Impact of Collective Intelligence and Collective Emotional Intelligence on the Psychological Safety of the Organizations

Abstract

This article critically analyses concepts and models in support of collective intelligence (CI) and collective emotional intelligence (CEI) and their potential impacts on the organizations’ teams. CI and CEI have claimed to have an effect on the substantial range of activities, including employee initiation, participation, performance, loyalty and decision-making. Review of literature confirms that people with high degrees of cognitive and emotional intelligence display a multitude of abilities. Dynamic personal relationships, successful teams, analytical expertise and higher mental health are present in people with high intelligence quotient (IQ) and emotional quotient (EQ). Thus, this research tries to examine the combination of factors that affect the psychological safety by trying to create hypotheses between its antecedents and team psychological safety and then tries to create the analytical relationship among them.

Keywords

Cognitive Intelligence Emotional Intelligence Collective Intelligence Collective Emotional Intelligence Psychological Safety

Introduction

Groups are collective frameworks with cognitive and emotional new properties (Curşeu et al., 2013). In the advent of knowledge organizations, finding the right combination of cognitively and emotionally intelligent team is a chronic problem. Indeed, even with a massive literature on teamwork and team efficacy, existing theories discuss very little about the cognitive and emotional proportions of teamwork (Goyal & Akhilesh, 2007). An assessment of team efficacy, effectiveness and organizational learning work divulges sustainably diverse methodologies and an absence of cross-functioning among them (Edmondson, 1999). Even though most investigations of organizational wisdom have been field-based, minimal research has been conducted to comprehend the components that impact the psychological safety practices in teams in working organizations, and these are precisely the foundations of successful performance in this knowledge economy.

In group emotions studies, the most prominent components are the occurrence of collective emotions, for example, affective similarity and collective emotional intelligence (CEI) (Curşeu et al., 2015), and in group cognition research, the occurrence is of group rationality (Curşeu et al., 2013) and collective intelligence (CI). A few alterations have emerged for team working behaviour, such as innovation; teamwork; and the significance of knowledge and intellectual capabilities, like cognitive and emotional capabilities. A lot of scholars have written about the emotional and cognitive intelligence as the determinants of group-level capabilities (Ayoko et al., 2008; Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Jordan & Troth, 2004; Koman & Wolff, 2008; Mulgan, 2018), and it makes it really important to understand the role of similarities and differences in groups for the occurrence of CI and CEI for a team psychological safety.

In corporates, billions are spent every year in developing the necessary competencies for this phenomenon, but the results obtained are below par the satisfactory level, to say the least (Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008). In organizations, it becomes really important that an employee is able to express himself/herself freely, and the contributions are acknowledged and taken into account while taking the final decisions. This becomes a challenge for the leaders who are leading a team, a group, or an organization in creating an environment which is conducive for group cohesion and affective similarity to emerge and lead to a psychologically safe environment (Edmondson, 2018). In such a condition, the important challenge for organizations is to design and outline an organizational intelligence by inserting numerous individual skills into a set-up (Mačiulienė & Skaržauskienė, 2016; Picard et al., 2004) where the goals originate from the needs identified by the environment (Boder, 2006), behaviour of employees or team members, response of customers, etc. Thus, this article tries to examine the combination of factors that affect the psychological safety by trying to create hypotheses between the combination of factors and team psychological safety, and then, it tries to create an analytical relationship among the antecedents. At the end, the relationship between the groups and CI and CEI in a team is evaluated and presented.

Collective Intelligence

CI is an elaborately varied domain of learning and implementation. While a few researchers say that learning is essentially an individual action, most concepts present the significance of CI as a foundation of organizational competency (Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008; Goyal & Akhilesh, 2007). With time, these analyses have extended from individual cognition to group cognition (Senge, 1990).

It has been observed that CI is not the same as individual intelligence, both: general intelligence, as well as interpersonal intelligence (Mulgan, 2018), as alongside an individual’s or team’s cognitive and analytical ability, an element of social ability additionally comes to front. This means that in the development of collective knowledge structures, social progressions and elements are to be taken into account opening up the opportunities of collaboration (Elia et al., 2020) and performance of groups (Woolley et al., 2015). Thus, CI is the intelligence of a collection of individuals working as a unit (Williams & Sternberg, 1988, pp. 356), and this intelligence arises from one, or multiple sources. Just as an individual, if a group or team is studied as a single entity, the study of its multiple composite elements of variation becomes easier/possible (Danaher et al., 2017).

As a person’s intelligence is the outcome of his or her knowledge, experience and/or behaviour, similarly the intelligence of the team consists of many constituent parts, which allow for development of not only managerial competencies but also competencies of leadership (Boyatzis, 2011). This CI of the organizations is seen in the operations, activities, routines, schedules, culture and systems frameworks (Szuba, 2001). For a productive and functioning team, CI is seen in the organizations in problem solving, prediction and description, processing and group decision-making, but very few researches have been conducted in explaining CI (Glynn, 1996; Szuba, 2001; Williams & Sternberg, 1988) explicitly. However, in recent years, due to growth in the understanding of CI concepts by researchers and leaders alike, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA has opened ‘MIT Centre for Collective Intelligence’ for understanding and exploiting this concept. In lieu of such strong advances of teamwork and its related intelligence in organizations, the group’s cognitive perspectives are becoming imperative for the organizational development.

Collective Emotional Intelligence

Lately, a couple of scholars have attempted to expand the idea of emotional intelligence to a group and organizational level (Kaur et al., 2016). They have for the most part assumed the socio-cognitive perspectives (such as empathy, social capability, self-awareness, dominance and social competence) to trigger the capability of CEI (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Right now, there are two principle perspectives in the approach to CEI: one considers CEI as the addition of individual emotional intelligence asset individuals present to fray (Jordan & Troth, 2004), whilst the other talks about the level of emotional intelligence teams seem to utilize when they work together (Elfenbein, 2006).

The previous works put forward that at singular and collective stages, emotional intelligence has persistent effects for a person or collective group performance in rational and social spheres in the work environments and also life all in all (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Emotions are the fundamentals of social exchanges in groups and, thus, they influence the way group cooperates. It has been seen in the recent researches that CEI has influences on team culture and performance (Jamshed & Majeed, 2019), cognitive anxiety (Thomas et al., 2017), task conflict (Gheorghe et al., 2020), and even efficacy, process and effectiveness of teams (Lee & Wong, 2019; Srivastava & Nair, 2010). Reviews specify that groups creating standards to better manage emotional elements (i.e., developed CEI) are more effective over the long run (Wolff et al., 2006; Gantt & Agazarian, 2004). Quality of social communications tends to enhance when emotions are managed suitably (Lopez et al., 2006) and, thus, emotionally intelligent groups and teams are more successful because of enhanced coordination among each other (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).

Psychological Safety

Researchers are of the belief that interpersonal standards are sometimes explicitly talked about in the teams, making explicit the essence of team psychological safety. This is viewed as first by Schein and Bennis (1965) who emphasized the need to create individual psychological safety on the off chance that they are to feel secure and capable of change. In a team, the interpersonal risks include doing the activities, or asking for the activities, which have an inherent quotient of loss of face, such as an unorthodox suggestion or admission of mistakes, faults and errors, but psychological safety allows for a system essential for team success, most importantly for the teams working with creativity and innovation (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). More recently, in her works, Edmondson (1999, 2018) has explored the idea of using psychological safety in ‘team-level climate’ (Newman et al., 2017) for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson & Lei, 2014) and higher performance (Delizonna, 2017; Obrenovic et al., 2020).

This type of psychological safety in teams differs from the usual team cohesiveness, as sometimes, team cohesiveness acts as a barrier to the construction discussions involving agreements and disagreements in teams (Janis, 1982; Jena et al., 2017; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009); instead, it is used as a tool to build confidence among the team members with the motivation and understanding that they would not be embarrassed, trolled or punished for speaking up and contributing in the team’s discussions and decision-making (Edmondson, 2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Hence, psychological safety, and more essentially, team psychological safety is characterized as the common faith that the team is safe for psychological and interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999; Harper & White, 2013).

Initial researches have shown that psychological teams are more likely to be participative in providing solutions and pointing out errors to the team and other entities of the organization (Edmondson, 1999; Moingeon & Edmondson, 1996). The modern works have also augmented to these early outcomes and have shown further results that psychological safety in work groups leads to initiation and improved performance (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Carmeli et al., 2009; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Psychological safety is clearly the outcome of trust and respect among the team members (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Kramer, 1999), but team psychological safety goes much more beyond than mutual respect and trust among teammates. It instead, establishes proper loyalty in the teams in which the people of these groups are more motivated to be more productive (Aggarwal et al., 2018), as they are more at-ease and are more comfortable with each other (Baer & Frese, 2003). Thus, it becomes extremely important for learning teams and organizations to create a psychologically safe and secured environment (Kokkinos & Kipritski, 2006).

Overall Research Gap and Hypotheses

According to team psychological safety, at least one individual in the team must be the initiator for the collection of a set of responses from the group without the fear of deduction or punishment. It becomes chronically important to understand that an individual, when alone, would have a different set of analytical ability and would be able to solve the problems differently, and when in a group, the decision-making would be different. Similarly, his or her behaviour, when treated in isolation, would be different, in comparison to when treated in a group or team. For a leader, it is usually a challenge to differentiate the individual attitude, both cognitively and affectively, from the attitude in a team or a group. This is why cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence are treated as a completely different aspect than CI and CEI. The previous literatures have tried to establish a relationship between the collective levels of intellectual, emotional and social capabilities with team performance and efficacy (Edmondson, 1999; Goyal & Akhilesh, 2007; Harper & White, 2013), but a comprehensive model for such intricate investigation of relationships is missing.

It is important for a team to be psychologically safe if there is to be a balance between CI and CEI, but for that to happen, there must be a substantial presence of these two capabilities in the teams.

H1: CI has a direct positive impact on team psychological safety.

H2: CEI has a direct positive impact on team psychological safety.

It is not sufficient, however, to examine that these behavioural and intellectual capabilities have a superficial impact on the psychological safety of the teams. According to psychological safety, these impacts must be on its four important elements as well. After the application of these intelligences, the potential outcomes would be able to explain the extent to which these impacts affect the psychological safety of teams.

H1a: CI has a direct positive impact on team initiation.

H1b: CI has a direct positive impact on team participation.

H1c: CI has a direct positive impact on team performance.

H1d: CI has a direct positive impact on team loyalty.

H2a: CEI has a direct positive impact on team initiation.

H2b: CEI has a direct positive impact on team participation.

H2c: CEI has a direct positive impact on team performance.

H2d: CEI has a direct positive impact on team loyalty.

Method

The Conceptual Model

Our article has tried to amend and improve the contemporary model of cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence of teams impacting the social capital of the teams (Goyal & Akhilesh, 2007) to our hypotheses as to how do CI and CEI influence the team psychological safety. The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1. This model has been created to analyse the interaction of cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, social intelligence and innovativeness for development of social capital in teams, and the model has derived its study through a holistic literature review through cognitive intelligence models (Binet, 1905; Binet & Simon, 1916; Wechsler, 1944); CI through MIT Centre of Collective Intelligence (Malone & Bernstein, 2015), pre-human understanding of CI (Clark, 2003; Lévy, 1997; Livingstone, 2015; Venter et al., 2001) along with others (Boder, 2006; Joo & Normatov, 2013); Emotional Intelligence Models (Beldoch, 1964; Goleman, 1998; Mayer et al., 2000; Salovey & Mayer, 1989); CEI models (Curşeu et al., 2015; Ghuman, 2011; Hamme, 2003). The team psychological safety factors were shown through Edmondson (1999) and Edmondson and Lei (2014). More importantly, the ‘Psychological Safety’ model chart by Amy Edmondson from the book The Fearless Organization (Edmondson, 2018) covered only the aspects of the zones of psychological safety and associated accountability towards goals, but the studies conducted by the same researcher in their studies (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014) covered the aspects of work teams, context support, learning behaviour and interpersonal constructs, and hence, the scale of psychological safety was modified according to these empirical studies. What was most noteworthy in the model was that it was not focusing on the isolated individual factors affecting the team psychological safety; rather, it was focussed on combination and comprehension of these factors.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Data

The data for our research have been originated from the start-up organizations spread all the way across Indian territories. As and when the data are collected, the respondents are the representatives of these organizations, across streams, sectors and domains of the business world. The sample consists of 126 entrepreneurs and employees alike, who are parts of workforce groups and teams ranging in sizes from 2–3 members to 20–50 people in a team.

The study is the comprehensive study of cognitive and affective brains of the teams and their members. Thus, the respondents were asked in a comprehensive questionnaire about their understanding of themselves in the team, the understanding of their team of them and vice-versa, with the help of the variables that were to be further evaluated in the analyses. The questionnaire was containing items related to the respondents’ demographics as well, which were later used as control variables in the analyses. This cross-slacked configuration enabled us to assess the variables in mixed and casual sequencing. Obviously, the primary research methodology does not rule out the unreliability of the data collected, but it instead might suppress the existing connections (Glebeek & Bax, 2004).

It was seen that initially, the respondents were inconsistent in their responses, as they contradicted with our sample frame of start-up employees, as some respondents were coming out to be of bigger organizations, and/or were not actually working in the start-ups yet, but were planning to. Hence, after fixing the data inconsistency, the final response set consisted of 105 respondents who were our interest subjects. Hence, the analysis is conducted on 105 specific respondents, rather than 126 initial records.

Measures

Collective Emotional Intelligence

Relationship Conflict

Three items of intragroup conflict scale (Jehn, 1995) were used, and the respondents were asked about their experience regarding the relationship conflict in their respective teams. The responses were recorded on the 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = completely true to 5 = completely false) on their individual experiences in the teams.

Team Cohesion

In the measurement of team cohesion, three items were selected trying to analyse social group integration using a 5-point Likert scale. The answers were recorded using the scale from 1 (completely true) to 5 (completely false). The social group integration was derived by the group and social integration of the individuals in the team.

Affective Similarity

For a team, affective similarity is measured using the circumplex model (Russell, 1980). This model is used to classify moods and attitudes. The classification is as follows: (a) hedonic valence (pleasant-unpleasant) and (b) arousal (pleasant-unpleasant). The questionnaire contains questions to be answered by the respondents on a 5-point Likert scale, and the respondents were asked to rate on the scale of 1 (completely true) to 5 (completely false).

Team Effectiveness

Hackman (1986) has used team effectiveness as the extent of performance and satisfaction. We used three items from his scale to analyse the effective analyses of a team at the individual level, aggregated to the group level. A 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = completely true to 5 = completely false) was used for recording the responses of the working individuals.

Leader’s Behaviour

This factor is indicative as to how a group relates to its leader and other individuals in the team. This factor is also used as a regulatory mechanism of the team by the leaders and development of leaders by the relatedness of his or her group (Hamme, 2003). The responses were recorded on the 5-point Likert scale at the group levels.

Social Skills

This has been used by the teams and its members to understand and interpret the knowledge of the team of other teams, which is further used to build relationships with the external sources (other groups/teams, clients, superiors, etc.). The scale created here is consistent with the scales used by Curşeu et al. (2015) for establishing the impact of openness of the team with its outsiders.

Collective Intelligence

Organization’s Domain-specific Knowledge

This factor is usually assessed using knowledge tests that contain items on rules, procedures and strategies (Boder, 2006). Here, the items on domain expertise of the team and its members are asked and the responses are collected on the 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely true; 5 = completely false).

Sequential Reasoning

The typical feature of Sequential reasoning is that diverse evidence factors are acquired cautiously and step by step (Meder & Mayrhofer, 2013). In this examination, the objective was to induce the probability of a cause-effect of the diagnostics with the assistance of 5-point Likert scale.

Quantitative Reasoning

The concept of quantitative reasoning was developed for the employees to be better and more informed of quantitative information, but it must not only be limited to reading and writing but also analysing and using the quantitative knowledge (Steen, 1997). The 3-item scale was created to understand the everyday understanding of the team members of functional and quantitative knowledge, using a 5-point Likert scale.

Context Support

Context support allows for elements and variables to really enhance the interest of the members, and this increased interest helps in enhanced learning of the individuals and the teams. This concept was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with answers being recorded on the 3-item scales created.

Prediction of Future Events

Prediction is effectively conducted in teams by activating background knowledge, previewing, summarizing and then generating thoughts or outcomes in which the members react based on various dispositions (Thomas-Fair, 2005). With the help of a 5-point Likert scale, the itemsets were created to understand the effect of comprehension on decision-making.

Collective Decision Quality

This concept has been developed over the past, that is, more than 50 years ago (Kerr et al., 2004), and has focussed on both analytical and logical levels. At the collective level, it is assumed to be the basis of power relationships among several teams or team members (Christensen & Westenholz, 1999). In understanding the intensity of the decision quality on collective levels, the 5-point Likert scale was used to analyse the rational choices of the groups.

Psychological Safety

Initiation

For a team, it is important that the members are ready to provide newness to any task at hand with the contributions to both practical and theoretical elements. For a team to be psychologically safe, the initiation from every individual of that group is of extreme importance.

Participation

One of the biggest elements for employees to be successful, and most practically implement organizational behaviour/psychological theories across organizations is unfiltered employee participation (Vroom & Jago, 1988). For a psychologically safe team or organization, it becomes all the more important that an employee is able to participate freely and contribute productively in the development of organizational objectives.

Performance

Psychologically safe teams have highly efficient management control systems that can not only effectively measure the team’s performance but can also develop and enhance it. A team’s performance is highly affected by the amount of psychological safety that is present in it.

Loyalty

The concept of organizational loyalty has long been the driving force for the reason of studies in social sciences, management sciences and organizational sciences. The bond that an individual forms with his or her team and the organization later results in employee loyalty or wariness. Needless to say, a psychologically safe individual would be more loyal to his or her team and organization.

Validity of the Data

In order to determine the internal validity of the data, a pilot study was conducted. Two academic experts, three managers and two team leaders of another organization with experience in handling, leading and organizing teams of employees were invited to evaluate the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then updated according to their suggestions. The final questionnaire tested for validity was the same as the questionnaire shared for the main study. For the pilot, a set of 20 subjects were used, and were analysed. Cronbach’s α for the pilot group was 0.969, which explained that the survey instrument was reliable, and thus, it was considered fit to be used further in the main study.

Results

In the first stage of data collection, any responses that had very high or very low values, meaning that they fell outside the three standard deviations of the mean value, were excluded from the dataset as outliers. Thus, the final dataset was reduced to 105 responses, on which various analyses were conducted.

The strength of internal consistency of the antecedents was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, which was found to be extremely satisfactory, as the unit came out to be 0.949 (N = 105, n = 16) (shown in Table 1), showing high validity and tap into the underlying construct of CI and CI’s impact on psychological safety of the respondent’s teams.

Table 1.

Reliability Statistics Using Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha	Number of Items
0.949	16

Source: The authors.

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistical values, that is, means and standard deviations of all the antecedents, which were collected from the respondents on a 5-point scale. It can be observed in the preliminary view that the initial assumptions of the team psychological safety were correct. The table showed that for CI, collective decision-making has the highest mean value (8.16), and for CEI, leader’s behaviour has the highest mean (7.92).

Overall, all the variables have had a consistent central tendency with most of them falling in the 2nd and 3rd standard deviation, with the least mean in CI being prediction of future events (6.64) and for CEI being team cohesion (6.44).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the Variables

	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Relationship_Conflict	105	7.09	3.267
Team_Cohesion	105	6.44	3.261
Affective_Similarity	105	7.44	2.925
Team_Effectiveness	105	6.46	3.132
Leaders_Behaviour	105	7.92	2.456
Social_Skills	105	7.80	2.758
Org_Domain_Knowledge	105	7.43	2.365
Sequential_Reasoning	105	6.81	3.114
Quantitative_Reasoning	105	7.53	2.660
Context_Support	105	7.88	2.865
Prediction_Future_Events	105	6.64	3.147
Collective_Decision	105	8.16	2.602
Initiation	105	6.25	3.207
Participation	105	7.38	3.306
Performance	105	7.16	2.770
Loyalty	105	6.62	2.920
Valid N (list wise)	105

Source: The authors.

Table 3 presents the correlation matrix among the antecedent variables considered in the study. This table clearly presents that there is a significant relationship between the independent and dependent variables. As none of the correlations are above 0.90 (Neter et al., 1996), and the variation inflation factor (VIF) of all the variables is less than 10, there are almost negligible chances that the situation of multicollinearity would arise. Along with this, no major violations for the assumptions to do hierarchical regression analysis are found. It is interesting to see that leader’s behaviour and social skills; as well as organizational domain knowledge and context support have a low positive relationship with team’s psychological Safety and its antecedents (team initiation, participation, performance and loyalty), whereas all the other variables have a highly significant relationship with the antecedents of psychological safety.

Table 3.

Correlation Analysis Among the Variables and Their Antecedents

Correlations
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Relationship_Conflict	Pearson correlation	1
Relationship_Conflict	Sig. (1-tailed)
	N	105
Team_ Cohesion	Pearson correlation	0.743**	1
Team_ Cohesion	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000
	N	105	105
Affective_Similarity	Pearson correlation	0.764**	0.644**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105
Team_Effectiveness	Pearson correlation	0.792**	0.797**	0.736**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105
Leader’s_Behaviour	Pearson correlation	0.490**	0.368**	0.488**	0.521**	1
Leader’s_Behaviour	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105
Social_Skills	Pearson correlation	0.453**	0.511**	0.444**	0.589**	0.674**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105
Org_Domain_Knowledge	Pearson correlation	0.517**	0.507**	0.473**	0.596**	0.383**	0.557**	1
Org_Domain_Knowledge	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Sequential_Reasoning	Pearson correlation	0.752**	0.808**	0.637**	0.844**	0.390**	0.458**	0.573**	1
Sequential_Reasoning	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Quantitative_Reasoning	Pearson correlation	0.708**	0.672**	0.679**	0.696**	0.533**	0.531**	0.558**	0.761**	1
Quantitative_Reasoning	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Context_ Support	Pearson correlation	0.549**	0.482**	0.392**	0.536**	0.674**	0.605**	0.534**	0.532**	0.748**	1
Context_ Support	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Prediction_Future_ Events	Pearson correlation	0.848**	0.729**	0.743**	0.801**	0.449**	0.413**	0.493**	0.816**	0.736**	0.487**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Collective_Decision	Pearson correlation	0.623**	0.523**	0.544**	0.421**	0.449**	0.384**	0.220*	0.532**	0.654**	0.551**	0.597**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.012	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Initiation	Pearson correlation	0.643**	0.735**	0.583**	0.692**	0.245**	0.255**	0.360**	0.695**	0.522**	0.322**	0.693**	0.462**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.006	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Participation	Pearson correlation	0.549**	0.435**	0.543**	0.523**	0.131	0.100	0.125	0.516**	0.445**	0.170*	0.591**	0.549**	0.707**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.091	0.155	0.101	0.000	0.000	0.042	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Performance	Pearson correlation	0.468**	0.502**	0.313**	0.536**	0.184*	0.310**	0.258**	0.503**	0.466**	0.394**	0.525**	0.402**	0.730**	0.665**	1
Performance	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.000	0.030	0.001	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105
Loyalty	Pearson correlation	0.556**	0.632**	0.530**	0.602**	0.155	0.141	0.248**	0.619**	0.420**	0.181*	0.662**	0.412**	0.787**	0.697**	0.581**	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.057	0.076	0.005	0.000	0.000	0.033	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105	105

Source: The authors.

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1–tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1–tailed).

These findings show contradictory results with the previous studies. Feyerherm and Rice (2002) proposed that there is a strong relationship between team’s performance and handling and managing emotions, and Bonabeau (2009) explored that intellectual property of an organization or a team has a very high impact on the team’s performance and success rate. Hence, it might be possible that in the present scenarios of the budding organizations, the combination of behaviour of teams with the other people in the organization may not impact the psychological safety among the isolated groups, and there might be a possibility that due to heterogeneity of the teams the homogeneity of information act as a factor as to why understanding and knowledge of the organization and the discussion context may be resulting in lesser team psychological safety.

To analyse the cause-effect relationships among CI and CEI on psychological safety, multiple hierarchical regression is conducted (see Tables 4 and 5). In the hierarchical regression model, we entered all the variables of CEI and CI in the first models, and thereafter, we removed the variables in the order of their correlations and significant F values in the second models. Thus, in essence, the antecedents of CI are regressed against antecedents of psychological safety, and then the antecedents of CEI are regressed against antecedents of psychological safety. This procedure allowed us to find out and map the relationships that were hypothesized in the main as well as the sub-hypotheses. Eight separate diagnostic tests were conducted to ensure the results of our hypotheses. These were actually eight final hierarchical regression models, that were conducted to understand the impact of each independent variable on the model, which was achieved by eight initial models of hierarchical regression. The results of the hierarchical regression model are shown in Figure 2 through the Empirical Model.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Model of Collective Emotional Intelligence and Psychological Safety

	Models				Predictors
	R²	df	F	p-Values	β	t	p-Values
Collective emotional intelligence and team initiation
Model 1	0.624	98	7.645	0.007
Relationship_Conflict					0.057	0.487	0.627
Team_Cohesion					0.492	4.485	0.000
Affective_Similarity					0.092	0.816	0.416
Team_Effectiveness					0.353	2.651	0.009
Leaders_Behaviour					–0.018	–0.150	0.881
Social_Skills					–0.301	–2.765	0.007
Model 2	0.618	101	12.331	0.001
Team_Cohesion					0.525	5.220	0.000
Team_Effectiveness					0.434	3.901	0.000
Social_Skills					–0.312	–3.512	0.001
Collective emotional intelligence and team participation
Model 1	0.423	98	3.825	0.053
Relationship_Conflict					0.269	1.794	0.076
Team_Cohesion					–0.074	–0.529	0.598
Affective_Similarity					0.327	2.276	0.025
Team_Effectiveness					0.393	2.309	0.023
Leaders_Behaviour					–0.207	–1.372	0.173
Social_Skills					–0.271	–1.956	0.053
Model 2	0.404	100	5.192	0.025
Affective_Similarity					0.427	3.246	0.002
Team_Effectiveness					0.484	3.629	0.000
Leaders_Behaviour					–0.159	–1.083	0.281
Social_Skills					–0.309	–2.279	0.025
Collective emotional intelligence and team performance
Model 1	0.342	98	0.345	0.558
Relationship_Conflict					0.195	1.453	0.149
Team_Cohesion					0.126	1.006	0.317
Affective_Similarity					–0.242	–1.876	0.064
Team_Effectiveness					0.403	2.649	0.009
Leaders_Behaviour					–0.163	–1.206	0.231
Social_Skills					0.073	0.588	0.558
Model 2	0.303	101	4.547	0.035
Relationship_Conflict					0.052	0.434	0.666
Team_Cohesion					0.159	1.293	0.199
Team_Effectiveness					0.299	2.132	0.035
Collective emotional intelligence and team loyalty
Model 1	0.518	98	9.704	0.002
Relationship_Conflict					0.010	0.087	0.931
Team_Cohesion					0.378	3.341	0.001
Affective_Similarity					0.150	1.293	0.199
Team_Effectiveness					0.339	2.468	0.015
Leaders_Behaviour					–0.055	–0.449	0.654
Social_Skills					–0.349	–3.115	0.002
Model 2	0.509	100	8.222	0.005
Relationship_Conflict					0.063	0.582	0.562
Team_Cohesion					0.391	3.565	0.001
Social_Skills					–0.374	–4.051	0.000
Team_Effectiveness					0.378	2.867	0.005

Source: The authors.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Model of Collective Emotional Intelligence and Psychological Safety

	Models				Predictors
	R²	df	F	p-Values	β	t	p-Values
Collective intelligence and team initiation
Model 1	0.546	98	1.304	0.256
Org_Domain_Knowledge					–0.012	–0.093	0.926
Sequential_Reasoning					0.481	3.506	0.001
Quantitative_Reasoning					–0.148	–0.841	0.402
Context_Support					–0.085	–0.686	0.494
Prediction_Future_Events					0.383	2.912	0.004
Collective_Decision					0.139	1.142	0.256
Model 2	0.534	101	10.495	0.002
Org_Domain_Knowledge					–0.097	–0.858	0.393
Sequential_Reasoning					0.438	3.399	0.001
Prediction_Future_Events					0.389	3.240	0.002
Collective intelligence and team participation
Model 1	0.489	98	12.520	0.001
Org_Domain_Knowledge					–0.181	–1.315	0.192
Sequential_Reasoning					0.209	1.391	0.167
Quantitative_Reasoning					0.131	0.680	0.498
Context_Support					–0.369	–2.737	0.007
Prediction_Future_Events					0.369	2.564	0.012
Collective_Decision					0.472	3.538	0.001
Model 2	0.411	101	9.926	0.002
Sequential_Reasoning					0.065	0.459	0.647
Prediction_Future_Events					0.380	2.579	0.011
Collective_Decision					0.383	3.151	0.002
Collective intelligence and team performance
Model 1	0.319	98	0.147	0.702
Org_Domain_Knowledge					–0.127	–0.954	0.343
Sequential_Reasoning					0.191	1.315	0.191
Quantitative_Reasoning					–0.041	–0.221	0.826
Context_Support					0.183	1.404	0.163
Prediction_Future_Events					0.275	1.977	0.051
Collective_Decision					0.049	0.384	0.702
Model 2	0.318	100	5.020	0.027
Org_Domain_Knowledge					–0.144	–1.148	0.254
Sequential_Reasoning					0.185	1.353	0.179
Context_Support					0.186	1.848	0.068
Prediction_Future_Events					0.284	2.241	0.027
Collective intelligence and team loyalty
Model 1	0.515	98	1.357	0.247
Org_Domain_Knowledge					–0.084	–0.712	0.478
Sequential_Reasoning					0.381	2.951	0.004
Quantitative_Reasoning					–0.164	–0.993	0.323
Context_Support					–0.199	–1.712	0.090
Prediction_Future_Events					0.462	3.734	0.000
Collective_Decision					0.134	1.165	0.247
Model 2	0.499	101	17.111	0.000
Sequential_Reasoning					0.315	2.653	0.009
Context_Support					–0.249	–2.925	0.004
Prediction_Future_Events					0.470	4.137	0.000

Source: The authors.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

The hierarchical regression results found that for CI, sequential reasoning and prediction of future events were significant predictors of the variance in initiation, participation, performance and loyalty. In CEI, team effectiveness, along with team cohesion and social skills were significant predictors of initiation, participation, performance and loyalty. Also, quantitative reasoning was not a significant predictor of CI in initiation, participation, performance or loyalty. The inclusion and further exclusion of outliers did not significantly change or predict antecedents of psychological safety in the dataset.

In the follow-up post-hoc analysis (Radmacher & Martin, 2001), we assessed whether the associations between CI and CEI are present with psychological safety, and a multiple regression analysis was conducted by considering all the data elements as one group. No significant increase in the Adjusted R-Square was observed.

Discussion

The results obtained imply that there is team cohesion and team effectiveness have a positive impact on psychological safety of the teams, and that is supported in various literatures (Evans & Dion, 1991; Mathieu et al., 2008), but there is also a negative coefficient of leader’s behaviour and social skills in the team psychological safety. This is in contradiction to the notion that social skills are supportive in improving job performance of an individual, but they present the situation that a team’s social skill is very different than that of an individual’s social skills when it comes to improving the overall psychological safety of the team. It was also interesting to see that affective similarity has a positive relationship with initiation and participation but a negative relationship with performance and loyalty. Moreover, consistent with Pör (2008), we find evidence that organizational domain knowledge and quantitative reasoning have a negative relationship with team’s psychological safety, whereas psychological safety is positively influenced by prediction of future events, sequential reasoning and the team’s ability to take collective decisions. What interesting came out from these models was that context support of the group has a negative impact on initiation and participation, but a positive impact on performance and loyalty, suggesting that people with high intelligence may not be very responsive in teams, but are productive nonetheless.

In this study, for CEI, relationship conflict, affective similarity and leader’s behaviour, and for CI, quantitative reasoning and collective decision quality produced statistically insignificant results. Relationship between conflict and affective similarity showed a positive, but statistically insignificant relationship, whereas leader’s behaviour showed a negative and statistically insignificant relationship to psychological safety. These relationships have been previously mentioned in the study of Jordan and Troth (2004), which explained that teams with a dominating leader and disturbed communication and relationship have absolutely no link to the performance of the teams in their allotted jobs. As for CI, collective decision quality had a negative and statistically insignificant impact, whereas quantitative reasoning had a positive but statistically insignificant impact on psychological safety. This can be seen in the previous literatures that cognitive knowledge usually leads to an overall drop in the psychologically safe environment.

The underlined observed association among the antecedent variables of the study, even though being positive, does not imply causality (Kilian et al., 2018). Even though it might be tempting to interpret that people with high CI and CEI are explaining the present psychological safety, it is very plausible that there might be existing factors that have led to the psychological safety of employees in the organization.

Managerial Implications

In contrast, for promoting Psychological Safety for Organizational Safety and Leadership behaviour, this study has tried to understand the idea that collective and team-specific intelligence and emotional intelligence are better backers and contributors to a psychologically productive and safe environment, especially in the context of team’s overall productivity. In particular, this study is in line with the Edmondson and Lei’s (2014) study that focused on interpersonal construct of psychological safety, and it also offers a new direction of CI and CEI towards a more psychologically safe environment. As organizations and its leaders have an inherent responsibility to provide a more psychologically safe environment in the teams they are working in, varied domains of organization behavioural researchers are showing a growing interest in the area. Although most of the previous studies concerning CI, CEI and psychological safety were primarily focused towards providing a comprehensively safer environment, there is an increasing trend to discuss these in the context of organizational stakeholders and how they create an overall intelligent, emotionally intelligent and productive environment.

The findings of this study propose various implications to managers for organizations, governments, leaders, team members and policymakers who are dedicated in creating a more psychologically safe environment for their teams by promoting a more collectively intelligent and emotionally intelligent workplace. As psychological safety acts as a bridge between the leaders and their team members, the team heads must make sure that their initiatives to promote team’s intelligence and emotional intelligence are creating equitable and productive benefits for all the team members and other stakeholders. The rigid hierarchical nature of the Indian organizations does not allow for a socially intelligent and psychologically safe environment; thus, a thorough introspection into the organization’s plan for promoting psychologically safe environment can help the leaders and managers to understand the employees’ concerns and strengthen the relationship between employee’s behaviour and organizational productivity and performance.

Therefore, strategically concentrating on various aspects of CI and emotional intelligence, along with psychological safety, would help the organization and their leaders to maintain a long-term relationship with their employees who are of paramount importance when you are trying to build a strong employer brand and maximize your organizational output. Thus, by analysing the psychological safety with team intelligence variables such as CI and CEI, we have tried to provide a better strategy for organizational teams to proceed with the path to maximize their productivity by creating a better working environment to their team members.

Limitations and Future Research

It is imperious for managers and leaders of organizations (and even the researchers of the domain) to use a more psychologically inclusive environment in their decision-making. However, the field of organizational behaviour has been sluggish in identifying the potential of a collectively intelligent-emotionally intelligent and psychologically safe team. Literature has been rare on this area of study, and this study has responded to the organization’s requirement by providing an empirical framework for the teams in organizations, highlighting a broad range of intelligence (general, social and emotional) and producing insight for organizational behaviour research.

It is to be noted that this study is limited by the nature of the sample used in the analysis. As the sample size was limited, the empirical data were supportive of the construct of CI, CEI and psychological safety, but it does not conclusively differentiate itself with other related constructs, given in the constructs created by other researchers. Further data collection and longitudinal study are needed to establish a conclusive differentiation. Additionally, researchers need to split the data on management levels and demographical grounds to expand the research findings. Although the survey was subjected to excessive hierarchical models of regression, there is still further need to examine the common method variance of the antecedents. In the future research, structural equation modelling and path analysis need to be conducted on a larger sample to explore factors that influence team psychological safety.

Conclusion

The study here has tried to examine the antecedents and determinants of psychological safety in teams among the start-up organizations in India. The variables of interest were the cognitive and adaptive intelligence of humans, with the constraint that they are studied in the group level. Thus, our factors impacting team psychological safety were the antecedents of CI and CEI. Our findings revealed that psychological safety of the teams is positively impacted by team effectiveness, team cohesion, sequential reasoning, team’s ability to predict the future events and collective decision-making.

It can be clearly seen from my study that this untouched area of team and group intelligence is a rather less studied area of research and has many academic implications. First, the focus of the organizations must not only be on cognitive intelligence but also on emotional intelligence of the individuals. But in this era of dynamic knowledge organizations, the researches must evolve from individual study of cognitive and adaptive intelligence to the collective cognitive intelligence and CEI. This study also has practical implications for all the internal stakeholders of the organizations of start-up organizations. By understanding the impact each of these determinants have on the team’s psychological safety and its antecedents, the managers and leaders can more accurately judge the behavioural changes that are occurring in the team and organization, and how it can be manipulated to further increase the productivity of the teams, and thus the organization as a whole.

This study has been conducted on the organizations that are beginning their journeys or are in the initial phase of inception. The future analysis can be conducted by expanding the horizon by including organizations in their later stages, more established organizations and sector and industry-specific organizations. More studies can be conducted that can focus on people trying to enter in certain organizations and what kind of cognitive and adaptive intelligence skills do they need to survive and excel in the organizations, both individually and in groups and teams.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Aggarwal

, Dhaliwal

R. S.

, & Nobi

(2018). Impact of structural empowerment on organizational commitment: the mediating role of women’s psychological empowerment. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 22(3), 284–294.

Ayoko

O. B.

, Callan

V. J.

, & Härtel

C. E.

(2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39(2), 121–149.

Baer

, & Frese

(2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.

Beldoch

1964, Sensitivity to expression of emotional meaning in three modes of communication, in Davitz

J. R.

., The Communication of Emotional Meaning (pp. 31–42). McGraw-Hill.

Binet

(1905). On double consciousness: Experimental psychological studies (No. 8). Open Court.

Binet

, & Simon

(1916). The development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon scale (No. 11). Williams & Wilkins Company.

Boder

(2006). Collective intelligence: a keystone in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 81–93.

Bonabeau

(2009). Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 45.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(2011). Managerial and leadership competencies: A behavioral approach to emotional, social and cognitive intelligence. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 15(2), 91–100.

10.

Boyatzis

R. E.

, & Saatcioglu

(2008). A 20-year view of trying to develop emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies in graduate management education. Journal of management development, 27(1), 92–108.

11.

Boyatzis

, Koman

E. S.

, & Wolff

S. B.

(2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader. Journal of Management Development.

12.

Carmeli

, & Gittell

J. H.

(2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709–729.

13.

Carmeli

, Brueller

, & Dutton

J. E.

(2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98.

14.

Christensen

, & Westenholz

(1999). Boards of directors as strategists in an enacted world-the Danish case. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(3), 261–286.

15.

Clark

(2003). Memento’s revenge: Objections and replies to the extended mind. University of Sussex.

16.

Curşeu

P. L.

, Jansen

R. J.

, & Chappin

M. M.

(2013). Decision rules and group rationality: Cognitive gain or standstill? PloS One, 8(2), e56454.

17.

Curşeu

P. L.

, Pluut

, Boroş

, & Meslec

(2015). The magic of collective emotional intelligence in learning groups: No guys needed for the spell!. British Journal of Psychology, 106(2), 217–234.

18.

Danaher

, Hogan

M. J.

, Noone

, Kennedy

, Behan

, De Paor

, Felzmann

, Haklay

, Khoo

S.-M.

, Morison

, Murphy

M. H.

, O’Brolchain

, Schafer

, & Shankar

(2017). Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence. Big Data & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717726554

19.

Delizonna

(2017). High-performing teams need psychological safety. Here’s how to create it. Harvard Business Review, 24. https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it

20.

Druskat

V. U.

, & Wolff

S. B.

(2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard business review, 79(3), 80–91.

21.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

22.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley.

23.

Edmondson

A. C.

, & Lei

(2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.

24.

Elfenbein

H. A.

(2006). Learning in emotion judgments: Training and the cross-cultural understanding of facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(1), 21–36.

25.

Elia

, Margherita

, & Passiante

(2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119791.

26.

Evans

C. R.

, & Dion

K. L.

(1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small group research, 22(2), 175–186.

27.

Feyerherm

A. E.

, & Rice

C. L.

(2002). Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good, the bad and the ugly. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 343–362.

28.

Gantt

S. P.

, & Agazarian

Y. M.

(2004). Systems-centered emotional intelligence: Beyond individual systems to organizational systems. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 147–169.

29.

Gheorghe

, Fodor

, & Pavelea

(2020). Ups and downs on the roller coaster of task conflict: the role of group cognitive complexity, collective emotional intelligence and team creativity. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 18(1), 23–37.

30.

Ghuman

(2011). Building a model of group emotional intelligence. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 17(7/8), 418–439.

31.

Glebeek

A. C.

, & Bax

E. H.

(2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company records. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 277–286.

32.

Glynn

M. A.

(1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081–1111.

33.

Goleman

(1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam.

34.

Golembiewski

R. T.

, & McConkie

(1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes. Theories of Group Processes, 131, 185.

35.

Goyal

, & Akhilesh

K. B.

(2007). Interplay among innovativeness, cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 13(7/8), 206–226.

36.

Hackman

J. R.

(1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. American Psychological Association.

37.

Hamme

(2003). Group emotional intelligence: The research and development of an assessment instrument (Doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey.

38.

Harper

S. R.

, & White

C. D.

(2013). The impact of member emotional intelligence on psychological safety in work teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 15(1), 2.

39.

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.

40.

Janis

I. L.

(1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin

41.

Jehn

K. A.

(1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

42.

Jena

L. K.

, Bhattacharyya

, & Pradhan

(2017). Employee engagement and affective organizational commitment: Mediating role of employee voice among Indian service sector employees. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 21(4), 356–366.

43.

Joo

, & Normatov

(2013). Determinants of collective intelligence quality: Comparison between Wiki and Q&A services in English and Korean users. Service Business, 7(4), 687–711.

44.

Jordan

P. J.

, & Troth

A. C.

(2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195–218.

45.

Kaur

, Shri

, & Mital

K. M.

(2016). Modelling enhancement of team emotional intelligence. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 20(3), 184–198.

46.

Kelly

J. R.

, & Barsade

S. G.

(2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(1), 99–130.

47.

Kerr

N. L.

, & Tindale

R. S.

(2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

48.

Kilian

, Asmal

, Chiliza

, Olivier

M. R.

, Phahladira

, Scheffler

, Seedat

, Marder

S. R.

, Green

M. F.

, & Emsley

(2018). Childhood adversity and cognitive function in schizophrenia spectrum disorders and healthy controls: Evidence for an association between neglect and social cognition. Psychological Medicine, 48(13), 2186–2193.

49.

Kokkinos

M. C.

, & Kipritsi

(2006). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41–58.

50.

Koman

E. S.

, & Wolff

S. B.

(2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 55–75.

51.

Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 569–598.

52.

Lee

, & Wong

C. S.

(2019). The effect of team emotional intelligence on team process and effectiveness. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(6), 844–859.

53.

Lévy

(1997). Collective intelligence. Plenum/Harper Collins.

54.

Livingstone

D. W.

(2015). Lifelong learning in paid and unpaid work: Survey and case study findings. Routledge.

55.

Lopez

, Grewal

, Kadis

, Gall

, & Salovey

(2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicothema, 18, 132–138.

56.

Mačiulienė

, & Skaržauskienė

(2016). Evaluation of co-creation perspective in networked collaboration platforms. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4826–4830.

57.

Malone

T. W.

, & Bernstein

M. S.

(2015). Handbook of collective intelligence. MIT Press.

58.

Mathieu

, Maynard

M. T.

, Rapp

, & Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.

59.

Mayer

J. D.

, Salovey

, & Caruso

(2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In Sternberg

R. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge University Press.

60.

Meder

, & Mayrhofer

(2013, January). Sequential diagnostic reasoning with verbal information. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4395282w

61.

Moingeon

, & Edmondson

(1996). Organizational learning and competitive advantage. SAGE Publications.

62.

Mulgan

(2018). Big mind: How collective intelligence can change our world. Princeton University Press.

63.

Nembhard

I. M.

, & Edmondson

A. C.

(2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.

64.

Neter

, Kutner

M. H.

, Nachtsheim

C. J.

, & Wasserman

(1996). Applied linear statistical models (Vol. 4, p. 318). Irwin.

65.

Newman

, Donohue

, & Eva

(2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.

66.

Obrenovic

, Jianguo

, Khudaykulov

, & Khan

M. A. S.

(2020). Work-family conflict impact on psychological safety and psychological well-being: A job performance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 475.

67.

Picard

R.W.

, Papert

, Bender

, Blumberg

, Breazeal

, Cavallo

, Machover

, Resnick

, Roy

& Strohecker

(2004). Affective learning—A manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 253–269.

68.

Pör

(2008). Collective intelligence and collective leadership: Twin paths to beyond chaos. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 8(2), 2–8.

69.

Radmacher

S. A.

, & Martin

D. J.

(2001). Identifying significant predictors of student evaluations of faculty through hierarchical regression analysis. The Journal of psychology, 135(3), 259–268.

70.

Russell

J. A.

(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161.

71.

Salovey

; Mayer

J.D.

(1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.

72.

Schein

E. H.

, & Bennis

W. G.

(1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. Wiley.

73.

Senge

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday.

74.

Srivastava

, & Nair

S. K.

(2010). Emotional intelligence & managerial effectiveness: Role of rational emotive behaviour. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 313–327.

75.

Steen

L. A.

(1997). Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America (pp. 320). College Entrance Examination Board.

76.

Szuba

T. M.

(2001). Computational collective intelligence. John Wiley.

77.

Thomas

C. L.

, Cassady

J. C.

, & Heller

M. L.

(2017). The influence of emotional intelligence, cognitive test anxiety, and coping strategies on undergraduate academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 40–48.

78.

Thomas-Fair

U. C.

(2005). The power of prediction: Using prediction journals to increase comprehension in kindergarten (Online Submission). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED490766

79.

Venter

J. C.

, Adams

M. D.

, Myers

E. W.

, Li

P. W.

, Mural

R. J.

, Sutton

G. G.

, Smith

H. O.

, Yandell

, Evans

C. A.

, Holt

R. A.

, Gocayne

J. D.

, Amanatides

, Ballew

R. M.

, Huson

D. H.

, Wortman

J. R.

, Zhang

, Kodira

C. D.

, Zheng

X. H.

, Chen

, …, Zhu

(2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291(5507), 1304–1351.

80.

Vroom

V. H.

, & Jago

A. G.

(1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall.

81.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, & Schaubroeck

(2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275.

82.

Wechsler

(1944). The measurement of aduld intelligence. Williams & Wilkins.

83.

Williams

W. M.

, & Sternberg

R. J.

(1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12(4), 351–377.

84.

Wolff

S. B.

, Druskat

V. U.

, Koman

E. S.

, & Messer

T. E.

(2006). The link between group emotional competence and group effectiveness. In Druskat

V. U.

, Sala

, & Mount

(Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 223–242). Lawrence Erlbaum.

85.

Woolley

A. W.

, Aggarwal

, & Malone

T. W.

(2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424.