Susan P. Gantt and Yvonne M. Agazarian
This article introduces a systems‐centered model for emotional intelligence (EI). This makes it possible to consider not only the emotional intelligence of individuals, but the…
Abstract
This article introduces a systems‐centered model for emotional intelligence (EI). This makes it possible to consider not only the emotional intelligence of individuals, but the emotional intelligence of work groups and organizations themselves. Agazarian's theory of living humans systems (TLHS) (and its constructs) applies to all levels of living human systems. Using these constructs, we operationally define emotional intelligence from a systems‐centered framework (Agazarian & Peters, 1981, 1997). From the systems‐centered perspective, individuals contribute energy that is necessary for organizational emotional intelligence. Yet equally important, emotional intelligence in organizations is a dynamic output of the function and structure and energy of the organizational system itself, rather than a property of individuals. This conceptualization extends the focus in the field of emotional intelligence from individuals with a selection and personnel development emphasis and instead to building work groups and organizations that function with greater emotional intelligence. Introducing a systems‐centered perspective on emotional intelligence enables emotional intelligence to be viewed at all system levels in the organization, including individuals, work teams and the organization itself.
Richard O'Neill, Verena Murphy, Jacqueline Mogle, Kristin L. MacGregor, Michael J. MacKenzie, Mariam Parekh and Mindy Pearson
Research from numerous theories shows teams' information sharing and discussion enhances effectiveness. Likewise, team communication structure can increase information sharing…
Abstract
Purpose
Research from numerous theories shows teams' information sharing and discussion enhances effectiveness. Likewise, team communication structure can increase information sharing, manage conflict productively and foster creativity. However, the lack of unifying theory hinders understanding of the disparate research findings. Agazarian aims to unify the field with her meta‐theoretical, multi‐level Theory of Living Human Systems (TLHS). Furthermore, her TLHS‐derived Systems‐Centered Training (SCT) presents an innovative structure to improve team performance. The purpose of this paper is to compare the verbal process, productivity, and creativity of pre‐existing work groups using SCT methods or Robert's Rules of Order (RRO), to test TLHS/SCT reliability and validity.
Design/methodology/approach
The verbal characteristics, information sharing, productivity, and creativity in SCT and RRO teams were compared using the System for Analyzing Verbal Interaction (SAVI), Group Productivity Scale and Work Group Inventory.
Findings
SCT teams, compared to groups using RRO, talked in ways more likely to transfer and integrate task‐related information. Furthermore, SCT teams were more productive, better performing, and more creative.
Research limitations/implications
The study's design does not permit cause‐and‐effect conclusions. Proposals for future research are made.
Practical implications
The results suggest SCT methods improve team communication, productivity, and creativity. Because this study examined “real‐world” teams, the findings may apply to similar groups in various workplaces.
Social implications
Having the ability to use differences as resources could improve society.
Originality/value
This paper suggests SCT methods offer innovative communication structures that focus teams effectively, perhaps by minimizing off‐task communications and conflict. Also, as SCT operationally defines TLHS, these results support the validity of TLHS.
Details
Keywords
Alan Farrier, Rowena Davis, Lynn Froggett and Konstantina Poursanidou
This case study aims to explore the relationship between identity and locality in two groups of young people from different environments working with a community artist to explore…
Abstract
Purpose
This case study aims to explore the relationship between identity and locality in two groups of young people from different environments working with a community artist to explore representations and perceptions about their environment, culminating in an exchange visit. The paper seeks to explore the challenges and complexities of partnership working in community regeneration in order to move beyond prevalent idealised views of partnership as a policy tool.
Design/methodology/approach
The multi‐method qualitative evaluation included filming, direct observations of project sessions and interviews with key professionals. A systems analysis was then conducted using the Systems‐Centered® Training framework.
Findings
The extent to which multi‐agency partnerships in community regeneration are likely to be effective and sustainable is related to the development of the partnership systems. Shared goals, clear roles and a common understanding of the context of the collaborative work are critical for developing multi‐agency systems.
Practical implications
The paper highlights the complex issues that need to be addressed when working with young people on issues of identity and territory. It also presents a systems viewpoint on partnership that has wider policy and practice implications for multi‐agency partnerships.
Originality/value
Drawing on a systems‐centered perspective, the paper expands the conceptual understanding of multi‐agency partnerships to seeing such partnerships as dynamic living human systems, which can then be understood in terms of the variables that affect their functioning and effectiveness. This provides a tool for analysis and reflection on partnership that is of value to both academics/researchers and managers/practitioners.
Details
Keywords
Christer Sandahl, Gerry Larsson, Josi Lundin and Teresa Martha Söderhjelm
The purpose of this paper is to report on the results of an experiential leader development course titled understanding group-and-leader (UGL).
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to report on the results of an experiential leader development course titled understanding group-and-leader (UGL).
Design/methodology/approach
The study sample consisted of 61 course participants (the managers) and 318 subordinate raters. The development leadership questionnaire (DLQ) was used to measure the results of the course. The measurements were made on three occasions: shortly before the course, one month after the course and six months after the course.
Findings
The managers’ self-evaluations did not change significantly after the course. However, the subordinate raters’ evaluations of their managers indicated a positive trend in the scales of developmental leadership and conventional-positive leadership one month and six months after the course.
Research limitations/implications
The study was based on a comparatively small sample with a number of drop-outs. The study lacked a control condition.
Practical implications
From an organizational point of view, it could be argued that it is justifiable to send managers to such a course, as there is a good chance for an improvement in their leadership style as rated by subordinates.
Social implications
The integration of group processes and leadership behavior in the context of experiential learning seems to be a fruitful path to leader development.
Originality/value
Longitudinal studies on the results of experiential learning for managers are sparse. This is the first quantitative evaluation of a course that more than 80,000 individuals have taken.