Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The study aims to examine the association between team emotional intelligence (EI) and team performance, particularly in construction projects, with a deliberate focus on identifying the factors that may foster or hinder team performance. To examine the hypothesized nexus of the model, dyadic data of 302 project employees and their site supervisors was collected, representing 53 teams in total. Organizations working on construction projects and relevant participants were selected through purposive sampling method. Findings of the study pronounce a positive association between team EI and team performance of engineers. Further, this study supports the mediating role of team trust between focal variables. Notably, task interdependence buffers the association between team EI and team performance. Coupled with the theoretical contribution, the study also offers valuable insights for managerial consideration, which may help them to maintain the workflow in construction projects and enhance team performance. Although EI constitutes essential resources for higher performance, prior research has not investigated whether and when team EI facilitates team performance, particularly in construction projects. We contributed to filling this gap by establishing the direct and indirect association between team EI and team performance via team trust. Moreover, the study also established task interdependence as a relevant moderator. In sum, the study at hand brings to the fore the dispositional and contextual antecedents that could potentially impact team performance, particularly in the construction project context.

Keywords

construction projects team emotional intelligence performance trust task interdependence

Introduction

Urbanization has accelerated construction projects, attracting the investors’ attention, and successfully obtaining a dominant share of investments (Chen et al., 2019). This emerging trend plays a pivotal role in economic development (Chalekaee et al., 2019; Demirkesen & Ozorhon, 2017), despite certain complexities that may affect project team performance (Wu et al., 2019). For instance, Li et al. (2018) stated that construction projects routinely face rework, which pushes the progressing project to the “tipping point” from where profitable projects fall behind. In construction, project teams are highly dependent upon each other for task completion (Hughes et al., 2004; Langfred, 2005). Such interdependence often enhances role ambiguity and workload (Dadaboyev et al., 2019), which fosters interpersonal conflict and aggression at work (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006), adversely affecting work outcomes (Liden et al., 1997). For example, the Japanese–Turkish consortium was completed 4 years after the stated time with overruns of $500 million (see Rezvani et al., 2018). Likewise, many construction projects in Pakistan have recently experienced completion delays and accrued substantial cost overruns (Malik et al., 2019). For instance, the new Islamabad International Airport project, known for its regular inauguration delays, exceeded the original financial estimate by 270% and was delivered 96 months after the scheduled date.

Although, prior studies have identified multiple factors related to team performance of construction projects, such as relevant knowledge, work-family conflict, burnout, leadership style, and contradictory demands of stakeholders (W. Jiang et al., 2021). Analogously, scholars (Mazur et al., 2014) aver the salience role of soft and interpersonal skills in predicting project performance. Moreover, considering complexities, emerging trends in project management literature have also stressed for identification and examination of additional factors that may impact performance (Larsson et al., 2018), that presses the need to identify individual and contextual antecedents of team performance, particularly in construction projects.

As mentioned earlier, project management scholarship has tabled several pivotal determinants of team performance (Barbosa et al., 2020; Componation et al., 2001; Lin et al., 2016). Scholars have reached a consensus on the auspicious role of team EI in predicting team performance (Khosravi et al., 2020; Román-Calderón et al., 2021). Despite being insightful, the association has not always been significant (Petrides et al., 2004; Quoidbach & Hansenne, 2009). These counter-intuitive and unequivocal findings warrant further exploration. Particularly, how or why EI leads to team performance is a debate far from reaching a consensus at present (Rezvani et al., 2019). Consequently, scholars have invited further to examine the association between team EI and performance, with a deliberate focus on the underlying mechanism and in the presence of boundary conditions (Jamshed & Majeed, 2019; Lin et al., 2016; Rezvani et al., 2019). Thus, the present study is timely and relevant for both scholarly understanding and managerial interventions.

With this backdrop, the study intends to unearth the direct association of EI and performance (Paul et al., 2016), and indirect association via team trust (Rezvani et al., 2019), specifically from the team perspective. Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as “A capability to observe one’s and other’s moods and emotions, to differentiate between them and to practice this type of information to guide one’s thinking and activities.” Barczak et al., (2010) argue that feelings and emotions have an essential effect on how project team members connect, express themselves, and perform work with each other. Prior scholars also (Law et al., 2004; Williamson et al., 2013) believe that EI is one of the core skills that affect team members’ performance. Thus, we infer that team EI is a crucial competence of project employees that fosters their proactive behaviors and enhances performance.

To facilitate better understanding and advance our knowledge on how or why team EI leads to team performance, we propose team trust as a mechanism underlying between the team EI and performance. Trust, defined as “the degree to which a person is confident in and willing to act based on the words, actions, and decisions of another” (McAllister, 1995). It is an essential variable in the effective management of human resources (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2015). Specifically, trust within the team fosters open communication (Smith & Barclay, 1997), coordination (McAllister, 1995), team cohesion (Mach et al., 2010), commitment to the collective goals (Costa et al., 2001), that favorably impact performance (Khosravi et al., 2020). Notably, construction projects encompass multiple stakeholders (Hughes et al., 2004). Such projects’ success depends on the collaboration and trust among team members (Cheung et al., 2013; Gad & Shane, 2014). Despite the importance of trust in human relations (Kadefors, 2004; Karlsen et al., 2008), limited studies have investigated the mediating role of trust, particularly in construction projects, for exceptions (W. Jiang et al., 2016). Thus, team trust is relevant and timely, as project employees work with all other stakeholders. In so doing, they must oversee, coordinate and cooperate with other stakeholders, to effectively deliver the project and reduce the cost overruns (Lopez & Love, 2012). More specifically, we speculate that trust among members can enable them to perform collaborative behaviours and exchange resources, which in turn, leads to higher performance outcomes.

Scholars argued that the association between dispositional factors (e.g., EI) and workplace outcomes might hinge upon situational conditions (Hagger, 2014; Luu, 2020). Thus, to enhance our knowledge, this study introduces task interdependence as a moderator between team emotional intelligence and performance. Task interdependence is “the degree of task-driven interaction among workgroup members” (Shea & Guzzo, 1987) or “each group member’s perception of the extent to which he or she needed to interact with other group members when working on task” (Liden et al., 2004). Albeit, prior studies (Hertel et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2020) have pronounced the salience role of task interdependence in predicting favorable outcomes, yet, some scholars have also argued that task interdependence can enhance workload pressures, role ambiguity, reduce employees control over the task and exacerbate negative work behaviors (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Dadaboyev et al., 2019). For instance, in the context of high task interdependence, team members are bound to share information and other related resources to meet the work demands (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2002). Such forced cooperation may be considered in a negative sense by employees (Zapf, 2002; Zapf et al., 1996), which may fuel adverse outcomes, for instance, interpersonal conflicts (Zapf et al., 1996) and workplace victimization (Dadaboyev et al., 2019). Additionally, the Yerkes–Dodson law states “the mere presence of other people will enhance the performance in speed and accuracy of well-practiced tasks but will degrade in the performance of less familiar tasks,” such as construction projects (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Therefore, it is judicial to speculate that high task interdependence can make a difference in the association between EI and performance of the member. Moreover, the study focus on task interdependence; as a moderator, also concurs the recent call (see Rezvani et al., 2019). For hypothesized relationship see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research framework.

In sum, the study at hand offers several contributions. First, by highlighting the pivotal role of team EI in enhancing team performance, this study endorses the existing literature’s findings (Chang et al., 2012; Rezvani et al., 2019; Turner & Lloyd-Walker, 2008). Significantly, by predicting the direct and indirect impact (via team trust) of project team EI on team performance, the present study extend the nomological network of antecedents of team performance (Abbas et al., 2018; Massaro et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2019), particularly, in construction projects (Larsson et al., 2018). Thus, the study offers valuable insights into managerial interventions, which become more salient in Pakistan, after the China–Pakistan consortium called the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Relatedly, Bartram and Rimmer (2012) aver that “the economic dominance of China and India and their near neighbors has triggered enormous curiosity among HR researchers” (p. 1). Second, we illustrate the role of team trust as an underlying mechanism between EI and performance of tem members. In doing so, study at hand extended the nomological network of antecedents and consequences of trust (Bond-Barnard et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020). Third, by exploring the role of task interdependence as a moderator between team EI and team performance, our study enriches the knowledge on why some projects fail to deliver or face time delays and cost time overruns (Anantatmula, 2010). In so doing, our study provides guidelines to avoid such factors that may adversely impact performance. Scholars (Khosravi et al., 2020; Rezvani et al., 2019) believe that identifying such factors will provide proactive measures to reduce setbacks. Last, scholars have emphasized to conduct research “among organizations in emerging economies,” (Drazin & Schoonhoven, 1996). Thus, conducting the study in a developing economy (i.e., Pakistan) offers a unique insight since previous studies on team EI and performance are overwhelmingly set in the western context. In other words, the study at hand brings to the fore the dispositional and contextual antecedents that could potentially impact team performance.

Theory and Hypotheses

Team Emotional Intelligence and Team Performance

Emotions and sentiments contain important information that can help managers and workers improve their work as a team (Wolfe & Caruso, 2004), and this emerging norm must be understood by the managers (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002). EI being a central element of emotional mechanism, significantly affects the employees’ productivity and satisfaction at an individual and team level (Liu & Liu, 2013). Team EI enhances individuals’ social capabilities and encourages them to cooperate in complex projects through effective communication and information sharing (Lam et al., 2016). Additionally, Moore and Mamiseishvili (2012) find that the project team and its performance can be disturbed by a team member with low EI. Seemingly, Chang et al. (2012) aver that teams with average EI can enhance performance. For instance, team EI develops the festive atmosphere within the work environment (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017; Jamshed & Majeed, 2019), attenuates pressures and fatigue, and ultimately fosters teamwork (Greenidge et al., 2014; Paik et al., 2019). Moreover, Sheldon et al. (2014) argue that the lower perception of EI among team members results in low performance, high stress, and more significant conflict. Thus, team EI is a crucial determinant of performance in complex projects (Druskat & Druskat, 2006). Based on these arguments, we hypothesize the following:

H1: Team EI will have a positive impact on team performance.

Team Emotional Intelligence and Trust

EI is a construct that integrates the cognitive and emotional mechanisms used in processing important emotional information and determining trust (Cherniss, 2010). Moreover, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) postulate that employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes like trust, happiness, fatigue, anger, glory, frustration, and enthusiasm, depend on various emotions. Over the years, many researchers have examined trust with different variables determined its associations with various positive outcomes, such as creativity (Tsai et al., 2012), and motivation toward system usage (Rezvani et al., 2017). Further, Jordan and Lawrence (2009) argue that diverse teams have higher chances of an inter-member conflict. However, the high EI team can manage such situations due to their strong emotional sense and control. Scholars (Cooper, 1997; George, 2000; Rehfeld, 2002) also suggest that EI is one factor that increases trust among the team members. Research has also suggested that team EI improves such moods and emotions, which positively impact the team’s trust (Christie et al., 2015). Hence, our second hypothesis is presented as follows.

H2: Team EI will have a positive impact on team trust.

Team Trust and Team Performance

Early studies have mainly focused on trust in the team leader, but trust between team members on distal outcomes has mostly been ignored. In recent studies, Morrissette and Kisamore (2020) have identified that trust is positively associated with team outcomes. For instance, trust provides the foundation that supports team members’ cooperation and enhances their ability to achieve the desired results (De Jong et al., 2016; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002). Moreover, trust can accelerate the appropriate level of cooperation, support, and delegation (Jones & George, 1998), ultimately impacting performance (Morrissette & Kisamore, 2020). The intensive collaboration generated by the trust is conducive towards desirable outcomes (Martin-Raugh et al., 2016). When trust among members is high, team members may not feel obliged to challenge team members’ ideas and positions. Barczak et al. (2010) argued that trust among the team members could provide a stage for exploring, communicating, and knowledge-sharing that enhances the team’s capacity to perform well. Additionally, a high level of trust among team members can reduce or hinder conflicts within their team is reduced (Wu et al., 2017; Yun et al., 2020), which leads to higher performance. Therefore, we hypothesize the following.

H3: Team trust is positively associated with team performance.

Mediating Role of Team Trust

EI is the key competence that integrates trust creation and relationship development, constituting interaction among the project team members (Christie et al., 2015). Trust is an essential element of team collective performance (Sandhawalia & Dalcher, 2011). Whereas, its absence may force the team members to hide their capabilities; they may think that other members may camouflage their ideas (Gharakhani & Mousakhani, 2012). The literature has viewed the positive relation between team trust and project performance (Colquitt et al., 2007). To achieve good results, the project team members depend on social interactions and communication, which are directly related to EI (Rezvani et al., 2016). Other researchers (Christie et al., 2015; Treglown & Furnham, 2020) have pronounced that emotional understanding increases the positive environment that develops trust and social associations by sharing the risks and resources in complex projects. Scholars have further argued that teams with high EI can expect to build trust in the team by sharing resources, information that integrates individual abilities, experiences, and knowledge, leading to enhanced performance (Khosravi et al., 2020).

Consequently, teams with high EI and trust show creative work behaviors and engage in communication that eventually increases performance (Rezvani et al., 2018). Moreover, the EI of team members in which other members have their trust automatically has influential power to shape their thinking patterns, listening, and absorption to take actions aligned with team objectives (Levin & Cross, 2004). Furthermore, products of EI like shared cognitions, shared goals, and ties are prime requirements of team performance. In such teams, members feel comfortable and exert their full efforts for team goals when they found their colleagues benevolent, able, responsible, and trustworthy (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Prior studies have also established the mediating role of trust between different individual/ contextual factors, employee attitudes and behaviors (Gefen & Straub, 2004; Kim & Park, 2013; Levin & Cross, 2004; Niu, 2010). Hence, grounding upon above arguments we speculate that:

H4: Team trust mediates the positive association between team EI and performance.

Moderating Role of Task Interdependence

Task interdependence is a primary component of team performance (Lyubovnikova et al., 2017). More specifically, project teams are increasingly made up of individuals with different knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Chan et al., 2008). In a high task interdependence environment, every team member has to effectively accomplish group tasks (Knapp & Ferrante, 2014). Further task interdependence can be divided into positive and negative interdependence (see Dadaboyev et al., 2019). Team members’ personal goals are consistent with team goals under positive interdependence, whereas negative interdependence indicates that team goals are different from individual goals. Team members competing with one another under negative interdependence and acquiring other members’ resources hinder the work of other team members and result in a conflict of tasks (Deutsch, 1958). A high level of negative interdependence increases the risk of conflicting tasks (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Jelin, 1995) that adversely impact the team performance (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Jehn & Chatman, 2000). Wageman and Baker (1997) find that task interdependence increases task conflict because the team members consider other counterparts as competitors; such behavior/perception attenuates trust and perceived autonomy, that eventually impacts team performance (Dadaboyev et al., 2019; Langfred, 2005). In high task interdependence environments, team members have to wait for their turn to proceed further. Extending this literature, we speculate that task interdependence moderates the association between team EI and performance.

Moreover, grounding upon the Yerkes–Dodson law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), we infer that in more complex projects (e.g., construction projects), high dependency upon others may depilate autonomy and optimal functionality, resulting in low team performance. Thus, we expect that, compared to other, high task dependence cultures attenuate the positive influence of team EI on team performance. Given the above arguments and scholarly work, we hypothesize that:

H5: Task interdependence moderates the positive relationship between EI and team performance such that team performance will be low when task interdependence is high (vs. Low).

Method

Procedure

To test the hypothesized relationship, data were collected through structured and self-administered questionnaires, using paper and pen method, from teams working in the construction industry. The project-based construction organizations were selected via the purposive sampling technique. Sekaran and Bougie (2016) argued that this technique is the best method to obtain the data from a suitable sample (e.g., project-based construction organizations) and is a more cost-effective method (See Hutahaean & Kurnia, 2021; Maghnati & Ling, 2013). Purposive sampling allows scholars to focus on people who have specific characteristics, such as working in teams, and are better able to respond in accordance with the research context (i.e., construction project). According to scholars, even the most sophisticated statistical methods cannot offset poorly designed samples (Sarstedt et al., 2018), so purposive sampling is preferred. Furthermore, the project management scholarship has used the same approach to collect data from respondents working in teams (Ramazani & Jergeas, 2015; Rezvani et al., 2018).

The author received a list of teams and the supervisors’ name and contact details from the HR department of the respective organization. After receiving consent through telephone, the authors dispatched 500 survey packs to employees in managerial and nonmanagerial levels of 59 teams of 26 construction firms. Data collection period was from the beginning of January 2019 to the end of March 2019. To avoid the method and desirability biases associated with survey research (see, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2003), we collected data from multiple sources (team members and their leaders), with an interval of 15 days. Particularly, 15 days interval is neither too long nor too short, such optimal time frames are appropriate to avoid common method bias (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015) and other fouling factors (Anser et al., 2021; Z. Jiang et al., 2019). In the first round, team members were approached to collect data about demographic variables and emotional intelligence. On the 15th day, data about task interdependence and trust were collected. On the same day (i.e., the 15th day of data collection), team leaders were also approached to collect data regarding team performance. Importantly, the study at hand ensured that team leaders/site supervisors must have been associated with the team for a considerable amount of time and have completed at least one appraisal.

Sample

Out of the total distributed survey packs, 302 dyad packs (i.e., 302 employees rated, and 55 supervisors rated survey) representing 55 teams in total were returned with a satisfactory response rate of 67%. The demographic profile of team members are tabulated in Table 1. Considering the prior studies (Rezvani et al., 2016; Rezvani & Khosravi, 2018) and based on one-way ANOVA results, job experience and qualification were controlled in the regression analysis as they could significantly impact the hypothesized relationships. Additionally, the demographic analysis of supervisors indicates that 74% were male, having average experience of 13 years (SD ± 3) and majority of them (more than 62%) have earned the college degree.

Table 1.

Sample Description.

Demographic item	Categories	Percentage (team members)	Percentage (supervisor)
Gender	Male	88	74
Gender	Female	12	26
Age	<25	12	0
	26–35	40	12
	36–45	32	38
	46–55	13	43
	>55	3	7
Qualification	Professional diploma	11	3
	Intermediate	2	0
	Graduation	38	62
	Masters	27	14
	MS/M.Phil.	20	21
Experience	<5 year	17	7
	5–10 years	31	13
	11–15 years	22	58
	16–20 years	17	18
	>20 years	13	4

Profile of Respondents

The demographic responses are tabulated in Table 1. Considering the prior studies (Rezvani et al., 2016; Rezvani & Khosravi, 2018) and based on one-way ANOVA results, job experience and qualification were controlled in the regression analysis as they could significantly impact the hypothesized relationships.

Measurements

All constructs and items were adapted from published work and Participants’ ratings for all variables were based on five-point Likert scale, anchored on 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All the scales were highly cited, having established validity and reliability (see Costa & Anderson, 2011; Rezvani et al., 2018).

Team EI

Emotional intelligence was measured by 16 items developed by Wong and Law (2002). “I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time,” “I have a good understanding of my own emotions” were sample items. EI has four facets: “awareness of own emotions, awareness of others’ emotions, management of own emotions, management of others’ emotions.” As we intend to measure the overall impact of team EI on team performance, we followed previous empirical studies (Khosravi et al., 2020), and treated EI as a single higher-order construct. Moreover, the fit indices—CMIN/DF = 2.156, CFI = 0.960, SRMR = 0.040, RMSEA = 0.075—supported the selection of EI as a higher-order construct rather than four first-order constructs. Scholars argue that viewing EI as a single construct demonstrates the consistency of specific emotional abilities, and that variance in a single EI construct is linked to variance in its four facets (see Côté & Miners, 2006; Wong & Law, 2002).

Team Task Interdependence

Task interdependence was measured by five items developed by Van Der Vegt et al. (2000). Sample item: “I need information and advice from my colleagues to perform my job well.” Scale reliability was 0.89. The scale was also used by (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Van der Vegt et al., 2005) to measure task interdependence among group members.

Team Trust

Trust in the team was measured by five items developed by Cook and Wall (1980), and recently used by Rezvani et al. (2018) and Tsai et al. (2012) to measure team trust. Sample item: “I can trust the team I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.” Scale reliability was .95.

Team Performance

Team performance was measured with five items developed by Hackman (1987), and recently adopted by Rezvani et al. (2018, 2019) to measure team performance. Sample item: “This team achieves its goals effectively.” Scale reliability was .70. We selected to use supervisor ratings of participants’ project team performance because of Scullen et al. (2003) suggestion that performance should be assessed by peers or supervisors when evaluating how an individual’s personality influences his or her human skills performance. More specifically, to avoid any desirability bias, we gathered data regarding team perfromance from the supervisors rather than individuals, as subjective perfromance evaluation permits the supervisors to consider the events that subordinates cannot control but that influence their perfromance (Alves & Lourenço, 2021).

Data Aggregation

we computed interrater agreement (rwg) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (1) and (2) to determine the agreement among teams and reliability of means, respectively. The value of rwg ranges from 0 (complete lack of agreement) to 1 (complete agreement). We used the standards of LeBreton and Senter (2008) to determine the agreement level. Moreover, Avolio et al. (2004) stated that “Although no absolute standard value for aggregation based on rwg and ICC1 have been established, a rwg equal to or greater than 0.70 and ICC1 values exceeding 0.05 (Bliese, 2000; Klein et al., 2000) are considered sufficient to warrant aggregation.”

The average rwg values were 0.91, 0.79, and 0.78 for team EI, trust in the team, and task interdependence, respectively. These findings suggested the presence of “strong agreement to very strong agreement.” ICC1 was higher than zero in all the variables, and the ANOVA F value was statistically significant. Specifically, in team EI, ICC1 = 0.56, p = .000; team trust, ICC (1) = 0.36, p = .000; and task interdependence, ICC1 = 0.49, p = .000. ICC2 measured the reliability of the means at the team level and showed the reliability of the aggregate average ratings in distinguishing between the teams. ICC2 was 0.86, 0.72, and 0.82 in team EI, trust in the team, and task interdependence, respectively. The combination of these indicators verified the group-level aggregation.

On average, each team had three to six members working under one supervisor. Following, priors scholars (Rezvani et al., 2019; Rezvani & Khosravi, 2018), the team with a 50% response rate was retained for further analysis. Therefore, only two teams were dropped because of the low response rate. After initial screening and psychometric tests (e.g., rwg, ICC1, and 2), we concluded with 53 teams working at different reputed construction projects for further analysis.

Results

Following the two-stage analytical procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), we tested the measurement model initially, then, the hypotheses were analyzed. The bootstrapping technique was applied to assess the path coefficients (Freedman, 1981; Hair et al., 2014). Contemporary scholars (Abbas et al., 2014; Abbas & Raja, 2019), particularly project management scholars (Byra et al., 2021; Chen & Lin, 2018; Ul Musawir et al., 2017) prefer the contemporary approach (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) over traditional method (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The former approach has several advantages, for instance, preconditions of mediation pathways (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). Another advantage of this approach is the provision of resampling (bootstrap), particularly in smaller sample size. In total, Preacher and Hayes provide 76 different templates (research model) varying from simple to complex models. Our model encompasses mediation and moderation at the same time, thus we used model 5. This model allows us to measure the indirect effect between exogenous and endogenous variables through mediating variable. Moreover, model 5 enables us to measure the conditional direct impact on the relationship of exogenous and endogenous in the presence of boundary conditions. Considering the sample size and following prior scholars (Boies et al., 2015), to ensure stability of results and maintain rigor, in the present study a resampling (with 10,000 bootstrap) was used (see Davison & Hinkley, 1997; Hair et al., 2017). In so doing, subsamples were randomly created from original data set. Specifically, we use confidence intervals (upper and lower confidence interval limits) to estimate the direct and indirect relationships, where none zero value between upper and lower confidence interval limits presents significance of the relationship, while (beta) β represents the impact of exogenous variable on endogenous variable.

Measurement Model

The measurement model of the study was analyzed by considering the convergent and discriminant validity. The first convergent validity was established by examining the factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The results shown in Table 2 indicate that all the values are within the acceptable range. The item loadings were above the suggested value of 0.7) except for one item of team task interdependence (i.e., TID2) at 0.516. Still, it was retained due to its high AVE value. The Cronbach’s alpha values were >.7 (see Kannan & Tan, 2005; Nunnally, 1994). To ensure convergent validity, we examined the CR and AVE. Results indicate that the AVEs are all higher than .5, and the CRs are all higher than .7 (Gefen et al., 2011; Kline, 2015). Thus, the convergent validity was established. Then, the discriminant validity was assessed using the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion suggested by Henseler et al. (2015). The HTMT values should be ≤0.85 the stricter criterion and the mode lenient criterion should be ≤0.90 (Franke & Sarstedt, 2019). Our study results indicate (see exhibits 4 and 5), the HTMT value of this study was less than 0.90, the requirements of discriminant validity were satisfied. Therefore, this study successfully established the measurement model based on convergent and discriminant validity (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 2.

Descriptive and Measurement Assessment Results.

Construct	Items	Loadings	Reliability	CR*	AVE**
Team EI	TEI1	0.936	.988	.989	.843
	TEI2	0.940
	TEI3	0.943
	TEI4	0.910
	TEI5	0.900
	TEI6	0.950
	TEI7	0.882
	TEI8	0.927
	TEI9	0.932
	TEI10	0.881
	TEI11	0.928
	TEI12	0.916
	TEI13	0.893
	TEI14	0.915
	TEI15	0.906
	TEI16	0.930
Team trust	TRT1	0.897	.955	.966	.849
	TRT2	0.934
	TRT3	0.951
	TRT4	0.915
	TRT5	0.909
Team task interdependence	TID1	0.891	.897	.927	.724
	TID2	0.516
	TID3	0.924
	TID4	0.933
	TID5	0.913
Team performance	PTP1	0.761	.700	.815	.524
	PTP3	0.657
	PTP4	0.727
	PTP5	0.747

Note. TEI = team emotional intelligence; TRT = trust in team; TID = task interdependence; PTP = team performance.

CR of all variables is >.7.

AVE of all variables is >.5

Table 3.

Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

Factors	TID	TEI	PTP	TRT
TID
TEI	0.587	0.918
PTP	0.731	0.678	0.724
TRT	0.820	0.584	0.699	0.921

Note. The square roots of the average variance extracted are represented diagonals. TEI = team emotional intelligence; TRT = trust in team; TID = task interdependence; PTP = team performance

Table 4.

Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio.

Factors	TID	TEI	PTP	TRT
TID	—
TEI	0.588	—
PTP	0.897	0.787	—
TRT	0.858	0.596	0.835	—

Note. TEI = team emotional intelligence; TRT = trust in team; TID = task interdependence; PTP = team performance.

Hypotheses Testing

This study uses the Preacher and Hayes (2004) analysis for both mediation and moderation regression analyses. Moderation regression analysis is conducted to test the interaction effect of team EI and task interdependence on team performance. Mediation regression analysis is performed to examine the mediating impact of the mediator in the team and the relationship between team EI and project team performance. The moderation and mediation analysis are carried out by selecting Model 5.

We reported the path coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and p-values for the structural model using a 10,000-sample re-sample bootstrapping procedure, as suggested by (Hair et al., 2019; Ramayah et al., 2018). According to Hahn and Ang (2017), p-values are not a good criterion for testing the significance of a hypothesis and that a combination of criterion such as p-values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes should be used. Specifically, to examine the mediating role of team trust, we followed the recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008) of bootstrapping the indirect effect. According to them, if the lower and upper confidence interval does not straddle a 0 that shows a significant mediation. Table 5 presents that team EI has a direct positive and significant association with team performance. Hence, the unstandardized regression coefficient indicates that (β = .63, t = 4.12, and p = .000) the outcomes in the exhibit strongly supported H1. The results also show that a positive and significant association exists between team EI and trust in the team, as indicated by the unstandardized regression coefficient (β = .36, t = 3.02, and p = .004). Hence, H2 is supported.

Table 5.

Structural Model Estimates—Hypotheses Testing.

Hypotheses	β	Std Error	t	p Value	LL	UL
TEI → PTP	.63	0.15	4.12	.000***	0.32	0.94
TEI → TRT	.36	0.12	3.02	.004**	0.12	0.59
TRT → PTP	.19	0.55	3.48	.001**	0.08	0.30
TEI × TID → PTP	−.09	0.04	−2.27	.02*	−0.17	−0.01
TEI → TRT → PTP	0.15	—	—	.05*	0.01	0.21

Note. N = 53, Bootstrap sample size 1,000; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. TEI = team emotional intelligence; PTP = team performance; TRT = trust in team; TID = task interdependence; TEI × TID = interactional term; β = path coefficient; Std Error = standard deviation; p = level of confidence; BCI LL = bias-corrected confidence intervals lower limit; BCI UL = Bias-corrected confidence intervals upper limit.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

On the basis of Table 5, trust in the team and team performance are also predicted to have a significant association with each other. The unstandardized regression coefficient (β = .19, t = 3.48, and p = .001) verifies that H3 is supported.

The outcomes indicate that trust in the team mediates the association between team EI and performance because the indirect effect of team EI and performance through trust in the team has (CI values between 0.1 and 0.21, [p = .005]), with the absence of zero in the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval. Specifically, when team performance was regressed on the association of team EI and team trust, the regression coefficient between team EI and team performance was dropped to (β = .15, p = .005). This indicates that team trust partially mediates the association between team EI and team performance. Thus, H4 is partially supported.

The moderation graph result shown in Figure 2 that the impact of team EI on team performance reduces with high task interdependence. The moderation graph should have dissimilar gradients and slope with unparalleled lines (See Andersson et al., 2020). Figure 2 satisfies this rule. Hence, it is inducted that change in task interdependence negatively and significantly affects the association between team EI and performance. This finding supports H5 of the study. Table 5 presents that task interdependence moderates between team EI and performance, as indicated by the unstandardized regression analysis (β = −.09, t = −2.27, p = .02). Hence, the upper and lower limits of −0.17 and −0.01 without zero in the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval and p = 0.02 indicates that H5 is also supported.

Figure 2.

Moderation graph.

Discussion

The challenges and complexities faced by project teams, particularly in large-scale construction projects, significantly impact team performance. The results of this study indicate that team EI and performance are positively connected. Emotionally intelligent team members can adjust their emotions to work under various complexities. The present study’s findings pronounced that EI creates a positive work environment that motivates workers to effectively and efficiently perform their job. Further, results also indicate an indirect association between team EI and performance through team trust, which fosters positive working conditions such as cooperation, commitment to the goals, and communication. Prior literature has also highlighted the pivotal role of team EI in construction projects (Christie et al., 2015; Rezvani et al., 2016). EI enables the communication and decision-making process and develops high-quality and efficient associations that lead to enhanced performance (Mazur et al., 2014). Recently, Rezvani et al.(2016) demonstrated that EI positively affects project success, job satisfaction, and trust. Likewise, scholars (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002; Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017) found that EI affects workers’ attachment with team members and performance.

As mentioned earlier, it has been indicated that EI is positively and significantly related to team trust. Analogously, Rezvani et al. (2018) found that understanding and managing emotions is essential in construction projects and that proper emotional management can boost team trust and performance. In this way, our H2 presents that “a positive association exists between team EI and trust in the team.” Trust in the team is an integral part of our study. It shows that improved performance in the project team is difficult to achieve without trust. Dong and Howard (2006), highlight the positive interplay between EI, trust, and job satisfaction.

The results of our study indicate that team trust and performance are directly connected to each other. This study’s outcomes show that trust in the team creates a positive work environment, in which team members are attracted toward project tasks and show common interest and commitment toward these tasks. Trust in the team enhances the team members’ dedication toward their job which leads to project success. Highly trusting team members are more likely to coordinate contacts and interactions because they can enhance involvement and affiliation among the members, thus leading to resource sharing among themselves and achieving common goals (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009).

The results indicate that task interdependence negatively moderates between team EI and performance. These outcomes reveal that emotions affect team members’ outcomes depending on the attributes of their work context. Thus, this study provides valuable insight to the managers that while attempting to foster team performance, coupled with dispositional factors, they must consider contextual factors that can significantly impact the team. Prior literature also indicates that in high task interdependence, team members may compete with each other to acquire more resources which may result in task conflicts (Dadaboyev et al., 2019; Deutsch, 1958; Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Jelin, 1995) and negatively impact the team performance (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006).

Practical Implications

Based on study results, numbers of implications are suggested for team managers mainly working on construction projects. Firstly, this study pronounced the importance of EI at the team level for project-based employees. The outcomes of this work will encourage construction managers to recognize the significance of EI in construction project teams and develop ways to enhance EI of employees working in teams. Previous studies on construction projects have shown that training programs can foster EI among individuals and teams (Clarke, 2010; Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019), hence it is suggested that the introduction of training programs to increase emotional awareness and regulation for individual employees and team members, this will generate auspicious outcomes and help organizations to avoid project overruns, specifically construction projects. Moreover, it is suggested that managers should be mindful of recruiting employees with high-level EI, based on psychometric tests, to ensure that a high level of positive work attitude.

Second, our study pronounced the pivotal role of trust within teams. A solid foundation of trust can be built within a team by setting emotional awareness and regulation standards in communication and interaction. Therefore, site supervisors must recognize the impact of EI as a fundamental ability of team members, as it significantly fosters trust. Moreover, project employees with high EI are more responsive to other members, who promote trust, communication, and an information-sharing atmosphere, through which teams can solve unexpected problems during difficult times and jointly contribute to the team performance (Carmeli, 2003; Leicht et al., 2013; Macht et al., 2019; Oginska-Bulik, 2005).

More importantly, the study outcomes show that high task interdependence among team members may raise conflicts. In the interdependent work environment, negative behavior may prevail, which then adversely impacts team performance (see Dadaboyev et al., 2019). Therefore, site supervisors of construction projects are advised to consider this important factor and vigilantly divide the tasks among team members and frequently monitor and provide regular feedback to teams. In so doing, managers can maintain harmony among team members, and generate favourable outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research

This study also has some obvious limitations that could provide an avenue for further exploration. For instance, despite the fact, we managed to collect data from multi-sources (i.e., team members and supervisors) in different time intervals. Still, the cross-sectional data are prone to potential CMV bias (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, to eliminate CMV and have more casual interference, we recommend longitudinal study and experimental study design for more in-depth knowledge. In the present study, we used EI as a unidimensional construct, thus, a future investigation must empirically examine the separate dimensions of EI or use of other variables such as political skill (Munyon et al., 2015), and interpersonal mentalizing (Gabler et al., 2019) would enhance the nomological network of the antecedents of team performance. To the best of our knowledge, this study is amongst the initial attempts to integrate EI and performance through the mediating effects of trust and the moderating role of task interdependence, specifically at the team level. Thus, the inclusion of other mediating variables such as team cohesiveness (Lvina et al., 2018) and team adaptability (Johnston, 2018) would enhance the readers’ understanding of how or why team EI leads to performance. Moreover, the investigation of direct association in the presence of other moderating variables such as work centrality (Bal & Kooij, 2011) and harmonies work passion (Vallerand et al., 2003), more specifically, considering EI as moderator to measure the high and low impact, should be warranted. Additionally, the study has a limitation in terms of generalizability, given that the data are only collected from construction project-based organizations in Pakistan (i.e., a high-power distance and a collectivistic society) (see Hofstede, 2009). Consequentially, cross-border research and insight from different sectors, can improve the readers understanding of relationships and offer more effective guidelines to the managers.

Conclusion

Our study pronounces that a positive association between team EI and team performance. Further, this study supports the mediating role of team trust between focal variables. Particularly, task interdependence refrains the positive association between team EI and team performance. Along with theoretical contribution, the study also offers valuable insights for effective managerial interventions, which may help them to maintain the workflow in construction projects and enhance team performance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Iram Naz

References

Abbas

Raja

(2019). Challenge-hindrance stressors and job outcomes: The moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 189–201.

Abbas

Raja

Darr

Bouckenooghe

(2014). Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1813–1830.

Abbas

Sajid

Mumtaz

(2018). Personal and contextual antecedents of knowledge sharing and innovative performance among engineers. Engineering Management Journal, 30(3), 154–164.

Alves

Lourenço

S. M.

(2021). Subjective performance evaluation and managerial work outcomes. Accounting and Business Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2021.1959292

Anantatmula

V. S.

(2010). Project manager leadership role in improving project performance. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13–22.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.

Andersson

Cuervo-Cazurra

Nielsen

B. B.

(2020). Explaining interaction effects within and across levels of analysis. In Eden

Nielsen

B. B.

Verbeke

(Eds.), Research methods in international business (pp. 331–349). Springer.

Anser

M. K.

Shafique

Usman

Akhtar

Ali

(2021). Spiritual leadership and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: An intervening and interactional analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(8), 1496–1514.

Aquino

Thau

(2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.

10.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Daus

C. S.

(2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 76–86.

11.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Dorris

A. D.

(2017). Emotions in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 67–90.

12.

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

Bhatia

(2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.

13.

Bal

P. M.

Kooij

(2011). The relations between work centrality, psychological contracts, and job attitudes: The influence of age. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(4), 497–523.

14.

Barbosa

A. P. P. L.

Salerno

M. S.

Brasil

V. C.

de Souza Nascimento

P. T.

(2020). Coordination approaches to foster open innovation R&D projects performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 58, 101603.

15.

Barczak

Lassk

Mulki

(2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345.

16.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

17.

Bartram

Rimmer

(2012). Editors’ note: Dynamism and diversity in A sian HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 1–5.

18.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

19.

Boies

Fiset

Gill

(2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080–1094.

20.

Bond-Barnard

T. J.

Fletcher

Steyn

(2018). Linking trust and collaboration in project teams to project management success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 432–457.

21.

Bowling

N. A.

Beehr

T. A.

(2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998.

22.

Byra

Zubrzycka

Wójtowicz

(2021). Positive orientation and posttraumatic growth in mothers of children with cystic fibrosis-mediating role of coping strategies. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 57, e1–e8.

23.

Carmeli

(2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788–813.

24.

Chalekaee

Turskis

Khanzadi

Ghodrati Amiri

Keršulienė

(2019). A new hybrid MCDM model with grey numbers for the construction delay change response problem. Sustainability, 11(3), 776.

25.

Chan

M. F.

Lou

F. L.

Arthur

D. G.

Cao

F. L.

L. H.

Sagara-Rosemeyer

Chung

L. Y. F.

Lui

(2008). Investigating factors associate to nurses attitudes towards perinatal bereavement care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(4), 509–518.

26.

Chang

J. W.

Choi

J. N.

(2012). Team emotional intelligence and performance: Interactive dynamics between leaders and members. Small Group Research, 43(1), 75–104.

27.

Chen

G.-X.

Shan

Chan

A. P. C.

Liu

Zhao

Y.-Q.

(2019). Investigating the causes of delay in grain bin construction projects: The case of China. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(1), 1–14.

28.

Chen

H. L.

Lin

Y. L.

(2018). Goal orientations, leader-leader exchange, trust, and the outcomes of project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 716–729.

29.

Cherniss

(2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 110–126.

30.

Cheung

S. O.

Yiu

T. W.

Lam

M. C.

(2013). Interweaving trust and communication with project performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(8), 941–950.

31.

Christie

A. M. H.

Jordan

P. J.

Troth

A. C.

(2015). Trust antecedents: Emotional intelligence and perceptions of others. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 89–101.

32.

Clarke

(2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 5–20.

33.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

LePine

J. A.

(2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.

34.

Componation

P. J.

Utley

D. R.

Swain

J. J.

(2001). Using risk reduction to measure team performance. Engineering Management Journal, 13(4), 27–34.

35.

Cook

Wall

(1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39–52.

36.

Cooper

R. K.

(1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training & Development, 51(12), 31–39.

37.

Costa

A. C.

Anderson

(2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119–154.

38.

Costa

A. C.

Roe

R. A.

Taillieu

(2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244.

39.

Cŏté

Miners

C. T.

(2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1–28.

40.

Dadaboyev

Park

Ahn

S. I.

(2019). Dark sides of self-efficacy and task interdependence: Victimization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(6), 386–400.

41.

Davison

A. C.

Hinkley

D. V.

(1997). Bootstrap methods and their application (Issue 1). Cambridge University Press.

42.

De Jong

B. A.

Dirks

K. T.

Gillespie

(2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134.

43.

Demirkesen

Ozorhon

(2017). Measuring project management performance: Case of construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 29(4), 258–277.

44.

Deutsch

(1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279.

45.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467.

46.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611.

47.

Dirks

K. T.

Skarlicki

D. P.

(2009). The relationship between being perceived as trustworthy by coworkers and individual performance. Journal of Management, 35(1), 136–157.

48.

Dong

Howard

(2006). Emotional intelligence, trust and job satisfaction. Competition Forum, 4(2), 381.

49.

Drazin

Schoonhoven

C. B.

(1996). Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1065–1083.

50.

Druskat

(2006). Applying emotional intelligence in project working. In Pryke

Smyth

(Eds.), The management of complex projects: A relationship approach (pp. 78–96. Blawell Publishing.

51.

Franke

Sarstedt

(2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447.

52.

Freedman

D. A.

(1981). Bootstrapping regression models. The Annals of Statistics, 9(6), 1218–1228.

53.

Gabler

C. B.

Vieira

V. A.

Senra

K. B.

Agnihotri

(2019). Measuring and testing the impact of interpersonal mentalizing skills on retail sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 39(3), 222–237.

54.

Gad

G. M.

Shane

J. S.

(Eds.) (2014). Trust in the construction industry: A literature review. In Construction research congress 2014: Construction in a global network (pp. 2136–2145).

55.

Gefen

Rigdon

E. E.

Straub

(2011). Editor’s comments: An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. Mis Quarterly, 35(2), iii–xiv.

56.

Gefen

Straub

D. W.

(2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega, 32(6), 407–424.

57.

George

J. M.

(2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.

58.

Gharakhani

Mousakhani

(2012). Knowledge management capabilities and SMEs’ organizational performance. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 35–49.

59.

Greenidge

Devonish

Alleyne

(2014). The relationship between ability-based emotional intelligence and contextual performance and counterproductive work behaviors: A test of the mediating effects of job satisfaction. Human Performance, 27(3), 225–242.

60.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

J. W.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice Hall.

61.

Hagger

M. S.

(2014). The multiple pathways by which trait self-control predicts health behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 48(2), 282–283.

62.

Hahn

E. D.

Ang

S. H.

(2017). From the editors: New directions in the reporting of statistical results in the journal of world business. Journal of World Business, 52(2), 125–126.

63.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Babin

B. J.

Krey

(2017). Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and recommendations. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 163–177.

64.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

V. G.

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.

65.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

Wheeler

A. R.

(2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1628–1650.

66.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

67.

Hertel

Konradt

Orlikowski

(2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1–28.

68.

Hofstede

G. J.

(2009). Research on cultures: how to use it in training? European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1(1), 14–21.

69.

Hughes

S. W.

Tippett

D. D.

Thomas

W. K.

(2004). Measuring project success in the construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 16(3), 31–37.

70.

Hutahaean

C. I.

Kurnia

P. R.

(2021). Influence of non-demographic factors on Indonesian consumers purchase intention towards green products. ASEAN Marketing Journal, 11(1), 7.

71.

Jakobsen

Jensen

(2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.

72.

Jamshed

Majeed

(2019). Relationship between team culture and team performance through lens of knowledge sharing and team emotional intelligence. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(1), 90–109.

73.

Jehn

K. A.

Chatman

J. A.

(2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflictcomposition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 56–73.

74.

Jelin

(1995). Familia y género: Notas para el debate. Estudos Feministas, 3(2), 394–413.

75.

Jiang

(2016). Trust and project success: A twofold perspective between owners and contractors. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(6), 4016022.

76.

Jiang

Wang

Zhou

K. Z.

Guo

(2021). How managerial ties affect hotels’ proactive environmental practices in China: The contingent role of institutional environments. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102756.

77.

Jiang

Wang

Jiang

(2019). Knowledge hiding as a barrier to thriving: The mediating role of psychological safety and moderating role of organizational cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 800–818.

78.

Johnston

C. S.

(2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 3–30.

79.

Jones

G. R.

George

J. M.

(1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.

80.

Jordan

P. J.

Lawrence

S. A.

(2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management & Organization, 15(4), 452–469.

81.

Kadefors

(2004). Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 175–182.

82.

Kannan

V. R.

Tan

K. C.

(2005). Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: Understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega, 33(2), 153–162.

83.

Karlsen

J. T.

Græe

Massaoud

M. J.

(2008). Building trust in project-stakeholder relationships. Baltic Journal of Management, 3(1), 7–22.

84.

Khosravi

Rezvani

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2020). Emotional intelligence: A preventive strategy to manage destructive influence of conflict in large scale projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(1), 36–46.

85.

Kim

Park

(2013). Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 318–332.

86.

Klein

K. J.

Bliese

P. D.

Kozolowski

S. W. J.

Dansereau

Gavin

M. B.

Griffin

M. A.

Hofmann

D. A.

James

L. R.

Yammarino

F. J.

Bligh

M. C.

(2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 512–553). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

87.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.

88.

Knapp

K. J.

Ferrante

C. J.

(2014). Information security program effectiveness in organizations: The moderating role of task interdependence. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 26(1), 27–46.

89.

Lam

C. K.

Huang

Walter

Chan

S. C. H.

(2016). Coworkers’ relationship quality and interpersonal emotions in team-member dyads in China: The moderating role of cooperative team goals. Management and Organization Review, 12(4), 687–716.

90.

Langfred

C. W.

(2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513–529.

91.

Larsson

Eriksson

P. E.

Pesämaa

(2018). The importance of hard project management and team motivation for construction project performance. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 275–288.

92.

Law

K. S.

Wong

C.-S.

Song

L. J.

(2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483.

93.

LeBreton

J. M.

Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.

94.

Lee

Park

J.-G.

Lee

(2020). Knowledge sharing in ISD projects: Role of task interdependence and social capital. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(3), 580–599.

95.

Leicht

R. M.

Macht

G. A.

Riley

D. R.

Messner

J. I.

(2013). Emotional intelligence provides indicators for team performance in an engineering course. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 3(1), 2–12.

96.

Levin

D. Z.

Cross

(2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.

97.

Jiang

Taylor

T. R. B.

Ford

D. N.

(2018). Impact of Labour controls on tipping point dynamics in large complex projects. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 35(6), 605–618.

98.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Bradway

L. K.

(1997). Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between group control and performance. Human Relations, 50(2), 169–181.

99.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Jaworski

R. A.

Bennett

(2004). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2), 285–304.

100.

Lin

C.-P.

Yang

Z.-T.

Huang

H.-T.

(2016). Evaluating team performance and the mediating role of customer knowledge development: An absorptive capacity framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 42, 46–64.

101.

Liu

(2013). Effects of team leader emotional intelligence and team emotional climate on team member job satisfaction. Nankai Business Review International, 4(3), 180–198.

102.

Lopez

Love

P. E. D.

(2012). Design error costs in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), 585–593.

103.

Luu

T. T.

(2020). Reducing food waste behavior among hospitality employees through communication: Dual mediation paths. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(5), 1881–1904.

104.

Lvina

Johns

Vandenberghe

(2018). Team political skill composition as a determinant of team cohesiveness and performance. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1001–1028.

105.

Lyubovnikova

Legood

Turner

Mamakouka

(2017). How authentic leadership influences team performance: The mediating role of team reflexivity. Journal of business Ethics, 141, 59–70.

106.

Mach

Dolan

Tzafrir

(2010). The differential effect of team members’ trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771–794.

107.

Macht

G. A.

Nembhard

D. A.

Leicht

R. M.

(2019). Operationalizing emotional intelligence for team performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 71, 57–63.

108.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.

109.

Maghnati

Ling

K. C.

(2013). Exploring the relationship between experiential value and usage attitude towards mobile apps among the smartphone users. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(4), 1.

110.

Malik

H. A. M.

Mahmood

Usman

M. H.

Rziwan

Abid

(2019). Analysis of airport network in Pakistan utilizing complex network approach. Network. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0100153

111.

Martin-Raugh

M. P.

Kell

H. J.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(2016). Prosocial knowledge mediates effects of agreeableness and emotional intelligence on prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 41–49.

112.

Massaro

Dal Mas

Bontis

Gerrard

(2019). Intellectual capital and performance in temporary teams. Management Decision, 58(3), 410–427.

113.

Mattingly

Kraiger

(2019). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical investigation. Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 140–155.

114.

Mazur

Pisarski

Chang

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2014). Rating defence major project success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 944–957.

115.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.

116.

Moore

Mamiseishvili

(2012). Examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and group cohesion. Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 296–302.

117.

Morrissette

A. M.

Kisamore

J. L.

(2020). Trust and performance in business teams: A meta-analysis. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 6(5/6), 287–300.

118.

Munyon

T. P.

Summers

J. K.

Thompson

K. M.

Ferris

G. R.

(2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 143–184.

119.

Niu

(2010). Organizational trust and knowledge obtaining in industrial clusters. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 141–155.

120.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill Education.

121.

Oginska-Bulik

(2005). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on occupational stress and health outcomes in human service workers. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 18(2), 167–175.

122.

Paik

Seo

M.-G.

Jin

(2019). Affective information processing in self-managing teams: The role of emotional intelligence. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(2), 235–267.

123.

Paul

Drake

J. R.

Liang

(2016). Global virtual team performance: The effect of coordination effectiveness, trust, and team cohesion. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(3), 186–202.

124.

Petrides

K. V

Frederickson

Furnham

(2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 277–293.

125.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

126.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

127.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

128.

Quoidbach

Hansenne

(2009). The impact of trait emotional intelligence on nursing team performance and cohesiveness. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(1), 23–29.

129.

Ramayah

T. J. F. H.

Cheah

Chuah

Ting

Memon

M. A.

(2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis. SAGE.

130.

Ramazani

Jergeas

(2015). Project managers and the journey from good to great: The benefits of investment in project management training and education. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 41–52.

131.

Rehfeld

R. E.

(2002). Organizational trust and emotional intelligence: An appreciative inquiry into the language of the twenty-first century leader [PhD dissertation]. Capella University.

132.

Rezvani

Barrett

Khosravi

(2019). Investigating the relationships among team emotional intelligence, trust, conflict and team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 25(1/2), 120–137.

133.

Rezvani

Chang

Wiewiora

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Jordan

P. J.

Zolin

(2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1112–1122.

134.

Rezvani

Khosravi

(2018). A comprehensive assessment of project success within various large projects. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 6(1), 114–122.

135.

Rezvani

Khosravi

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2018). Examining the interdependencies among emotional intelligence, trust, and performance in infrastructure projects: A multilevel study. International Journal of Project Management, 36(8), 1034–1046.

136.

Rezvani

Khosravi

Dong

(2017). Motivating users toward continued usage of information systems: Self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 263–275.

137.

Román-Calderón

J. P.

Aguilar-Barrientos

Escalante

J. E.

Barbosa

Arias Salazar

(2021). The effect of student work group emotional intelligence on individual task performance in teams. Journal of Experiential Education, 44(2), 121–136.

138.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.

139.

Sandhawalia

B. S.

Dalcher

(2011). Developing knowledge management capabilities: A structured approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 313–328.

140.

Sarstedt

Bengart

Shaltoni

A. M.

Lehmann

(2018). The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 650–663.

141.

Scullen

S. E.

Mount

M. K.

Judge

T. A.

(2003). Evidence of the construct validity of developmental ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 50.

142.

Sekaran

Bougie

(2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons.

143.

Shea

G. P.

Guzzo

R. A.

(1987). Groups as human resources. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 323–356.

144.

Sheldon

O. J.

Dunning

Ames

D. R.

(2014). Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 125.

145.

Singh

S. K.

Del Giudice

Tarba

S. Y.

De Bernardi

(2019). Top management team shared leadership, market-oriented culture, innovation capability, and firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2544–2554.

146.

Smith

J. B.

Barclay

D. W.

(1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 3–21.

147.

Treglown

Furnham

(2020). Birds of a feather work together: The role of emotional intelligence and cognitive ability in workplace interaction and advice networks. Personality and Individual Differences, 158, 109833.

148.

Tsai

Chi

Grandey

A. A.

Fung

(2012). Positive group affective tone and team creativity: Negative group affective tone and team trust as boundary conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 638–656.

149.

Turner

Lloyd-Walker

(2008). Emotional intelligence (EI) capabilities training: Can it develop EI in project teams? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 512–534.

150.

Ul Musawir

Serra

C. E. M.

Zwikael

Ali

(2017). Project governance, benefit management, and project success: Towards a framework for supporting organizational strategy implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1658–1672.

151.

Vallerand

R. J.

Houlfort

Fores

(2003). Passion at work. In Gilliland

S. W.

Steiner

D. D.

Skarlicki

D. P.

(Eds.), Emerging perspectives on values in organizations (pp. 175–204). Information Age Publishing.

152.

Van Der Vegt

Emans

Van De Vliert

(2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633–655.

153.

Van der Vegt

Emans

Van de Vliert

(2005). The congruence hypothesis of intrateam interdependence in organizations. In Neider

L. L.

Schriesheim

C. A.

(Eds.), Understanding teams (pp. 111–131). Information Age Publishing.

154.

Van der Vegt

Van de Vliert

(2002). Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 50–67.

155.

Van der Vegt

G. S.

Janssen

(2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29(5), 729–751.

156.

Wageman

Baker

(1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(2), 139–158.

157.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

158.

Williamson

J. M.

Lounsbury

J. W.

Han

L. D.

(2013). Key personality traits of engineers for innovation and technology development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(2), 157–168.

159.

Wolfe

C. J.

Caruso

D. R.

(2004). Emotional intelligence. New Haven Consulting Group.

160.

Wong

C.-S.

Law

K. S.

(2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243–274.

161.

Zheng

Zhao

Zuo

(2019). Effects of structure characteristics of project network on conflicts and project success. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(1), 101–124.

162.

Liu

Zhao

Zuo

(2017). Investigating the relationship between communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466–1482.

163.

Yang

Kuria

G. N.

D.-X.

(2020). Mediating role of trust between leader communication style and subordinate’s work outcomes in project teams. Engineering Management Journal, 32(3), 1–14.

164.

Yerkes

R. M.

Dodson

J. D.

(1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology & Psychology, 18, 459–482.

165.

Yun

Tham

Azam

S. M. F.

(2020). Conflicts on team trust and team performance at the university scientific research teams in Jiangsu Province, china: Structural equation modeling approach. European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies, Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejmms.v6i1.944

166.

Zapf

(2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 237–268.

167.

Zapf

Knorz

Kulla

(1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 215–237.

A Mediating and Moderating Analysis of the Relationship Between Team Emotional Intelligence and Team Performance

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theory and Hypotheses

Team Emotional Intelligence and Team Performance

Team Emotional Intelligence and Trust

Team Trust and Team Performance

Mediating Role of Team Trust

Moderating Role of Task Interdependence

Method

Procedure

Sample

Profile of Respondents

Measurements

Team EI

Team Task Interdependence

Team Trust

Team Performance

Data Aggregation

Results

Measurement Model

Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References