GROUP EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE/MEETINGS

1. GROUP EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE/MEETINGS

2. OBJECTIVES • Understand how to start an effective team • Build team meeting skills • Get you started on your group project

3. W olff’s W ord of the W eek PERSPECTIVE

4. Group Emotional Intelligence

5. The Biggest Challenges • Most people think they already have excellent teamwork skills. • Teamwork does not equal common sense. • Most people blame team problems on (other) members • One can’t learn team skills by reading books. • Experience does not equal learning.

6. Team Basic Needs • Goals • Roles • Procedures (Norms) – how are we going to go about meeting our goals?

7. Group Emotional Intelligence Definition • The ability of a group to generate norms that manage the emotional process (awareness of emotion and management of behavior) in ways that have positive emotional consequences. • GEI norms build emotional capability and develop productive relationships.

8. The Socio- Emotional Model of Group Effectiveness (Druskat & Wolff 2001) Better Decisions, More Creative Solutions, Higher Productivity Participation, Cooperation, Collaboration Trust, Group Identity, Group Efficacy, Networks Group Emotional Intelligence

9. Emotionally Competent Norms

10. Study 1: Method • Sample • 382 Full-Time MBA Students (48 teams) • Norms measured via scales we developed • Group Effectiveness • Faculty rated Likert scale (5 items): • End of first semester (1 month after norm survey) • End of second semester (6 months after)

11. Interpersonal Understanding .45**/.32* Confronting Members .16/-.12 Group Effectiveness (1 month/6 mo.) .30*/.11 Team Self- Evaluation .49**/.40** Proactive Problem Solving .56**/.34* Organizational Understanding .30*/.32* Building External Relations Study 1: Results(n = 48)

12. Study 2: Method • Sample • 109 Teams • 6 Companies (4 Fortune 500) • Financial services, transportation, product design & development, industrial & consumer goods manufacturing • Mean teams per company = 20.7 (Range =8-40)

13. Study 2: Method, cont. • Group Effectiveness • Objective performance • Collected at a mean of 4.14 months after survey admin. (Range = 3-7 months) • Manager assessment – • Same survey as in study 1 • Collected at a mean of 2.25 months after survey admin. (Range = 1-4 months)

14. Study 2: Full model Interpersonal Understanding .44*** Safety (.82) Group Efficacy (.69) Networks (.71) Confronting Members Who Break Norms -.16* .90*** .83*** .84*** Team Self- Evaluation .17* Social Capital Performance (.25) .50* .38*** Proactive Problem Solving Chi-squared = 947 df=508 p=.000 NFI=.94 RFI=.93 RMSEA=.089 .25* Organizational Understanding

15. J&J STUDY • Survey • 33 teams with both survey data and performance data • 19 Average performing teams • 14 High performing teams • Qualitative Data • 55 Coded documents • 12 Average performing interviews • 43 High performing interviews

16. MAJOR CATEGORIES • Group Emotional Intelligence (.403 p<.006) • GEI Outcomes (.329 p=.025) • Team members have pride and confidence in the team • Team members communicate openly and honestly • There is a high level of trust and it is safe to take a risk • Team members cooperate with each other • External Support (.374 p<.011) • Proactive Task Focus (.369 p<.012) • Team members understand and support team goals • Balance strategy with operational tasks • Make timely decisions • Clearly define content and scope of tasks and timelines • Find ways to do things better and/or faster • Remain productive when faced with ambiguity Note: Numbers in parentheses represent significant correlations to performance.

17. What behaviors or practices have you seen used in groups that either build or undermine the development of specific Emotionally Competent Norms?

18. Running Meetings

19. EFFECTIVE MEETINGS • Pre-meeting Work • Roadmap Agenda (handout) • Formal Meeting Roles • Team Facilitator (Leader?) • Note Taker • Timekeeper • Informal Roles • e.g., devil’s advocate, initiator, collaborator, communicator, information seeker, etc. • Action Items/Decisions Documented • Follow-Up

20. ROADMAP AGENDA

21. ACTION ITEMS

22. HPCT Meeting Key Actions and Decisions August 17 – 18, 2004

23. TEAM FACILITATOR ROLE(adapted from MOR Associates, 1994) • The facilitator helps the group answer the following questions: • What roles do we need? • What groundrules do we want? • What are people’s perceptions of the task? • What are the most effect process tools to use? • How much time should be allocated to each agenda item? • How will we make decisions?

24. RECORDER & TIMEKEEPER(adapted from MOR Associates, 1994) • Recorder • Write down basic ideas in front of group members • Use speakers words • Capture enough so ideas, actions, and decisions are preserved • Timekeeper • Be aware of time allocation for agenda items • Calls out periodic time checks • Is not responsible for decisions regarding staying on an issue or moving on

25. PROCESSES • I-Time (Individual time) • Give individuals time to think alone • Go-Around • Ask team members one by one • Brainstorming • Discussion • Sub Groups • Does the whole group need to participate in this task/decision? If not, divide up the work. • Presentation • There are many others (e.g., see team memory jogger)

26. TEAM MEETING • Your task: • Run a meeting to begin your work on your team contract • Set your team up for success (What do you need to do?) • Step 1: Assign formal (and informal) roles that you think your team needs to have an effective meeting • Step 2: Develop an agenda for today’s meeting • Step 3: Assign “keepers” of the GEI norms • Step 4: Run the meeting according to your agenda • Step 5: Meeting assessment when completed

27. Write in Your Insight Journal: • Use your insight journal to reflect on your team meeting. • How did your meeting go? Why? • Were you as an effective team member as you would like to be? • What could you do to be a more effective team member? • What could you do to help your team be more effective? • Etc.