Developing Emotional Intelligence Abilities Through Team ... · emotional intelligence training...

A R T I C L E S

Developing EmotionalIntelligence Abilities ThroughTeam-Based Learning

Nicholas Clarke

A few studies have appeared in the literature suggesting that team learningmight be an effective means for developing emotional intelligence (EI) abili-ties in the workplace. This study investigated the effects of attending a one-dayemotional intelligence training session followed by participating in team-basedlearning on ability-based measures of emotional intelligence in a sample ofMBA students. Training alone had no effect but when followed by participat-ing in team-based learning positive effects were found, but only for those whowere categorized as participating more intensively in team learning and onlyon one specific emotional ability. The findings suggest that greater participa-tion in team-based learning may create stronger relational bonds that sup-port the development of emotional abilities once individuals have gainedpersonal insights into their own emotional intelligence.

Although initially popularized by Goleman (1995), the concept of emotionalintelligence (EI) has since become a confusing area for many managers andpractitioners, because of the increasing number of models that can now befound in the literature. These have been categorized as (a) ability (Salovey &Mayer, 1990), (b) personality (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), (c) competence(Goleman, 1995), and (d) mixed models (Bar-On, 1997; Dulewicz, Higgs, &Slaski, 2003). Although the term emotional intelligence collectively can refer toall these models, they in fact each represent very different perspectives on whatis to be included within the concept. This gives rise to competing definitionsof EI and, consequently, very different approaches for its measurement. One ofthe central problems to arise is that despite using the same term, authors areoften measuring very different things, such that the predictive power of the

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 21, no. 2, Summer 2010 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.20036 119

120 Clarke

construct for explaining behavior, particularly in work settings, will varyaccording to the particular model being used.

Many practitioners will be familiar with the competence model of emo-tional intelligence that was initially developed by Goleman (1995, 1998). How-ever, this has been subject to considerable criticism for lacking construct validity(Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004). For example, Goleman includes manycompetences, such as assertiveness and motivation, that many argue lay out-side the construct’s domain. Mixed models, such as that developed by Bar-On(1997), also include aspects such as stress management and general mood thathave been criticized on similar grounds. By contrast, increasing evidence for theconstruct validity of the ability model has grown over the past decade (Daus &Ashkanasy, 2005; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Zeidner et al., 2004). Theability-based model of EI views emotional intelligence as integrating four dis-tinct cognitive abilities that involve differences in how individuals process emo-tional information. In this respect the construct is defined far more narrowly,and shares little overlap with other existing measures for assessing individualdifference, such as personality. The four emotional abilities that comprise theability model of EI are (a) Accurately perceiving emotion in oneself and others,(b) Using emotions to facilitate thinking, (c) Understanding emotion, and (d) Man-aging emotions in oneself and others (Mayer et al., 2008). Empirical findings havefound the ability model of emotional intelligence to be directly associated witha wide range of important work-related outcomes, including decision makingand negotiation (Day & Carroll, 2004; Mueller & Curhan, 2006) and leader-ship (Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004). These abil-ities may also be indirectly related to other important work-related criteria, asthey seem to influence an individual’s capacity to form effective social relations(Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerber, & Salovey, 2006; Lopes, Salovey, & Straus,2003) and are linked to aspects of psychological well being (Brackett & Mayer,2003; Brackett et al., 2006). Importantly, a considerable body of research overthe past decade has also focused on developing and refining an appropriateinstrument (the MSCEIT) for measuring these emotional intelligence abilities,an instrument that is widely recognized as possessing sound psychometricproperties (Mayer et al., 2008).

This background illustrates why development of these EI abilities is ofinterest to managers and human resources (HR) specialists alike (Clarke, 2007;Ku Fan & Cheng, 2006; Weinberger, 2002). Although interventions for devel-oping emotional capabilities in children have been undertaken for some timeand have met with some positive results (Zins, Travis, & Freppon, 1997),interventions aimed at developing emotional capabilities in adults are a muchmore recent activity spurred by the growing interest in the concept of emotionalintelligence commercially and within organizations themselves (Cherniss &Caplan, 2001). Importantly, a recent study by Wong, Foo, Wang, and Wong(2007), using the ability model of emotional intelligence, found that signifi-cant amounts of variance in an individual’s EI were left unaccounted for after

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

controlling for both personality and parental levels of emotional intelligence.This led these authors to suggest that there was some scope for developingthese emotional abilities beyond childhood and into later life.

However, despite claims that emotional intelligence more generally canbe developed through organization-sponsored activities such as training (Bar-On, 2003; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004), actual evidence is meager at best.The results of training evaluation studies to date also remain far from convinc-ing (Clarke, 2006a). A significant limitation is that many of these studies oftenrely on self-report measures of emotional intelligence that can be susceptibleto both social desirability effects and faking (Spector, 1994; Whitman, VanRooy, Viswesvaran, & Alonso, 2008). In his review, Clarke (2006a) concludedthat there was minimal evidence to support claims that many short-coursetraining programs are actually effective. A further limitation he highlighted wasthe dearth of both theoretically informed and empirically tested studies tounderpin interventions focusing on EI abilities rather than alternative concep-tualizations of EI (e.g., Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Sala, 2006; Slaski &Cartwright, 2003). As an alternative to using stand-alone short-course train-ing programs, two studies have appeared in the literature that have evaluatedthe effects of team-based learning interventions for developing emotional intel-ligence abilities (Groves, McEnrue, & Shen, 2008; Moriarty & Buckley, 2003).Both of these studies showed some positive effects; however, a limitation wasthat both assessed EI abilities with the use of performance peer ratings ratherthan an objective ability-based test, such as that offered by the MSCEIT. It is pos-sible then that these positive findings reflect improvements in the motivation ofindividuals to use their EI abilities rather than any actual development in the EIabilities themselves. Team-based learning might simply then only be increas-ing individuals’ motivation to use their current EI abilities.

This study therefore aims to make a contribution to the literature in twomajor ways. First, through using an objective ability-based test of EI, itattempts to identify the effects of a team-based learning intervention on actualEI abilities themselves, thereby minimizing the confounding effects of partic-ipant motivation to use EI abilities. Second, it is the first study to appear in theliterature that seeks to broaden the literature on EI development through inves-tigating additional factors that may be associated with the effectiveness of theintervention, rather than merely evaluating its impact. This is accomplishedthrough examining whether the development of EI abilities through team-based learning is influenced by a participant’s age, gender, or the extent of hisor her involvement in team-based learning itself.

The article is now structured as follows. First, a synthesis and review ofthe relevant literature is provided that puts forward a clear theoretical ratio-nale to explain why team-based learning is likely to influence the developmentof EI abilities. This is followed by the specific research questions and hypothe-ses that directed the study, and a description of the sample of UK MBA stu-dents on which the study is based. Details of the development intervention are

Developing Emotional Intelligence Abilities 121


122 Clarke

then provided in order to inform comparisons with the effects of differinginterventions in any future studies. The results are then presented, showingsome partial support for the positive impact of the intervention on participants’EI abilities. However, this was found to be dependent upon the extent of par-ticipation in team-based learning. An explanation is then offered to explainthese findings before considering their implications for the design of futuredevelopment interventions in this area.

Developing Emotional Intelligence Abilities ThroughTeam-Based Learning: Theory Development andHypotheses

A number of authors have suggested that workplace learning interventionsmay be effective in developing individuals’ emotional intelligence (Clarke,2006b; Freshwater & Stickley, 2004). These refer to opportunities for learn-ing and development that occur specifically in the workplace milieu andinclude learning that arises while performing the job itself (Clarke, 2004; Vander Sluiss, Williams, & Hoeksema, 2002), as well as through participating inteams, projects, special assignments, and coaching (Baron et al., 1999; Blumenfield, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, & Palincsar, 1991; Evered & Selman,2001; Vince, 2004). Clarke (2006b) argued that workplace learning methodsmight be effective in developing emotional abilities, based upon qualitativefindings he obtained from a study of hospice workers. He showed how theongoing use of emotional knowledge within teams and arising from perform-ing the job itself was connected to the exercise of these emotional abilities, andthis meant that they improved over time. For a number of these workers, thisoccurred through emotions being a focus of dialogue and reflection with theircolleagues, peers, and supervisors. In some instances this development alsoseemed to occur through a more tacit form of learning, but through reflectionand dialogue in the workplace a more conscious awareness of these abilitiesbecame possible. A number of key propositions regarding the development ofemotional abilities in the workplace arose from that study.

PROPOSITION 1: According to social learning theory and specifically the concept ofcommunities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), individuals are likely to makesense of emotional abilities and negotiate their meanings through participation inworkplace social structures. It is through participation in these learning commu-nities, particularly in joint problem solving, that opportunities are provided forexperiential learning relating to emotional experiences, and these occur far morefrequently in the workplace than in training programs.

PROPOSITION 2: Reflection and dialogue within social structures such as teams shouldenable individuals to share and develop their understanding of emotions, therebyoffering them an opportunity for exercising and developing specific emotional


abilities. This results in a form of neuroplasticity, where the increased use of these abil-ities results in strengthening neural connections, which leads to the further strengthening of these abilities (Edelman, 1987; Zull, 2002). Clarke (2006b)referred to this latter process, specifically in this context, as “emotional knowledgework.”

PROPOSITION 3: Through a greater identification with workplace communities, par-ticipation in these social structures increases, thereby facilitating more opportuni-ties for the exchange of emotional knowledge and reflection (Brown & Duguid,1991; Gheradi, Nicolini, & Odella, 1998), and consequently the development ofthese emotional abilities.

PROPOSITION 4: Workplace learning approaches also provide greater opportunitiesfor tacit learning (Eraut, 2000) such that there is a greater chance for individualsto develop these emotional abilities through more intuitive and unconscious learn-ing processes, as well as through conscious processes such as modeling and obser-vation.

Offering some cautious support for Propositions 1 and 2 are two addi-tional studies that have reported positive findings for individuals who haveparticipated in team-based learning interventions. Moriarty and Buckley(2003), using a team-based ability measure of EI, showed how 80 undergrad-uates participating in a 12-week experiential learning program on effectiveteamwork showed statistically significant improvements in a number of self-and peer-assessed team-ability EI dimensions compared with a comparisongroup. Participants were divided into teams who attended 24 hours of teach-ing over the 12-week period. Most of this time was spent in problem-based,self-directed experiential learning. In addition, these teams also met inde-pendently once a week on their own time. They found significant changes ina number of dimensions of a team-based ability measure of EI (WEIP; Jordan et al., 2002) on measures taken before and after the team learningintervention.

More recently, Groves et al. (2008) also found that emotional intelligenceabilities increased in a sample of 75 undergraduate management students par-ticipating in an 11-week leadership development program compared with acomparison group. With the use of a measure of emotional abilities that theauthors had constructed specifically for use in management development, theemotional intelligence self-description inventory (EISDI), improvements weredemonstrated in all four EI dimensions and the total EI score. An importantfeature of the intervention was that these students used the results they hadreceived from their initial scores on the EISDI to plan goals for developing dif-fering EI abilities. According to the authors, this was used as a basis for indi-viduals to then engage in ongoing dialogue with their instructor, peers, acoach, and an external source of support (e.g., boss, spouse, coworker), asthey reflected upon the EI development process.



124 Clarke

Together the findings from these few studies (Clarke, 2006b; Groves et al., 2008; Moriarty & Buckley, 2003) offer some initial empirical supportsuggesting that team-based learning interventions may offer a means for devel-oping EI within organizational settings. However, additional empirical studiesare needed to build and further develop our theoretical knowledge in this area.In particular, studies need to be extended to compare alternative approachesto developing these emotional intelligence abilities and to identify whether par-ticipant characteristics influence the effectiveness of alternative approaches.Given these concerns, the study sought to address the following objectives: (a) to compare the effects of participation in a 1-day EI training program withparticipation in training followed by team-based learning on emotional intel-ligence abilities, and (b) to determine whether the effects of the two interven-tions are moderated by either gender or age.

Specific hypotheses and their rationales follow.EI Development and Intensity of Participation in Team-Based Learning.

Drawing upon social theories of learning (Billet, 1994; Gheradi, Nicolini, &Odella, 1998) and the Lave and Wenger (1991) theory of legitimate peripheralparticipation in particular, opportunities for learning, development, andknowledge exchange are thought to increase the more an individual partici-pates in different social groupings. Social loafing in teams has been found tohave detrimental effects on team performance and effectiveness (Erez &Somech, 1996; Mulvey, Bowes-Sperry, & Klein, 1998) and has been suggestedas affecting team learning (Robbins & Finley, 2000). Specifically in relation toteam-based learning, empirical research has found that the increased frequencyof team meetings is associated with greater learning, especially where complexknowledge is involved (Madhavan & Grover, 1998). Other studies have shownthat both the level (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003) and nature (Lovelace, Shapiro, &Weingart, 2001) of individuals’ participation in teams does indeed affect team-based learning outcomes. Given these findings and based on Proposition 2,that emotional abilities develop as a result of ongoing emotional knowledgework, the development of emotional abilities through team-based learningwould seem likely influenced by the level of participation in team learning.Elsewhere a number of authors have defined this varying level of participationas individuals differing in their intensity of participation (Issel & Anderson,2001; Wollebaek & Selle, 2002). This led to the first and second hypotheses.

HYPOTHESIS 1: The emotional intelligence abilities (a) perceiving emotions, (b) usingemotions to facilitate thinking, (c) understanding emotions, and (d) managing emo-tions will develop as a result of participation in training plus team-based learning,but not from participation in training alone.

HYPOTHESIS 2: The emotional intelligence abilities (a) perceiving emotions, (b) usingemotions to facilitate thinking, (c) understanding emotions, and (d) managing emo-tions will develop more significantly as a result of more intensive participation inteam-based learning.


EI Development and Participant Characteristics. Specifically in relationto the development of emotional intelligence, gender and age have been sug-gested as potentially significant. For example, women have been found to bemore emotionally perceptive (Brody, 1999), and it is widely held that emo-tional intelligence covaries with gender (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000;Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler, 2006; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough,2005). The emotional abilities contained in the ability model of emotionalintelligence, similar to other forms of intelligence, are also suggested to developwith age (Mayer et al., 2008). However, studies that have examined relation-ships between age and emotional intelligence have produced mixed results(Hemmati, Mills, & Kroner, 2004; Kafetsios, 2004; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,2002). As yet no studies have investigated whether gender or age might influ-ence the potential effectiveness of EI development programs. Together theseobservations led to the third hypothesis.

HYPOTHESIS 3: The development of the emotional intelligence abilities (a) perceiv-ing emotions, (b) using emotions to facilitate thinking, (c) understanding emotions,and (d) managing emotions is positively moderated by age and gender.

Research Design and Method

The study employed a pre-/posttest quasiexperimental design (Campbell &Stanley, 1963) with measures of emotional intelligence collected at the begin-ning of a 14-week team project (Time 1) and then again at the end of the 14-week period (Time 2). Similar to previous EI studies ( Jordan et al., 2002;Moriarty & Buckley, 2003; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002) the study wasbased upon MBA students participating in project teams. Eighty (80) full- andpart-time, first-year MBA students registered to undertake a compulsory orga-nizational behavior module were enrolled to take part in the study. In addi-tion, 22 second-year part-time MBA students volunteered to take part in onlythe 1-day training component of the intervention, thereby acting as a suitablecomparison group. Complete data sets were obtained from 77 of these MBAstudents (53 male). This was an international group of students; 36 describedthemselves as European, 20 as Chinese/Taiwanese, 9 as Indian, 5 as Japanese,6 as Arabic, and 1 as African. The mean age of participants was 30.4 years(SD � 5.8); ages ranged from 21 to 47 years.

Procedure. Following both Moriarty and Buckley (2003) and Groves etal. (2008), all study participants (102) were initially provided with a 1-day EItraining self-awareness session. Raising the self-awareness of individual partic-ipants has been suggested as important for directing attention to the nature ofemotional abilities and where potential development of these abilities may benecessary (Clarke, 2006a; Lopes, Cote, & Salovey, 2006). This may be partic-ularly critical where discussion and reflection on the emotional content ofwork is not characteristic of the way teams have worked together in the past.



126 Clarke

The session began with students completing an ability-based test of EI, whichwas followed by four individual and group-based exercises where studentsconsidered different aspects of their own emotional intelligence abilities. Anoutline of the training awareness session is provided in the Appendix. Next,80 of these students also participated in a team-based learning interventionthat required them to work together in teams of four–six members to producea written team report over a 14-week period. Students were told they couldmeet as often as they wanted in order to get the task done. They were also toldthat they should reflect on and discuss how the team was working together inorder to get the task done, as well as focus on the task itself. At the end of the 14-week period, students were asked to state how often their team had met.Participants were then categorized into two groups—those who attended teammeetings once a week or more over the period, and those who attended lessthan one meeting a week. Complete data sets were obtained from 64 MBA students participating in the experimental group (training plus team-basedlearning) and 13 MBA students from the comparison group (training alone).This latter group comprised four women. None of the participants taking partin the study received feedback on their test results following the first testadministration, in order to minimize any confounding motivational effects.

Measures.1. Emotional Intelligence Scores. A number of researchers suggest that abil-

ity testing of emotional abilities is far more preferable in studies than the useof self-report tests (Wong et al., 2007; Zeidner et al., 2004). The MSCEIT V2.0is based on a cognitive model of EI that considers emotional intelligence to arisefrom an individual’s capacity to reason and problem solve with and about emo-tions (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). The test contains 141 itemsthat are grouped into eight tasks that correspond to the four branches of emo-tional abilities: (a) perceiving emotion (B1), (b) using emotion to facilitatethought (B2), (c) understanding emotions (B3), and (d) managing emotions(B4). Previously, reliabilities for each of the scales have been reported as 0.90,0.76, 0.77, and 0.81 for each of the four branches in order and 0.91 for thefull scale (Mayer et al., 2002). Scores for each of the branches are computedby the test administrators (MHSassessments.com). Reliabilities for these scalesin this study were found to be satisfactory at 0.85 (B1), 0.82 (B2), 0.72 (B3),0.68 (B4), and 0.75 for the total EI scale, respectively.

2. Gender and Age. Participants were required to write in their age and gen-der on the pen-and-paper test version of the MSCEIT. Measures of gender wereobtained by a simple dichotomous categorical coding. Previous studies exam-ining age have found mixed results for age where the participants on averagewere in their thirties (Hemmati et al., 2004; Kafetsios, 2004). Wong et al.(2007) suggested, however, that age was more likely to be a key factor influ-encing EI for individuals in their twenties, because of the considerable lifechoices people face at this age, and found some support for this. This wouldseem to suggest that an interaction between age and EI may more likely to be


found in individuals under 30 than those over 30. As a result it was decidedto dichotomously code age as either (1) aged 30 and under and (2) aged 31and over, in order to reflect these recent findings.

3. Intensity of Participation in Team-Based Learning. Similar to Wollebaekand Selle (2002), intensity of participation was operationalized as the amountof time spent participating. In the context of the current study this was seenas comprising how often an individual met with his or her team over thecourse of the 14-week period. Measures of frequency of attendance at teammeetings were obtained by asking participants to indicate how often they man-aged to attend their team meetings outside class hours on a scale of 1–5, where1 � less than once a fortnight, 2 � about once a fortnight, 3 � about onceevery 10 days, 4 � about once a week, and 5 � more than once a week. Indi-vidual scores were then subsequently dichotomized as either 1 � less thanonce a week and 2 � once a week or more.

Data Analyses. Participants were categorized into three groups: (a) thosereceiving only EI training, (b) those receiving EI training followed by partici-pation in team meetings less than once a week (low participation), and (c) those receiving EI training followed by participation in team meetings oncea week or more (high participation). Initial tests began with examining corre-lations between all variables involved in the study. This was followed by under-taking a multivariate analysis of variance with the use of a repeated-measuresdesign (MANOVA). Time was entered as the within-subject factor name withtwo levels (pre- and posttest) with each of the EI branch and overall EI scoresentered as measures. Treatment condition was then entered as a between-subjects factor with three levels (training, training plus low participation inteams, training plus high participation in teams). Both age and gender wereentered as covariates in the model. This produced a 2 � 3 � 2 � 2 factorialdesign. Initial positive results suggested follow-up univariate analyses werenecessary. The software program SPSS for Windows (Version 14.0; SPSSChicago, IL, USA) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between measuresare presented in Table 1. The number of significant correlations between eachof the four emotional abilities—B1, B2, B3, and B4—confirm that these abili-ties are related to one another within an overall construct, emotional intelli-gence. Initial MANOVA tests examined both between- and within-subjectseffects.

Results indicated significant difference between EI measures only for gen-der, F(5,72) � 4.41, p � 0.01. Results for between-subject effects for bothtreatment condition, F(5,72) � 2.10, p � ns, and age, F(5,72) � 0.58, p � ns,were insignificant, suggesting no significant differences in EI distributionwithin each treatment condition. Within-subjects effects indicated significantdifferences between pre- and post-EI measures, F(5,72) � 2.97, p � 0.05, andfor interaction effects between treatment condition and time, F(5,54) � 2.87,p � 0.05. Interaction effects between treatment condition and both age,



Tab

le 1

. Mea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

ons,

an

d C

orre

lati

ons

Am

ong

Var

iabl

es

Vari

able

M

ean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

1. B

1 (p

rete

st)

90.7

016

.20

2. B

290

.80

18.6

40.

62**

3. B

386

.62

15.9

00.

35**

0.49

**4.

B4

89.1

515

.70

0.35

**0.

50**

0.43

**5.

Tot

al e

mot

iona

l 84

.42

17.6

40.

80**

0.79

**0.

72**

0.68

**in

telli

genc

e (E

I)6.

B1

(pos

ttes

t)93

.42

12.7

00.

59**

0.39

**0.

28*

0.23

0.50

**7.

B2

93.1

515

.98

0.46

**0.

58**

0.35

**0.

27*

0.50

**0.

46**

8. B

387

.45

15.2

20.

26*

0.38

**0.

75**

0.26

*0.

52**

0.24

*0.

48**

9. B

490

.32

12.4

50.

26*

0.43

**0.

230.

63**

0.50

**0.

28*

0.29

*0.

2110

. Tot

al E

I86

.69

13.7

00.

57**

0.60

**0.

59**

0.43

**0.

71**

0.76

**0.

78**

0.72

**0.

53**

11. A

ge30

.45.

8�

0.23

�0.

31�

0.06

�0.

08�

0.20

0.08

�0.

06�

0.12

0.18

0.02

12. F

requ

ency

3.

90.

850.

37**

0.34

**0.

30*

0.00

0.37

**0.

25*

0.18

0.20

0.01

0.26

*0.

1113

. Dur

atio

n4.

51.

080.

150.

100.

040.

060.

100.

23*

0.23

*0.

070.

100.

23*

0.14

0.14

*p�

0.05

.

**p

�0.

01.

F(5,72) � 2.04, p � ns, and gender, F(5,72) � 0.73, p � ns, were not signif-icant. Hypothesis 3 was therefore not supported.

Results from univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests (Table 2) indi-cated differences between pre- and postscores only for one branch of emotionalintelligence, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and this was significantlyinfluenced by treatment condition, F(5,72) � 6.18, p � 0.01.

Following these results, a series of tests were undertaken to determinewhich treatment condition had resulted in positive changes in this emotionalability. The mean scores with standard deviations obtained from each condi-tion at pre- and posttest are presented in Table 3.

Here we can see that the mean EI ability scores for those who participatedmore intensively in team-based learning increased from 82.06 to 96.02(�13.96), whereas the mean EI ability scores for those characterized as lowparticipation increased only marginally from 92.84 to 95.31 (�2.47). Resultsof paired t tests showed changes were only significant for those categorized inthe high team participation group, t(20) � 4.89, p � 0.001, but not for thosein the low-participation group, t(42) � 1.18, p � ns, or in the training-alonegroup, t(12) � 1.043, p � ns. Both Hypotheses 1 and 2 were therefore par-tially supported.



Table 2. Results of Univariate Analyses of Variance on Effects of Timeand Treatment Condition on Emotional Intelligence (EI) Measures

Type III SumVariable of Squares df F Significance

Perceiving emotions 107.19 2 0.72 0.49Using emotions 1,024.53 2 6.18 0.01Understanding emotions 75.73 2 0.65 0.53Managing emotions 3.41 2 0.02 0.98Overall EI score 293.58 1 0.22 0.12

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Emotional Ability (EI)Scores: Using Emotions to Facilitate Thinking, by Time

and Treatment Condition

Source Baseline Measure 14 Weeks Later �EI

Training (N � 13) 86.60 (19.40) 85.20 (18.75) �1.40Training and low participation 92.84 (15.33) 95.31 (16.17) 2.47

in teams (N � 43)Training and high participation 82.06 (18.71) 96.02 (17.81) 13.96

in teams (N � 21)

130 Clarke

Discussion

Findings from this study have offered further empirical support for the use ofteam-based learning for developing particular emotional intelligence abilities.Through using an objective ability-based test, developments in EI ability itselfrather than merely motivation to use EI abilities were isolated. However, a sta-tistically significant finding was only obtained with respect to one emotionalability, using emotions to facilitate thinking. Furthermore, this was shown onlyfor those individuals who participated in a 1-day EI awareness session, fol-lowed by more intensive participation in team-based learning (defined here asparticipating in team-based learning more than 1 hour per week over 14weeks). No statistically significant changes in any other EI scores were foundfor either training alone, nor for training followed by low participation in team-based learning. These findings lend support, then, to the notion that afterbeing initially exposed to self-awareness of emotional intelligence concepts,participation in team-based forms of learning can offer a means through whichEI abilities might then develop. However, the intensity of an individual’s par-ticipation in team-based learning appears to play a key role. Of note, this find-ing does appear to correspond with the previous findings of Moriarty andBuckley (2003), where statistically significant improvements in EI were foundafter students attended an EI self-awareness session followed by participationin team meetings once a week.

However, the impact of the intervention in producing positive changes inonly one of the four emotional abilities, using emotions to facilitate thinking,was unexpected. There are a number of potential explanations for this. Thefirst may be the content of the 1-day training awareness session. Althoughthere was a session devoted to the ability perceiving emotions, this was rela-tively brief. Elsewhere Elfenbein (2006) has found positive results for theimpact of training for improving the accuracy of emotion recognition; how-ever, the training she reported appears to offer more intense and repeated feed-back on emotional recognition accuracy than that offered on the trainingsession here. In the absence of sufficient feedback regarding the accuracy ofemotional recognition, this ability may simply not develop through furtherteam-based learning, despite participants having been exposed to an increasedawareness of emotional perception. Similarly, in relation to the ability manag-ing emotions, the training session focused on impulse control and wasdesigned to raise awareness of how individuals manage their emotions and toincrease their understanding of how their emotions influence their behaviors.On closer examination, it seems likely that the exercise here may have simplyincreased awareness of participants’ own coping strategies rather than provid-ing any new understanding of how to better manage emotions. Activities thatare designed around using better relaxation techniques or cognitive behavioralrestructuring combined with regular feedback, might instead offer a far betterplatform for increasing the behavioral response repertoire of participants to


their own and others’ emotions. These emotion management techniques couldthen be practiced through team-based learning, which then might potentiallyhelp them to develop further. The failure to provide new knowledge in the ini-tial training session could therefore explain this result.

The significance of extent of participation in team-based learning in pro-ducing a positive change in the ability using emotions to facilitate thinkingmight be explained as follows. Social situations at work, particularly in teamcontexts (Barsade & Gibson, 1998; von Glinow, Shapirom, & Brett, 2004) andprojects (Peslak, 2005) have been found to generate considerable emotionalexperiences. From a situated learning perspective, increased participation inteam-based learning enables individuals to gain greater access to the emotionalknowledge held by members of the community or, in this instance, their pro-ject team. More intensive participation is also likely to facilitate the developmentof stronger relational ties and bonds, which promotes enhanced knowledgeexchange (Madhavan & Grover, 1998), which includes emotional know-ledge. It may be that the intensity of participation reflects the additional timeit takes to build strong relational bonds that then enable team members to feelcomfortable in addressing the emotional content in their teams. These strongerrelational bonds are likely to facilitate more open dialogue, reflection, and shar-ing of emotional knowledge. With an increased amount of information avail-able regarding the emotional states of the team and individual team members,and having initially gained some awareness of the importance of emotions, itmay be that individuals become more conscious of the need to take emotionsinto consideration when making decisions or action planning.

The emotional ability understanding emotions captures an individual’sability to understand the antecedents that cause their differing emotions, howtheir emotions can combine to generate different, more complex emotions, andhow their emotions influence their behaviors. Following the same line of argu-ment above, it is more difficult to explain the failure to obtain any significantchanges in this ability as a result of the intervention. However, the answercould lie in that individuals spent insufficient time together during team-basedlearning to support the development of emotionally competent group norms.These have been shown previously to enable a group to address and discussemotions at a deeper level (Koman & Wolff, 2008). The four emotional abili-ties are arranged in a hierarchical fashion, in the sense that higher emotionalabilities such as understanding emotions and managing emotions draw uponthe two lower abilities. It may be that far more time is needed in participatingin team-based learning before there is sufficient psychological safety to pro-mote the deeper examination of individuals’ emotions that might be necessaryin order for there to be any impact on these higher emotional abilities. Previ-ously, Daft and Lengel (1986) have suggested that innovation teams need tomeet more frequently in order to interpret and give meaning to highly uncer-tain and complex information. Reading emotional cues and giving meaning toemotions that arise in teams is complicated and can be exacerbated when team



132 Clarke

members are from different cultural backgrounds, or where rules of emotionaldisplay and emotional management differ (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). It maybe that it is only through achieving a certain level of proximity between indi-viduals and awareness of these subtleties that individuals might then gainincreased mastery of these emotional skills.

Peslak (2005), for example, has highlighted how emotions increased inintensity within information-technology project teams over a 15-week period.He showed how these teams began their projects in a lower emotional state, butthat their level of emotional involvement increased over the lifetime of the pro-ject. This could suggest that the development of higher-order emotional abilitieswithin team-based learning might be better facilitated through more extensiveteam-based learning interventions than that examined here. Elsewhere, studieson the effectiveness of social and emotional competence development for chil-dren and young people have also found the duration of the program to be a keyfactor, with sustained 2-year programs being far more effective than those of 1 year (Elias et al., 1997; Payton et al., 2000). Although awareness training fol-lowed by more intense participation over 14 weeks was found to impact the abil-ity relating to individuals becoming more conscious of their emotions and usingthese in their decision making, it could be that far longer or more intense peri-ods are necessary in order for these additional emotional abilities to change.

Finally, it is worthwhile commenting on the differences between the base-line scores obtained for the emotional ability of using emotions to facilitatethinking in the high- and low-participation groups (Table 3). These weremeans of 92.84 (low) and (82.06) (high), respectively. MSCEIT scores are com-puted as empirical percentiles, with an average score of 100 and a standarddeviation of 15. The high-participation group was thus more than one stan-dard deviation below the mean, compared with a normative sample. This find-ing may suggest that baseline emotional intelligence levels could play somerole in determining how effective development interventions might be, forexample, that some emotional abilities might be more susceptible to develop-ment if baseline EI is initially fairly low. Alternatively, perhaps improvementsbeyond these baseline levels are more sensitive to detection by the MSCEIT.Given that no study has yet been published that has shown developments inEI abilities using such a test, the significance of this finding is unknown butclearly worth noting for future studies in the area.

The findings obtained here do need to be interpreted within the limita-tions of the study, however. The most significant limitation is the relativelysmall sample size. Complete data sets were obtained from only 77 MBA stu-dents, and although this is comparable to the populations involved in the twoprevious studies in this area (Groves et al., 2008; Moriarty & Buckley, 2003),these population sizes do pose problems in so far as threats to validity and dangers of increasing the probability of type-I errors. However, it should beacknowledged that many exploratory experimental studies in the areas of train-ing effectiveness have often begun with similar, relatively small sample sizes,


especially in the early stages of theory development (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004;Ibbertson & Newell, 1998; Lim & Morris, 2006; Sirriani & Frey, 2001). Nev-ertheless, the small number of individuals participating in the training inter-vention alone, as well as the lesser number of women taking part, may haveinfluenced the findings obtained. Finally, whereas the use of a performance-based test of emotional intelligence ability arguably represents an advance overself-report testing measures used in previous EI development research, partic-ipants might well have discussed their initial answers to the test subsequentlywithin their teams. This could therefore have influenced their responses at thesecond administration.

Implications and Future Research. The study contributes to the wider lit-erature on EI development through offering a clearer theoretical basis for under-standing the possible mechanisms by which emotional abilities might developthrough learning based on a social perspective of learning. This should offer aplatform for future research to enable us to understand better the causal mech-anisms through which emotional intelligence abilities might be enhanced.Future studies could improve on this study through using more objective mea-sures for capturing the intensity of participation in teams. A more formal meansof observation for assessing attendance in teams could offer one such mecha-nism. Future research might also examine the relationships between participa-tion in teams and the development in strength of social bonds, and whether thisprocess determines the development of emotional abilities as one of the possi-ble mechanisms suggested here. Studies that use videorecordings of team mem-bers interacting with each other during team learning over a period of timecould also provide far greater insights into how reflection and dialogue withinteams potentially play a role here in impacting on the development of emotionalintelligence. Future research should also consider whether team diversity influ-ences the results obtained, especially because evidence suggests that there arecultural differences regarding patterns of emotional expression (Elfenbein &Ambady, 2002). Field studies that examine the impact of team-based learningin actual work settings could also assist in identifying what additional contex-tual factors may be significant. Clarke (2006b), for example, suggested thataspects of the team’s climate relating to psychological safety may be a significantfactor influencing opportunities for EI development amongst hospice workers.Team climate may therefore warrant further investigation as a potential moder-ator of the effectiveness of team-based learning.

Conclusions

The findings provide some indicative support for the effectiveness of team-based learning as offering a means by which the emotional ability of usingemotions to facilitate thinking might be susceptible to development once indi-viduals have been exposed to some form of EI self-awareness. This awarenessmay be important for focusing attention and increasing motivation to use and



134 Clarke

exercise emotional abilities during the team learning experience. Importantly,however, the amount of time team members spend together during the team-learning intervention is a contingent factor in influencing the actual develop-ment of this ability. Similar to Moriarty and Buckley (2003), this study foundteam learning over a 14-week period with individuals meeting in their teamsfor at least 1 hour a week to have some positive effect. A team-learning inter-vention over a period longer than 14 weeks may well result in improvementsin other emotional intelligence abilities. Neither gender nor age were foundto be significant factors influencing EI development here; however, this mayhave been due to the small sample involved. The study offers little supportfor the effectiveness of a 1-day EI training session alone to have any effect.Human resources practitioners should therefore be cautious in assuming thatinvesting in short training courses alone will necessarily produce any signifi-cant changes to participants’ EI abilities. Given increasing evidence that emo-tional intelligence abilities are associated with many of the key skills andcompetences required for operating successfully in today’s organizations, stud-ies that further our understanding of how emotional intelligence abilities candevelop should have particular significance for a wide range of organizationalsettings.

References

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada:Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2003). How important is it to educate people to be emotionally and socially intelli-gent, and can it be done? Perspectives in Education, 21(4), 3–13.

Baron, B. J. S., Scwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D.(1999). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-basedlearning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 271–311.

Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld,B. Mannix, & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups & teams (pp. 81–102). Stamford,CT: JAI Press.

Billet, S. (1994). Situated learning—A workplace experience. Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, 34(2), 112–130.

Blumenfield, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, M. G., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Sustainingthe doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369–398.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminate and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,1147–1158.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerber, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotionalabilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emo-tional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780–795.

Brody, L. (1999). Gender, emotion, and the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward

a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.

Chicago: Rand McNally.


Cherniss, C., & Caplan, R. D. (2001). Implementing emotional intelligence programs in organi-zations. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intel-ligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

Clarke, N. (2004). HRD and the challenges of assessing learning in the workplace. InternationalJournal of Training & Development, 8(2), 140–156.

Clarke, N. (2006a). Emotional intelligence training: A case of caveat emptor. Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 5(4), 1–20.

Clarke, N. (2006b). Developing emotional intelligence through workplace learning: Findingsfrom a case study in healthcare. Human Resource Development International, 9(4), 447–465.

Clarke, N. (2007). Be selective when choosing emotional intelligence training. People Management,13(9), 48.

Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. A. (2004). An examination of work-environment support factorsaffecting training transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Devel-opment Quarterly, 15(4), 449–471.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organization information requirements, media richness, andstructural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intel-ligence in organizational behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 226, 453–466.

Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence topredict individual performance and group citizenship behaviours. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 36, 1443–1458.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004). Can emotional intelligence be developed? International Jour-nal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 95–111.

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M. J., and Slaski, M. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Content, construct andconcurrent validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(5), 405–420.

Edelman, G. M. (1987). Neural Darwinism: The theory of neuronal group selection. New York: Basic Books.

Elfenbein, H. (2006). Learning in emotion judgements: Training and the cross-cultural under-standing of facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 21–36.

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotionrecognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203–235.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R.,Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guide foreducators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.

Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects ofculture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1513–1537.

Evered, R. C., & Selman, J. C. (2001). Coaching and the art of management. OrganizationalDynamics, 9, 16–32.

Freshwater, D., & Stickley, T. (2004). The heart of the art: Emotional intelligence in nurse edu-cation. Nursing Inquiry, 11(2), 91–98.

Gheradi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learnin organizations. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297.

Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional intelligence: A comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 86(1), 33–45.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.



136 Clarke

Groves, K. S., McEnrue, M. P., & Shen, W. (2008). Developing and measuring the emotional intel-ligence of leaders. Journal of Management Development, 27(2), 225–250.

Hemmati, T., Mills, J., & Kroner, D. G. (2004). The validity of the Bar-On emotional intelligencequotient in an offender population. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 695–706.

Ibbertson, A., & Newell, S. (1998). Outdoor management development: The mediating effect ofthe client organisation. International Journal of Training & Development, 2(4), 239–258.

Issel, M. I., & Anderson, R. A. (2001). Intensity of case managers’ participation in organizationaldecision making. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 361–372.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotionalintelligence scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195–214.

Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 37(1), 129–145.

Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effec-tiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 265–279.

Koman, E., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and teamleader. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 55–75.

Ku Fan, C., & Cheng, C.-L. (2006). A study to identify the training needs of life insurance salesrepresentatives in Taiwan using the Dephi Approach. International Journal of Training & Devel-opment, 10(3), 212–216.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformationalleadership styles. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 554–564.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfactionand organizational climate on perceived training transfer. Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 17(1), 85–115.

Lopes, P. N., Cote, S., & Salovey, S. (2006). An ability model of emotional intelligence: Implica-tions for assessment and training. In V. Urch Drussat, F. Sala, and G. Mount (Eds.), Linkingemotional intelligence and performance at work (pp. 53–80). London, United Kingdom: LawrenceErlbaum.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality and the per-ceived quality of social relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641–658.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new prod-uct teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.

Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: Newproduct development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62, 1–12.

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence.Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test.Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligencewith the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1), 97–105.

Moriarty, P., & Buckley, F. (2003). Increasing team emotional intelligence through process. Jour-nal of European Industrial Training, 27(2/3/4), 98–110.

Mueller, J. S., & Curhan, J. R. (2006). Emotional intelligence and counterpart affect induction ina negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17, 110–128.

Mulvey, P. W., Bowes-Sperry, L., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The effects of perceived loafing and defen-sive impression management on group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 29(3), 394–415.

Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of theMayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0. Intelligence, 33, 285–305.


Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg,R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health andreducing risk behaviours in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 179–185.

Peslak, A. R. (2005). Emotions and team projects and processes. Team Performance Management,11(7/8), 251–262.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigationwith reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448

Robbins, H. A., & Finley, M. (2000). The new why teams don’t work: What goes wrong and how tomake it right. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Sala, F. (2006). The international business case: Emotional intelligence competencies and impor-tant business outcomes. In V. Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligenceand performance at work (pp. 125–142). London, United Kingdom: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition & Personality, 9,185–211.

Sirriani, P. M., & Frey, B. A. (2001). Changing culture: Evaluation of a leadership developmentprogramme at Melton Financial Services. International Journal of Training & Development, 5(4),290–301.

Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications for stress,health and performance. Stress and Health, 19(4), 233–239.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use ofa controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.

Van der Sluiss, L., Williams, R., & Hoeksema, L. (2002). Measuring the quality of manageriallearning on the job. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(8), 1266–1278.

Vince, R. (2004). Action learning and organizational learning: Power, politics and emotion inorganizations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 63–78.

Von Glinow, M., Shapirom, D., & Brett, J. (2004). Can we talk and should we? Managing emo-tional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29, 578–592.

Weinberger, L. A. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Its connection to HRD theory and practice.Human Resource Development Review, 1(2), 215–243.

Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Alonso, A. (2008). The susceptibility of amixed model measure of emotional intelligence to faking: A Solomon tour-group design. Psy-chology Science Quarterly, 50(1), 44–63.

Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. Y. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis ofleadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505–522.

Wollebaek, D., & Selle, P. (2002). Does participation in voluntary associations contribute to social cap-ital? The impact of intensity, scope and type. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 32–61.

Wong, C. S., Foo, M. D., Wang, C. W., & Wong, P. M. (2007). The feasibility of training anddevelopment of EI: An exploratory study in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Intelligence,35(2), 141–150.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(3), 371–399.

Zins, J. E., Travis, L. F., & Freppon, P. A. (1997). Linking research and educational programmingto promote social and emotional learning. In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional devel-opment and emotional intelligence (pp. 257–275). New York: Basic Books.

Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing a brain: Helping people learn by understanding how the brainworks. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers.

Nicholas Clarke is a senior lecturer in organizational behavior and HRM with the School of Management, University of Southampton.



138 Clarke

Appendix: Emotional Intelligence Training Self-Awareness Session

Morning

(1) Participants to complete EI ability test (MSCEIT)(2) Outline of session and objectives(3) Emotional intelligence presentation 1: EI abilities and how we recognize

them(4) Exercise 1 (individual): Perceiving emotions: recognizing microexpres-

sions(5) Exercise 2 (individual): emotional self-awareness

Afternoon

(6) Exercise 3 (group): understanding emotions(7) Emotional intelligence presentation 2: Emotional regulation and manage-

ment exercise 4 (group)(8) Impulse control—DVD: Overview of King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1(9) Exercise 5 (individual and group): Impulsive behavior and control


Copyright of Human Resource Development Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Developing Emotional Intelligence Abilities Through Team ... · emotional intelligence training...

Documents

Transcript of Developing Emotional Intelligence Abilities Through Team ... · emotional intelligence training...