Emotional Intelligence to Reduce Conflict in Teams

Literature Review: Team Building

Abstract

Team building is a process that can be explored in a range of ways and settings. From the Korean Army to a pilot program using an escape room to help a dozen diverse team members come together as a single unit to problem-solve a way out, team building can be accomplished in a variety of ways. What this literature review shows is that ethics, emotional intelligence, respect to others from different backgrounds, and relationships are all vital aspects to team building. The review highlights the characteristics of 9 studies while integrating a Biblical worldview into the analysis. The features of the studies that are highlighted include the theoretical lens applied by the researchers, the methodologies used, the sample and demographics of participants, and the findings and conclusions of the researchers.

Keywords: team building, emotional intelligence, relationship building, authentic leadership

Introduction

This literature review focuses on the keys to successful team building. The literature most relevant to this issue provides insight on what factors lead teams to develop well, including how team members relate to one another, how to create a sense of urgency, what Kotter’s 8-step model has to do with that, how emotional intelligence plays a part, and what leaders can do to bring it all together. The literature review shows that respect for team members, emotional self-leadership, and authentic leadership are all essential factors in developing a successful team.

The Need for Urgency

Zhang et al. (2018) used a gamification approach to team building by having teams escape a locked room. The exercise required them to use problem-solving skills, collaboration and communication to achieve the desired outcome. This was a pilot study, using a novel approach to team building based upon educational learning theory. The concept driving the pilot program was the idea that stress, conflict, and varying levels of skills among participants is typical of a team environment. The researchers used a sample of a dozen participants of both genders from a diverse range of generational employees in an organization to test their approach. They based their approach on the idea that training sessions like this one provide participants with the ability to adapt on the fly, learn to get along with one another in spite of differences, and find ways to get everyone involved in a meaningful manner in order to address the puzzles that must be solved to get out of the room. The participants reported that the gamification approach to team work helped everyone to manage conflicting personality types (such as introverted or extroverted types of personalities) and who would be the leader and who would be the follower, along with dealing with the issue of groupthink and embracing different ideas. This corresponds with what Werner (2017) describes as the importance of combating groupthink so as not to allow a team to lead itself into corners or dead-ends. Zhang et al. (2018) cited behaviorism, social learning and constructivist learning theories as the foundation for their theoretical approach to the pilot program. Their method also corresponds with Hebrews 10:24-25: “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” The participants in the study by Zhang et al. (2018) encouraged one another to collaborate and get along without criticizing because they saw that they had work to do, had a problem to solve, and that it was no time for contention or bitterness. That sense of urgency was crucial to the performance of the participants.

That sense of urgency is also crucial to Kotter’s 8-step model for change, which Kang et al. (2020) identified in their study of using Kotter’s guidelines to facilitate team building. Part of Kotter’s 8-stop model is the need for leaders to build a coalition that will facilitate the development of support for the vision that the organization wants to achieve. That coalition is like a team that has to come together bringing stakeholders from different departments and backgrounds and uniting them under one vision. In their study, Kang et al. (2020) documented how Kotter’s model can help bring about a successful change. Kang et al. (2020) conducted qualitative analysis of the change by engaging in direct observation, taking field notes, interviewing participants in the change, and collecting artifacts. The analysis showed that when Kotter’s model is used it promotes successful buy-in among participants. Buy-in is important in team building, as Werner (2017) notes, as it is a quality of cohesiveness, which is important to success. Relationships also matter in this process, which is what Kang et al. (2020) also found: but without buy-in, relationships cannot be fostered effectively. This corresponds with Werner’s (2017) assertion that “there is evidence that the differential quality of exchange relationship among team members can influence a team’s cohesiveness, internal satisfaction with coworkers, general job satisfaction, and both individual and team performance” (p. 44). It also corresponds with 1 Peter 4:8-10: “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.  As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.” Without proper affection for one another, teams do not gel and do not come together as they should to support the vision of the organization. Coming together to support the vision is the overall aim, which Kotter’s model facilitates, as found by Kang et al. (2020).

Team Building is about Building Relationships

Building relationships depends upon the use of emotional intelligence among team members according to the study by Lee and Wong (2019). The researchers examined data collected from 79 South Korean teams in companies and found that emotional intelligence is positively correlated with team successfulness, as measured by performance, innovation and conflict resolution. The more emotionally intelligent team members are, the more likely the team is to thrive even under adverse circumstances. The reason for this is that emotional intelligence assists in the development of trust among team members and unites team members by strengthening relationships based on respect and understanding. The researchers used role theory as the starting point for their study, showing that in role theory everyone has a task to perform and when roles are misunderstood or come into conflict, frustration can occur. However, emotional intelligence provides a moderating influence and thus acts as a circuit breaker when tensions start to build because of role conflict issues. Emotionally intelligent team members are able to identify that situations are over-heating and they can use their emotional intelligence to calm these situations dire and prevent open hostility from breaking out. This leads to the development of respect, rapport, and relationship building which in turn creates more effective teams. The method used by Lee and Wong (2019) was to visit all 79 teams in South Korean companies and collect data by way of a questionnaire. In total, 333 respondents from 79 teams participated in the study. Control variables included team size, age diversity, and gender diversity (Lee & Wong, 2019). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the data against the model based on role theory and the influence of emotional intelligence in moderating conflict that the researchers developed. The findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that emotional intelligence does moderate team conflict and build relationships, thus facilitating stronger team performance, innovation and overall success.

The same findings were corroborated by the study by Flores, Jiang and Manz (2018), who looked at the moderating effect of emotional intelligence on intra-team conflict and essentially arrived at the same conclusion as Lee and Wong (2019). Flores et al. (2018) showed that emotional self-leadership is a skill that empowers team members to anticipate, guide and focus emotional responses in a positive direction and thus reduce team stress. The researchers conducted a systematic review of existing literature to arrive at their conclusion. The researchers also developed their own conceptual model for the study, which they used to explain how emotional self-leadership moderates cognitive and affective conflict and directs emotions towards a higher work team decision quality. The researchers reviewed more than one hundred published studies as the sample for their review.

The findings of the study by Flores et al. (2018) confirm what is written in 1 Corinthians 12:17-20, which states that “if the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?  If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?  But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.  If they were all one part, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, but one body.” In other words, there are many parts to a team, and necessarily so: not every person can do all the jobs that are required by a team of members. Yet at the same time the parts must work together as one unit, one body—and that is where emotional self-leadership comes into play. Each member must regulate his own emotions if he wants to be an effective contributor to the whole. This does go against what Werner (2017) asserts, however, which is that “it is much harder to write specific behavioral objectives for interventions dealing with attitudes or emotions” (p. 161). Werner’s (2017) point is that emotional intelligence is a skill that not all members of a team are bound to possess; nor is it a skill that can easily be taught. However, what Flores et al. (2018) show is that when emotional intelligence is possessed it can make a great deal of difference in terms of strengthening relationships and reducing conflict within a team.

The Importance of Leadership

Crawford, Dawkins, Martin and Lewis (2020) identify the need to clarify just what kind of leader is important in team building and why authentic leadership has to be more properly explained. They approach the topic using the theoretical perspective that the biggest problems with authentic leadership today is its “lack of conceptual clarity; the leader-centricity; and an overemphasis on the authentic person, not the authentic leader” (p. 114). The researchers conducted a critical review of literature, making their study qualitative by design. No sample of participants or studies was described in their article, but they did highlight important aspects of what it means to be an authentic leader from previous published papers. Their methodology was to use these studies to develop a clearer construct of authentic leadership. Their conclusion was that authentic leadership has to focus on the leader as a leader and not as a person. Personhood and personality should not get in the way of authentic leadership; if it does, it becomes more of a charismatic leadership because the emphasis is on personality. Authentic leadership can be something embraced by any individual in a team so long as the individual is open, honest, and accountable to the team. That is the essence of authentic leadership according to the construct developed by Crawford et al. (2020).

1 Peter 5:3 puts forward the same message, when Scripture warns leaders that they are to be “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” The idea here is that an authentic leader is not seeking to be authoritarian or controlling; rather he is there to be a good example to those. He is also there to help instill trust and generate good relationships. Proverbs 27:17 states that people need to be engaged with one another in a team because “as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Thus, it is important that a leader not remove himself from the group, for he depends upon them for sharpness just as much as they depend upon him for assistance. Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 drives home the point still further: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up.” Teams are important, even in Scripture.

Johnsen’s (2018) qualitative study on authentic leadership is similar to that of Crawford et al. (2020). The theoretical approach taken by Johnsen (2018) is based on Deleuze’s assessment of Platonism, which is how Johnsen formulates a framework for discerning authentic leadership from inauthentic leadership. The focus of the study is Bill George’s Authentic Leadership, and thus the study serves as both a case study and a critique in terms of methodology. The sample is George’s book and nothing else, other than literature for support, such as Deleuze’s literature. The conclusion of Johnsen’s study is that authentic leaders are real while inauthentic leaders are just pretending to be leaders. To drive home the point, Johnsen (2018) looks at the example of Enron and its leaders who were inauthentic because they were essentially faking leadership and allowing their teams to flounder in the dark. Enron’s leaders were more self-interested than an authentic leader should be. They had no real care about what was going on with the company they were meant to be shepherding; their concern was that the company simply look profitable to investors: they were duped by their own attempts to dupe others, believing that they were actually successful. But as 1 Peter 5:1-4 states, the true leader is not duplicitous but is rather joined to the One Who is perfect, which is Christ: “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” This type of Christian perfection ought to be expected of an authentic leader.