervision are the antithesis of high-performance supervision; they can include increased work–family conflict (Carlson, Ferguson, Hunter, & Whitten, 2012; Tepper, 2000); psychological distress and job and life dissatisfaction (Tepper, 2000); emotional exhaustion (Chi & Liang, 2013; Wu & Hu, 2009); counterproductive work behaviors (Duffy et al., 2002); employee turnover (Tepper, 2000); burnout (Carlson et al., 2012); decreased organizational citizenship behavior (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002); affective organizational commitment (Aryee et al., 2007); and overall poorer job performance of subordinates as rated by both the subordinate and the leader (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007). Employees who believe they have been subjected to abusive supervision are more likely to be demotivated and to engage in retaliatory and counterproductive behaviors; such behaviors can be aimed at people other than the source of abuse. For example, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that subordinates who perceive their supervisors to be abusive take their aggression out not only on their supervisors, but also on people and objects that were not the sources of their abuse—including coworkers and the organization. Equally concerning is the apparent spiral effect of abusive supervision, similar to the downward spiral identified by Pearson and Porath (2005) in studies of incivility. For example, Liu, Liao, and Loi (2012) found that high-level managers’ abusive behaviors impact the abusive supervision behaviors of midlevel managers, which then impacts lower level employees. This negative impact appears to be greatest when the motive of the abusive behaviors is perceived as injurious as compared with constructive and performance-driven. Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Theory In this article, we focus on projectrelated demands, and how these can result in either high-performance supervision or abusive supervision. In this regard, the stressor–strain association that we posit between project-related stressors (which are project-related demands perceived as stressors by the project manager) and the resulting strain experienced by project managers has been well documented. In particular, the Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen (1986) stressor–strain model suggests that a project manager’s response to a stressor is an outcome of his or her cognitive appraisal of that stressor. The extent of the strain the manager then experiences as a result of the stressor is determined by this appraisal. To identify potential moderators or buffers of the stressor–strain association, we draw upon Bakker and Demerouti’s (2007) Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, which aligns with the Folkman et al. (1986) model. Applying JD-R theory to project management, we deduce that project-related demands (e.g., deadlines, role ambiguity, uncertainty, and multiple stakeholders) are likely to result in the project manager experiencing strain and, consequently, negative work and personal outcomes (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Ilies, Dimotakis, & De Pater, 2010). The JD-R model then suggests job resources (physical, social, personal, or organizational; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011), buffer the...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

check this

Finding the Emotional Intelligence to be a Real Leader
Thesis: Kathy was the most competent project manager of her organization, who
earned a good reputation by completing various small construction assignments in North
America in her past career of three years. She was very excited to take up her first overseas
assignment and desired to show a good impression over others. Due to her managerial skills,
she committed mistakes of not thinking before doing her part. However, her intention to lead
the team was not bad, but the way of dealing with team members was not good. Her
inappropriate behavior resulted in poor team performance and a huge penalty for the
organization due to late completion.
1. Case review
2. Discuss how Kathy lacked sufficient emotional intelligence to be effective in her new
project manager assignment?
3. Of the various dimensions of emotional intelligence, which dimension(s) did she
appear to lack most? What evidence can you cite to support this contention?


Running head: CASE STUDY

1

Finding the Emotional Intelligence to be a Real Leader
Instructor name
Student name
Date

CASE STUDY

2

Case review
Kathy was the most competent project manager of her organization, who earned a
good reputation by completing various small construction assignments in North America in
her past career of three years. She was very excited to take up her first overseas assignment
and desired to show a good impression over others. Due to her managerial skills, she
committed mistakes of not thinking before doing her part. However, her intention to lead the
team was not bad, but the way of dealing with team members was not good. Her
inappropriate behavior resulted in poor team performance and a huge penalty for the
organization due to late completion.
Emotional intelligence means the essential group of capabilities, competencies, and
...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags