Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership and Key Project Manager Competences

8/16/2019 Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership and Key Project Manager Competences

1/17


2/17

6 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership

P A P E R S

possess emotional intelligence. They

put forward four key arguments in this

respect. First, the temporary nature of

projects means that trust and commit-

ment, which arise through interpersonalinteraction, need to be quickly estab-

lished (Kloppenborg & Petrick, 1999;

Sweeney & Lee, 1999). Emotional compe-

tences that underpin effective communi-

cation and social skills are therefore likely

to assist project managers to more easi-

ly form good interpersonal relations.

Second, and related to the former, emo-

tional intelligence that facilitates inter-

personal relationships should also sup-

port 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 gen-

erate 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 man-

age conflict, especially where there is

scope for misunderstanding and mis-

communication arising from cross-cul-

tural projects.

Findings from recent studies exam-

ining emotional intelligence within a

project management context have

found emotional intelligence to be a sig-

nificant 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 nei-

ther instance was there an attempt to

control for personality effects. In addi-

tion, as yet no studies have examined

relationships between emotional intel-

ligence and those specific project man-

agement competences posited to be

important for successful project out-

comes, 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 intelli-

gence, project management compe-

tences, and transformational leadership.

Based on a sample of project managers

in the United Kingdom, the findings sug-

gest that emotional intelligence abilities

and empathy may be a significant

aspect of individual difference that con-

tributes to behaviors associated with

project manager competences in the

areas of teamwork, attentiveness, and

managing conflict, as well as dimen-sions 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 dif-

ference that may predict sets of project

manager behaviors that are increasingly

recognized to be associated with suc-

cessful outcomes in projects.

Previous Findings ExaminingEmotional Intelligence inProjectsFive studies have appeared in the litera-

ture 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 organiza-

tions drawn from a wide range of indus-

tries. Data on the project manager’s

leadership style was obtained from

team members and stakeholders, whilethe 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 inspira-

tional motivation dimension of trans-

formational leadership.

Butler and Chinowsky (2006) inves-

tigated the relationship between emo-

tional intelligence and leadership

among senior-level (vice president or

above) construction executives; howev-er, this study used Bar-On’s (1997)

model of emotional intelligence, the

EQ-I. This is a multifactorial model of

emotional, personal, and social abili-

ties 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 transformationalleadership behavior. Of all of the emo-

tional 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 proj-

ects depending upon its degree of com-

plexity (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 leader-

ship competences. Within this EImodel, 15 leadership competences are

identified. Seven of these competences

are categorized as emotional leader-

ship competences that encompass

(1) motivation, (2) conscientiousness,

(3) sensitivity, (4) influence, (5) self-

awareness, (6) emotional resilience,

and (7) intuitiveness. Among their

results, they found that the leadership

competences of emotional resilience


3/17

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 7

and communication accounted for the

most success in projects of medium

complexity, while the emotional com-

petency 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 applica-

tion area in which the project was

based.

Finally, Sunindijo et al. (2007) inves-

tigated the relationship between emo-

tional intelligence competences and

leadership styles in 54 projects based in

Bangkok, Thailand. They identified 13

leadership behaviors from the litera-

ture and collected usable data on four

dimensions of emotional intelligencefrom 30 project managers and engi-

neers (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 commercial-

ly 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 stimu-

lating, rewarding, delegating, leading

by example, open communication, lis-

tening, participating, and proactive

behavior. However, it is important to

note that statistically significant differ-

ences were found only for the leader-

ship behaviors of open communication

and proactive behavior, and these were

both at the 10% level of significance.

The final study focused instead onexamining relationships between emo-

tional intelligence and project manage-

ment competences. Mount (2006) pre-

sented results from a study that was

designed to identify the job compe-

tences that were associated with superi-

or 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 per-

formed by, among other staff groups, 74

asset construction project managers.

The roles these project managers occu-pied 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 compe-

tences, 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 sig-

nificant role for emotional intelligence in

terms of underpinning both leadership

and important project manager behav-

iors. 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 achieve-

ment 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 clear-

ly delineate the specific contribution that

emotional intelligence may make in

actually explaining key project manager

behaviors.

Focus of the Current StudyThis study builds on the current litera-

ture in two major ways. First, it investi-

gates 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 sug-

gested 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 identi-

fied four specific characteristics along-side 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 rela-

tionship between emotional intelligence

and the project manager’s transforma-

tional leadership style through using an

ability-based model of emotional intel-

ligence 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 identi-

fied 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 indi-

vidual’s ability to engage in social inter-

actions (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 demon-

strated significant relationships between

EI measures and a range of social inter-

action indices, including more positive

social interactions with peers and

friends (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner,


4/17



P A P E R S

2004). Individuals scoring higher on

emotional ability (e.g., managing emo-

tions) have reported more satisfying

interpersonal relationships [Lopes et

al., 2003; Lopes et al., 2004]). Elsewhere,research examining emotional intelli-

gence 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 intelli-

gence abilities and empathy will be

positively associated with the proj-

ect management competence of

teamwork.

Differences in individuals’ emo-tional skills have long been suggested

as accounting for variations in the extent

to which they are able to decode nonver-

bal 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 emo-

tional intelligence competences and

project manager competences that

included communication. This gives

rise to the second hypothesis:





communication.

Addressing the individual needs and

concerns of team members and involv-

ing them in decisions have long been

recognized as important behaviorsassociated with effective leadership of

teams (Fleishman, 1974). These atten-

tiveness behaviors have been identified

as important for relationship building,

social integration, enhancing group

identification, and developing commit-

ment and trust, all seen as key elements

associated with the effectiveness of

teams (Bishop & Scott, 2000). More

recently, these behavioral dimensions

of project managers have also been sug-

gested to be important to success in

projects (Dvir, Ben-David, Sadeh, &

Shenhar, 2006; Taborda, 2000). These

attentiveness behaviors are likely toassist 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 empa-

thy that have been suggested to be asso-

ciated with performing attentiveness

behaviors (Rapisarda, 2002; Riggio &

Reichard, 2008). This gives rise to the

third hypothesis:





attentiveness.

Relationship conflict between part-

ners and members has often been cited

as a major factor undermining effec-

tiveness or contributing to failure in

projects (Nordin, 2006; Terje &

Hakansson, 2003). Previous research

has found relationships between emo-

tional 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 self-

regulation and empathy. Empathy wasassociated with Goleman’s motivation

measure, which in turn was positively

associated with more effective approach-

es to conflict management. A positive

relationship between self-regulation and

the use of positive approaches to man-

aging conflict have also been found,

using a trait measure of EI (Kaushal &

Kwanters, 2006). This gives rise to the

fourth hypothesis:





conflict management.

Transformational leadership (Bass &

Avolio, 2000) comprises the four key

dimensions of (1) idealized influence,

(2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellec-

tual stimulation, and (4) individualized

consideration. This type of leadership is

associated with higher levels of moti-

vation 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 theenhanced emotional attachment to the

leader (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000;

Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003) that arises as a

result of leaders using emotional intel-

ligence. Through accurately identifying

emotions in followers, leaders are able

to respond more effectively to their

needs. Through expressing emotions

effectively, leaders can generate com-

pelling 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 differ-

ent outcomes (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra,

2005). A number of studies previously

have found significant relationships


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 fifthhypothesis:


gence abilities will be positively

associated with project manage-

ment transformational leadership.

The Study and MethodSixty-seven project managers were

recruited from two organizations based

in the United Kingdom and from the


5/17


U.K. chapter of the Project Manage-

ment 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 nation-al arts organization involved in com-

missioning and developing projects

within the cultural sector. The second

was a national organization comprising

a number of divisions ranging from

construction to research and develop-

ment to professional services, working

across a range of differing business sec-

tors. 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 identify-

ing “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 par-

ticipants were asked to complete online

instruments to assess emotional intelli-

gence, empathy, cognitive ability, per-

sonality, 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 emotion-

al intelligence: (1) perceiving emotions

(B1), (2) using emotions to facilitate

thinking (B2), (3) understanding emo-

tions (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 tenden-

cy. Responses to each item are given on

a scale ranging from 4 (very strong

agreement) to –4 (very strong disagree-

ment). Reviews on 17 items are nega-

tively scored in that the signs of a par-

ticipant’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 pre-

viously 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 intelli-

gence was constructed. Each project

management competence contained

three or more behaviors within an over-

all 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 scorefor 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 coeffi-

cients obtained are as follows:

A. Communication (alpha 0.70):

Sample items include (1) understood

the communication from others

involved in the project and (2) main-

tained informal communication chan-

nels.

B. Teamwork (alpha 0.78): Sample

items include (1) helped to build a posi-tive 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, con-

cerns, 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 problemsthat emerged on the project and

(2) managed ambiguous situations sat-

isfactorily while supporting the pro-

ject’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 mea-

sured by four subscales: idealized influ-

ence, inspirational motivation, intellec-

tual stimulation, and individualized

consideration. Items from these sub-

scales 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 subscalesobtained here were 0.68, 0.52, 0.85, and

0.55 for idealized influence, inspira-

tional motivation, intellectual stimula-

tion, and individualized consideration,

respectively. Reliability for the overall

scale was 0.84.

Control Variables

Personality. Personality was assessed

using the Individual Perceptions


6/17



P A P E R S

Inventory (IPI; Goldberg, 1999). This

consists of a 50-item questionnaire

designed to capture the personality

dimensions of extraversion, agreeable-

ness, conscientiousness, emotional sta-bility, and openness. Previous studies

have shown the IPI to have strong con-

vergent validity with other personality

measures such as the 16PF and the

NEO-PI (Goldberg, 1999). Scale reliabil-

ities were found here to be: extraversion

(0.89), agreeableness (0.83), conscien-

tiousness (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 con-

vergent validity with other measures of

intelligence such as the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale (WAIS; Wonderlic &

Associates, 1983).

Project Management Qualification.

Previous certification in project man-

agement 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 compe-

tences, certification in project manage-

ment 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 ProjectManager Competence ScalesDruskat and Drukat (2006) put forward

arguments suggesting that the charac-

teristics of projects placed particular

emphasis on project manager behav-

iors associated with communication,

teamwork, building interpersonal rela-

tionships (attentiveness), and managing

conflict. In order to ground behavioral

items associated with these compe-

tences 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 iden-

tified within the framework are sug-

gested to have a broad application.

The competency framework catego-

rizes competences into two groups:

those pertaining to performance andthose pertaining to personal dimen-

sions. 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 ele-

ments overall.

The first stage thus involved select-

ing items for inclusion in each of the

four competence areas from the com-

plete 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 valid-

ity of these items was then furtherinvestigated 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: communica-

tion (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

larger questionnaire that participants

completed online. Participants’

responses were subject to an explorato-

ry factor analysis using principal com-

ponents with a varimax rotation. Therotation 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 excep-tions 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 relat-

ing 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 con-

ducting a series of regressions analyses

where each of the four project manager

competences was regressed in turn

against emotional intelligence mea-sures and empathy. The next set of

analyses followed the same procedure

as before but regressing each of the four

dimensions of transformational leader-

ship. Both investigations were undertak-

en 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 empa-

thy in the second step.


7/17


ResultsCorrelational analyses were used as an

initial examination of relationships

between the variables studied. Table 3

summarizes the means, standard devia-

tions, and intercorrelations among all

the variables used in the study. Total EI

was significantly correlated with all fourof 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 cor-

relations found are to be expected if

these individual branches are part of a

much wider overall construct of emotion-

al 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 posi-

tively correlate with the project manag-

er 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 posi-

tively correlated with the project man-

ager 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 signifi-

cant correlations with transformational

leadership, and this was in relation to

the two dimensions of idealized influ-

ence (r 0.26, p 0.05) and individual-

ized 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 inde-pendent 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, R 2

0.07). The two personality dimensions

PMCD Framework Project Manager Competences Element

Communication1. Understood the communication from others involved in the project? 6.12. Maintained formal communication channels? 6.23. Maintained informal communication channels? 6.24. Communicated appropriately with different audiences? 6.4

Teamwork 5. Encouraged teamwork consistently? 8.16. Shared your knowledge and expertise with others involved in on the project? 8.17. Maintained good working relationships with others involved on the project? 8.18. Worked with others to clearly identify project scope, roles, expectations, and tasks specifications? 8.29. Built trust and confidence with both stakeholders and others involved on the project? 11.4

10. Helped to create an environment of openness and consideration on the project? 11.411. Helped to create an environment of confidence and respect for individual differences? 11.4

Attentiveness

12. Responded to and acted upon expectations, concerns, and issues raised by others in the project? 6.113. Actively listened to other project team members or stakeholders involved in the project? 6.114. Expressed positive expectations of others involved on the project? 7.315. Helped to build a positive attitude and optimism for success on the project? 7.316. Engaged stakeholders involved in the project? 10.2

Managing Conflict17. Helped others to see different points of view or perspectives? 8.318. Recognized conflict? 8.319. Resolved conflict? 8.320. Worked effectively with the organizational politics associated with the project? 9.121. Helped to solve relationship issues and problems that emerged on the project? 10.122. Attempted to build consensus in the best interests of the project? 10.223. Managed ambiguous situations satisfactorily while supporting the project’s goals? 10.324. Maintained self-control and responded calmly and appropriately in all situations? 11.3

Table 1: Grouping PMI project management competence elements into key project management competence measures.


8/17



P A P E R S

of openness and emotional stability

together accounted for 13% in the vari-

ation 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 com-

munication was found to be significant

(F (6.61) 0.85, p ns ), providing no

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 man-

ager competence and any of the EI

measures. Partial support was therefore

found for Hypothesis 3. Of note, neither

cognitive ability nor personality were

found to be associated with this com-

petence, with empathy alone account-

ing for 7% variation in this competence.

The overall EI score was also found to

be significantly associated with the

project manager competence of man-

aging conflict (b 0.26, p 0.01, R 2

0.06). Partial support was therefore

found for Hypothesis 4. Finally, the

emotional ability, using emotions to

Factor 1:Managing Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4:

Competence Conflict Communication Teamwork Attentiveness Factor 5 Factor 6

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

Table 2: Varimax-rotated loadings on a six-factor solution of project manager competences ( N 67).


9/17

V a r i a b l e s

M e a n ( S D )

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

1 .

G M A

1 1 8 . 8

5 ( 9 . 5

5 )

2 .

E x t r a v e r s i o n

3 3 . 5

4 ( 7

. 4 7 )

– 0 . 1

0

3 .

A g r e e a b l e n e s s

4 1 . 0

3 ( 5

. 0 8 )

– 0 . 0

7

0 . 2

3

4 .

C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s

3 6 . 9

7 ( 6

. 0 9 )

– 0 . 1

4

– 0 . 0

8

0 . 1

2

5 .

E m o t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y

3 3 . 7

8 ( 7

. 1 5 )

0 . 4

0 * *

0 . 0

4

– 0 . 0

9

0 . 0

7

6 .

O p e n n e s s

3 0 . 8

7 ( 4

. 5 0 )

0 . 0

5

0 . 1

7

0 . 3

2 * *

– 0 . 0

3

– 0 . 0

2

7 .

P e r c e i v i n g

9 4 . 5

4 ( 1 7 . 7 2 )

– 0 . 0

5

– 0 . 0

7

0 . 1

4

0 . 2

4

– 0 . 0

0

– 0 . 0

2

E m o t i o n s

8 .

U s i n g E m o t i o n s

9 5 . 5

2 ( 1 4 . 8

8 )

0 . 0

6

0 . 0

3

0 . 3

3 * *

0 . 0

6

– 0 . 0

3

0 . 1

1

0 . 5

1 * *

9 .

U n d e r s t a n d i n g

9 8 . 0

5 ( 8 . 8

5 )

0 . 2

4

– 0 . 0

8

0 . 0

1

0 . 0

1

0 . 1

2

0 . 1

1

0 . 2

2

0 . 4

2 * *

E m o t i o n s

1 0 .

M a n a g i n g

9 4 . 4

8 ( 7

. 4 8 )

0 . 1

2

– 0 . 0

4

0 . 2

1

0 . 3

3 * *

0 . 0

9

0 . 0

9

0 . 2

8 *

0 . 4

2 * *

0 . 1

4

E m o t i o n s

1 1 .

T o t a l E I

9 4 . 5

2 ( 1 2 . 4

9 )

0 . 0

9

– 0 . 0

7

0 . 2

5 *

0 . 2

4

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

6

0 . 8

2 * *

0 . 8

1 * *

0 . 5

2 * *

0 . 5

9 * *

1 2 .

E m p a t h y

3 1 . 3

3 ( 2 2 . 1

5 )

– 0 . 0

7

0 . 1

0

0 . 5

9 * *

0 . 0

5

– 0 . 2

8 *

0 . 0

0

0 . 1

6

0 . 2

4 *

0 . 2

1

0 . 2

1

0 . 2

8 *

1 3 .

T e a m w o r k

5 . 4

3 ( 0

. 8 2 )

0 . 2

6 *

0 . 2

3

0 . 1

6

0 . 1

7

0 . 2

7 *

0 . 2

8 *

0 . 0

8

0 . 2

9 *

0 . 3

1 *

0 . 1

4

0 . 2

5 *

0 . 1

0

1 4 .

C o m m u n i c a t i o n

5 . 5

5 ( 0 . 6

8 )

0 . 0

7

0 . 0

4

0 . 2

2

0 . 1

2

0 . 1

8

0 . 1

2

0 . 1

3

0 . 2

1

0 . 1

1

0 . 0

8

0 . 1

8

0 . 2

0

0 . 3

6 * *

1 5 .

A t t e n t i v e n e s s

5 . 5

9 ( 0 . 6

5 )

– 0 . 0

7

0 . 1

0

0 . 2

0

0 . 2

0

0 . 1

3

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

7

0 . 2

1

0 . 1

6

0 . 0

9

0 . 1

7

0 . 2

8 *

0 . 4

6 * *

0 . 6

1 * *

1 6 .

M a n a g i n g

5 . 3

0 ( 0 . 7

8 )

0 . 1

3

0 . 2

6 *

0 . 2

3

0 . 1

1

0 . 3

6 * *

0 . 4

3 *

*

0 . 1

6

0 . 2

7 *

0 . 3

1 *

0 . 2

1

0 . 3

0 *

– 0 . 0

4

0 . 5

8 * *

0 . 4

1 * *

0 . 4

0 * *

C o n f l i c t

1 7 .

I n f l u e n c e

2 . 7

9 ( 0 . 4

8 )

0 . 0

6

0 . 3

8 * *

0 . 2

4

0 . 2

3

0 . 2

5 *

0 . 2

0

0 . 1

6

0 . 2

6 *

0 . 1

2

0 . 1

9

0 . 2

3

0 . 0

7

0 . 4

6 * *

0 . 3

3 * *

0 . 2

7 *

0 . 4

9 * *

1 8 .

M o t i v a t i o n

2 . 5

5 ( 0 . 5

4 )

0 . 1

2

0 . 2

9 *

0 . 3

0 *

0 . 1

1

0 . 2

0

0 . 4

6 * *

– 0 . 0

2

0 . 0

8

0 . 1

1

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

7

0 . 0

7

0 . 5

9 * *

0 . 2

6 *

0 . 2

8 *

0 . 5

3 * *

0 . 5

5 * *

1 9 .

S t i m u l a t i o n

2 . 4

0 ( 0

. 7 1 )

0 . 1

7

0 . 3

4 * *

0 . 0

8

0 . 0

2

0 . 4

4 * *

0 . 5

1 *

*

– 0 . 0

7

– 0 . 0

4

– 0 . 0

3

0 . 1

7

– 0 . 0

2

– 0 . 2

5 *

0 . 4

6 * *

– 0 . 0

3

0 . 0

5

0 . 5

3 * *

0 . 3

7 * * 0 . 6

5 * *

2 0 .

C o n s i d e r a t i o n

2 . 8

0 ( 0 . 5

9 )

– 0 . 0

2

0 . 2

4

0 . 2

9 *

0 . 2

5 *

0 . 1

2

0 . 4

6 * *

0 . 0

5

0 . 2

7 *

0 . 0

5

0 . 1

9

0 . 1

6

– 0 . 0

6

0 . 4

2 * *

0 . 0

7

0 . 1

7

0 . 4

5 * *

0 . 4

7 * *

0 . 5

4 * *

0 . 5

3 * *

2 1 .

T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l

0 . 1

1

0 . 3

9 * *

0 . 2

7 *

0 . 1

8

0 . 3

3 * *

0 . 5

2 *

*

0 . 0

3

0 . 1

6

0 . 0

7

0 . 2

1

0 . 1

2

– 0 . 0

7

0 . 6

0 * *

0 . 1

7

0 . 2

2

0 . 6

2 * *

0 . 7

1 * *

0 . 8

5 * *

0 . 8

3 * *

0 . 8

0 * *

* p

0 . 0

5 .

* * p

0 . 0

1 .

T a

b l e 3 : I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n a l l v a r i a b l e s .


10/17



P A P E R S

facilitate thinking, was found to be sig-

nificantly associated with the transfor-

mational leadership dimensions of ide-

alized influence (b 0.23, p 0.05,

R 2 0.04) and individualized consid-

eration (b 0.26, p 0.01, R 2 0.06)

(see Table 5). Partial support was there-

fore found for Hypothesis 5.

Significantly, the personality dimen-

sions of emotional stability (b 0.31,

p 0.01, R 2 0.08) and openness

(b 0.26, p 0.05, R 2 0.06) were

also found to be positively associated

with teamwork and with managing

conflict (emotional stability: [b 0.27,

p 0.05, R 2 0.15]; openness

[b 0.38, p 0.01, R 2 0.08]. In addi-

tion, personality attributes were also

found to be significantly associated with all four transformational leader-

ship dimensions. Four out of the five

measures of personality were found to

be associated with the overall transfor-

mational leadership scale: openness (b

0 .48, p 0.01, R 2 0.26), emotional

stability (b 0.31, p 0.01, R 2 0.10),

extraversion (b 0.31, p 0.01, R 2

0.08), and conscientiousness (b 0.20,

p 0.05,R 2 0.03). Together, personality

characteristics were found to account

for 26% variation in the measure of

overall transformational leadership

behavior.

DiscussionThe results from this study take forward

our understanding of the role that emo-

tional 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 man-ager competences of teamwork and

managing conflict, respectively. Druskat

and Druskat (2006) suggested that emo-

tional intelligence is likely to underpin

behaviors associated with these com-

petences. This study is the first to offer

some empirical support for this propo-

sition. Of importance, both of these

measures of emotional intelligence

were found to provide additional

explanatory power in these competences

after controlling for both cognitive abili-

ty and personality. These findings are

also in broad support of previous find-

ings in the literature that have found

significant relationships using ability

conceptualizations of emotional intelli-

gence and the use of better conflict

management strategies (Jordan &

Troth, 2004), as well as the limited stud-

ies that have investigated their relation-

ships with key behaviors associated

with teamwork (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006).

The finding obtained here that cogni-

tive ability was not associated with

either of these two project manager

competences would also seem to offer

some support for the view that cogni-

tive ability plays a far more limited rolein these particular relationship man-

agement behaviors.

The study also found a significant

positive relationship between empathy

and the project manager competence

of attentiveness. This competence cap-

tures key behaviors associated with

engaging with project members in order

to build strong relationships, respond-

ing to their concerns, and building

Teamwork Communication Attentiveness Managing Conflict

B R2 R2 F B R2 R2 F B R2 R2 F B R2 R2 F

Step 1

Certification 0.01 0.00 –0.12 0.22GMA 0.24 0.08 0.06 –0.06Extraversion 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.21Conscientiousness 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.07Agreeableness 0.08 0.12 0.05 0.16Emotional Stability 0.29* 0.13 0.05 0.26 0.23 0.37* 0.30 0.12Openness 0.26* 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.23 0.43** 0.18 0.18

Step 2

Perceiving (B1) –0.07 0.42 0.03 –0.14Using (B2) 0.28* 0.20 0.07 6.33** 0.43 0.16 0.09Understanding (B3) 0.16 0.17 0.10 0.12Managing (B4) –0.03 0.16 0.04 –0.02Total EI –0.01 –0.75 0.10 0.26** 0.36 0.06 13.41**Empathy 0.13 0.17 0.85 n.s. 0.28* 0.07 5.62* –0.02

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).


11/17


both the transformational leadership

dimensions of idealized influence andindividualized consideration after first

controlling for personality. However, it

should be borne in mind that, to date,

there have been mixed results regard-

ing the significance of transformational

leadership within project contexts.

Keller (2006) studied 118 research and

development project teams from five

firms. He found transformational lead-

ership predicted 1-year-later technical

Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation

B R2 R2 F B R2 R2 F B R2 R2 F

Step 1Certification 0.02 0.03 0.05GMA 0.09 0.23 –0.01Extraversion 0.39** 0.13 0.13 0.22* 0.23 0.03 0.24** 0.48 0.04Conscientiousness 0.25* 0.19 0.06 0.14 0.02Agreeableness 0.05 0.14 –0.10Emotional Stability 0.22 0.19 0.44*** 0.44 0.20Openness 0.12 0.42*** 0.20 0.20 11.03*** 0.48*** 0.24 0.24 21.69**

Step 2Perceiving (B1) 0.02 0.01 –0.05Using (B2) 0.23* 0.23 0.04 7.62*** 0.04 –0.09Understanding (B3) 0.06 0.08 –0.12Managing (B4) 0.03 0.10 0.09Total EI 0.04 0.06 –0.05Empathy –0.04 0.05 –0.17

Individualized Transformational

Consideration Leadership

B R2 R2 F B R2 R2 F

Step 1Certification 0.03 0.03GMA –0.04 –0.01Extraversion 0.18 0.31** 0.44 0.08Conscientiousness 0.27* 0.26 0.06 0.20* 0.47 0.03 15.71**Agreeableness 0.12 0.06Emotional Stability 0.11 0.31** 0.36 0.10Openness 0.47*** 0.20 0.20 0.48** 0.26 0.26

Step 2

Perceiving (B1) 0.51 0.01Using (B2) 0.79* 0.30 0.04 4.50** 0.10Understanding (B3) 0.19 0.00Managing (B4) 0.30 0.09Total EI –1.24 0.06Empathy –0.10 –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 toeffective leader behaviors such as show-

ing consideration and attentiveness to

the needs of followers (House &

Podsakoff, 1994; Yukl, 1998). Emotional

abilities such as perceiving and under-

standing 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 transforma-

tional leadership, after controlling for

both cognitive ability and personality.

Here the emotional ability, using emo-

tions to facilitate thinking, was found to

account for a further 4% in variation of


12/17



P A P E R S

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 man-agers who also had line-manager

responsibilities, found that transforma-

tional leadership correlated positively

with commitment and motivation in

the line team, but that there was no sig-

nificant link within the project team.

They suggested that although the per-

formance 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 lead-ership did not always require strong

transformational leadership behavior

to produce effective outcomes. Osborn

and Marion’s (2009) study of transfor-

mational 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 motiva-

tion. To the extent that some projects

may reflect contexts with greater uncer-

tainty associated with “near-edge

chaos,” the importance of transforma-

tional leadership, and therefore its

association with emotional intelli-

gence, may be of less significance.

Finally, the failure to find any signif-

icant relationships between any of the

independent variables and the project

manager competence of communica-

tion was surprising. The measure used

was found to have good reliability

(alpha 0.70) and captured behaviors

associated with both informal communi-

cation and understanding communica-tion from others involved in the project.

Emotional intelligence abilities are

believed to be associated with more

effective communication through emo-

tional expressivity and in recognizing

the emotional content of others’ com-

munication (emotional sensitivity)

(Riggio & Reichard, 2008). It may be

that the measure of project manager

competence utilized here is far too

broad in its domain to sufficiently cap-

ture the type of communication more

likely to be associated with either emo-

tional intelligence or empathy.

A number of limitations are associ-ated with the study that suggest exercis-

ing some caution in reaching any firm

conclusions at present. The most signif-

icant 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 self-

ratings of performance have consis-

tently been found to be more lenient

than those provided by observers

(Carless, Mann, & Wearing, 1998), and anumber 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 compli-

cated. 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 lead-

ership 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 partici-

pants completing two tests and one

questionnaire. The two tests measured

EI and cognitive ability and presented

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 differ-

ent websites, with each individual hav-

ing his or her own passcode, in order to

complete each measure. Instructions

given to respondents were to complete

each of the instruments at different sit-

tings over the 2-week data-collection

period, thereby also providing a tempo-

ral separation between measures.

Assurances of confidentiality were also

made in order to reduce problems asso-ciated with social desirability in

answering. It should also be borne in

mind that the study only used cross-

sectional data to analyze relationships


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 manag-

ing emotions ability branch of EI. This

is lower than has been reported in pre-

vious 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. Thelow reliability may then have account-

ed for the failure to detect any signifi-

cant relationships with this particular

branch of EI. In addition, the two mea-

sures of transformational leadership

dimensions representing inspirational

motivation and individualized consid-

eration similarly were found to have

low reliabilities of 0.52 and 0.55, respec-

tively. The use of self-report measures


13/17


may well account for these low reliabil-

ities. However, it does suggest that the

significant relationship found between

the emotional ability, using emotions to

facilitate thinking, and individualizedconsideration should be treated as ten-

tative at this stage.

Finally, the relatively modest sam-

ple size of 67 should also be noted. This

may have increased the risk of statisti-

cal 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 predom-inantly involved in consultancy and

professional services. These arguably

represent a far more diverse project

management base than has been tradi-

tionally 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 wide-

ly operating in traditional project man-

agement industries and sectors is

therefore unknown.

Conclusions and PracticalImplicationsEmotional intelligence has been sug-

gested to be particularly important in

projects due to the nature of this form

of work organization. This places spe-

cific emphasis on project manager

behaviors associated with communi-

cation, teamwork, attentiveness, and

managing conflict and their impor-

tance to successful project outcomes.This is the first study to use the ability

measure of EI and examine its relation-

ship with specific behaviors associated

with project manager competence in

these areas. Both the emotional intelli-

gence ability, using emotions to facili-

tate thinking, and participants’ overall

EI scores were found to be significantly

associated with the competences of

teamwork and managing conflict,

respectively. Project managers’ empa-

thy was also found to be significantly

associated with the competence of

attentiveness. In addition, the emotion-

al intelligence ability, using emotions tofacilitate thinking, was also found to be

significantly associated with the trans-

formational 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 differ-

ences 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 proj-

ect managers to perform in projects

where these competences are a premi-

um, agencies or organizations would do

better to screen based on personality

differences in the first instance, with

emotional intelligence providing a sub-

sidiary 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 char-

acteristics. Instead, the finding that

emotional intelligence does contribute

to both these competence areas does

suggest potential avenues for organiza-tions to consider in terms of improving

the emotional intelligence of project

managers. This is especially true given

arguments that these emotional intelli-

gence 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 team-

work, attentiveness, and conflict man-

agement would be preferable. Previousstudies in conflict management, for

example, have assessed this competence

through videotaped performance simu-

lations 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 proj-

ect, combined with supervisory ratings,

might offer an advance on the methodol-

ogy employed here.

Next, although it is intuitive to con-

sider that differences in emotionalabilities may account for variations in

particular project manager compe-

tences, it is possible that proficiency in

such competences could lead to the

enhancement of these emotional intel-

ligence abilities. Future studies that

employ a longitudinal design may

therefore reveal insights into the direc-

tion 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 intelli-

gence 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 differ-ences 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 differenti-

ate how individuals manage change

(Groves, 2006) and theoretical proposi-

tions suggesting that emotional intelli-

gence may influence how individuals


14/17



P A P E R S

respond to change (Huy, 2002), this is a

further area that would seem to warrant

future research.

AcknowledgmentThe author would like to express grati-

tude to the Project Management Insti-

tute for funding this research. ■

References Ashkanasy, N. N., & Tse, B. (2000).

Transformational leadership as man-

agement 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 pro-

grams. Personnel Psychology, 55,

871–904.

Ayoko, O. B., Callan,V. J., & Hartel,

C. E. J. (2008). The influence of emo-

tional intelligence climate on conflict

and team members’ reactions to con-

flict. 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 emo-

tional intelligence. In Technical manu-

al. 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 incre-

mental validity of competing measures

of emotional intelligence. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (9),

147–158.

Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner,

R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligenceand the prediction of behavior.

Personality and Individual Differences,

36, 1387–1402.

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 per-

formance and 360 degree feedback.

Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 47, 481–496.

Caruso, D. R., & Wolfe, C. J. (2001).

Emotional intelligence in the work-

place. 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 work-place 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 effec-

tiveness research from the shop floor

to the executive suite. Journal of

Management, 23, 239–290.

Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and cri-

tique of emotional intelligence meas-

ures. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26 , 433–440.

Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., &

Winter, M. (2006). Practitioner devel-

opment: From trained technicians to

reflective practitioners. International

Journal of Project Management, 24,

722–733.

Downey, L., Papageorgiou,V., &

Stough, C. (2005). Examining the rela-

tionship between leadership, emotion-

al intelligence, and intuition in senior

female managers. Leadership &

Organization Development, 27 (4),

250–264.

Druskat,V., & Druskat, P. (2006).

Applying emotional intelligence inproject working. In S. Pryke & H.

Smyth (Eds.), The management of com-

plex projects: A relationship approach

(pp. 78–96). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

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, HWP0311. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley

Management College.

Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., &

Shenhar, A.J. (2006). Critical manageri-

al factors affecting defense project suc-

cess: 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 intelli-

gence, and trait affectivity with inter-

view 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 lead-

ership: The role of emotional intelli-

gence. Human Relations, 53, 1027�

Documents

Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership and Key Project Manager Competences