How Emotional Intelligence Shapes Company Culture

Running header: THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN SHAPING ORGANIZATIONAL 1
CULTURE AND CLIMATE
The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Shaping Organizational Culture and Climate
Following the American Psychological Association Guidelines
Kedren Crosby
Harvard University

THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN SHAPING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE 2
Abstract
Leaders’ focused usage of emotional intelligence (EI) skills can strategically shape the culture
and climate of an organization. High levels of EI and strong organizational cultures have
repeatedly proven to enhance outcomes in the workplace. Both EI and organizational culture are
contagious, open-loop systems which can be particularly powerful levers in creating viral
positive change. Several specific EI skills that impact organizational culture and climate include
self-awareness, empathy, emotional expression and assertiveness. By consciously applying EI in
culture and climate shaping, organizations may achieve greater well-being, innovation and
profitability. Leaders can intentionally develop and use key EI skills to shape their
organization’s ideal values, norms, attitudes and behaviors.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, organizational culture, organizational climate,
empathy, emotional contagion, open-loop system, organizational well-being, psychological
safety

“Your first and foremost job as a leader is to take charge of your own energy and then help to
orchestrate the energy of those around you.”
― Peter F. Drucker
Research shows that emotions and emotional intelligence impact an organization’s
employee engagement, creativity, psychological safety and retention of talent as well as
profitability (Barsade, 2016). It’s strategic and helpful to weave emotional intelligence into the
culture and climate of an organization in order to reap these benefits. While organizations have
been attempting to manage cognitive culture (the shared intellectual values, norms, artifacts and
assumptions that serve as a guide for the group to thrive), they often do not focus on the group’s
emotional culture which is the shared affective values, norms, artifacts, and assumptions that
govern which emotions an employee is wise to either suppress or promote. Cognitive culture is
often conveyed verbally and emotional culture is conveyed often through nonverbal cues.
Emotional culture and climate influences employee satisfaction, burnout, teamwork,
creativity, financial performance and absenteeism. Positive emotional culture is consistently
associated with better performance, quality and customer service across roles and industries at
various organizational levels. On the flip side, negative emotional culture like group anger,
sadness and fear leads to poor performance and high turnover (Barsade, 2016). By honoring and
guiding emotionally intelligent behavior, organizations can benefit from the outcomes of positive
emotional cultures.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Peter Salovey, currently President at Yale University and Jack Mayer, a professor at
University of New Hampshire, define emotional intelligence as “the ability to perceive emotions,
to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional
meanings, and to reflectively regulate emotions in ways that promote emotional and intellectual
growth” (Stein, 2011, p. 13). EI helps us grow in the self-awareness and self-regulation of social
and emotional skills.
EI has its roots in the research of American psychologist Edward Thorndike who founded
the discipline “social intelligence.” Later, David Wechsler, the father of the IQ, explored
‘affective’ intelligence, but did not measure it in his IQ assessment of cognitive intelligence. In
1983, Howard Gardner of Harvard University wrote about ‘multiple’ intelligences including
‘intra-physic capabilities’ which is an aptitude for introspection and ‘personal intelligence.’ At
this same time, psychologist Reuven Bar-on contributed the phrase ‘emotional quotient’ or EQ.
Jack Mayer of University of New Hampshire and Peter Salovey of Yale coined the phrase
‘emotional intelligence’ in 1990. The results empirically demonstrate that enhanced emotional
intelligence translates to increased success and compensation in the workplace (Stein, 2011).
Several measurements of EI exist, but the EQ and the MSCEIT have both generated the
most research. The EQ, created by Bar-On, is a self-reported psychometric tool endorsed by the
American Psychological Association. The MSCEIT, created by Mayer and Solovey, is ability-
based. EQ specifically measures fifteen different EI skills in five composite areas. Unlike IQ
and personality, EQ is not static, but comprised on dynamic skills applied contextually. The five
composite areas measured by the EQ are a) Self-perception, b) Self-expression, c) Interpersonal,

d) Decision-Making, d) Stress Management. According to Stein and Book (2011), the fifteen
concrete EI skills within the five composite areas are as follows;
SELF-PERCEPTION Emotional Self-Awareness
Self-Regard
Self-Actualization
SELF-EXPRESSION Emotional Expression
Independence
Assertiveness
INTERPERSONAL Interpersonal Relationships
Empathy
Social Responsibility
DECISION MAKING Impulse Control
Reality Testing
Problem Solving
STRESS MANAGEMENT Flexibility
Stress Tolerance
Optimism
The application of emotional intelligence has proven results for individuals in the
workplace, but if it’s to be effective in shaping an entire culture, it is vital to consider the
collective emotional intelligence of teams in enhancing overall performance. Druskat and Wolff
(2001) found that trust among members and a sense of group identity are essential to group
effectiveness. The authors suggest that teams create emotionally intelligent norms that support
behaviors for creating an upward, self-reinforcing spiral of trust and group identity. While the
authors do not explore culture shaping specifically, the emotionally intelligent norms, attitudes,
behaviors and habits they recommend for team would likely impact culture and climate within
the organization.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE
Cameron and Quinn (2011, p.18) state that “the concept of culture refers to the taken-for-
granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations, and definitions that characterize

organizations and their members.” Organizational culture is a socially constructed glue that
binds the organization together. It is “how things are around here.” It offers a sense of identity
to employees, provides unwritten and often even unspoken guidelines for how to get along in the
organization and stabilizes the social system.
Organizational scholars only began studying culture in the 1980s and recognizing it as a
key factor in determining the success of organizations. It was ignored for so long because people
are unaware of their culture until it is challenged, until they experience a new culture or until it is
diagnosed and made explicit through a framework. It is unobservable in some ways (implicit
assumptions, conscious contracts and norms) and observable in other ways (artifacts and explicit
behaviors). The most obvious manifestation of culture is in how people interact, the amount of
the whole self they’ve invested in the organization and the extent to which innovation is tolerated
and/or encourage. Culture is most observable in behavior, and emotional intelligence measures
the behavior of key skills, several of which are prominent in high-performing organizational
cultures.
In examining cultures, Barsade and O’Neill (2016) distinguish between the cognitive
culture and emotional culture within an organization. Typically, when people talk about culture,
they’re focused on cognitive culture, which is the shared intellectual values, norms, artifacts and
assumptions that serve as a guide for the group in order to thrive. Emotional culture is the shared
affective values, norms, artifacts and assumptions. The key difference is thinking versus feeling.
The authors note that in spite of the renaissance of scholarship on the many ways that positive
and negative emotions shape behavior at work (aka ‘The Affective Revolution’), emotional
culture is rarely deliberately managed which causes organizational suffering. Every organization
has an emotional culture, even if it is one of suppression. By understanding and consciously

shaping emotions in the workplace, leaders can better motivate their employees and reap the
benefits of a healthy culture. Positive emotions are consistently proven to create more
meaningful work, comprehensive organizational ideology and collective level identity, better
performance, creativity, employee engagement, commitment, and quality and customer service
across roles, industries and organizational levels (Barsade and O’Neill, 2016; Cameron, Dutton,
Quinn, 2003).
Organizational climate is different from culture. According to Cameron and Quinn
(2011), organizational climate consists of temporary attitudes, feelings and perceptions of
individuals. Climate is transitory and can change quickly whereas culture is and the enduring,
slow-to-change core of organizations. Climate is overt and observable whereas culture is often
indiscernible. When individuals or teams adopt new mindsets, behaviors, habits or
communication patterns, it will first be reflected in the change in organizational climate. For
example, employee engagement is actually a measure of climate, although many think it
measures culture. While an organizational climate can be impacted by what leaders do and what
behaviors are adopted, an organizational culture must be changed by mutual experience and
shared learning. The results of changing climate can lead to quick wins, like managers
temporarily engaging employees more effectively, but improvements may be temporary unless a
deeper culture shift occurs.
Data shows for every one percent improvement in the organizational climate, there is a
two percent increase in revenue (Goleman, Boyatzis, McKee, 2013). If climate drives revenue,
what drives climate? Goleman et al (2013) state that fifty to seventy percent of climate can be
traced to the behaviors of the leader.

OPEN-LOOP SYSTEMS and EMOTIONAL CONTAGION
In Primal Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, McKee, 2013), the authors discuss the open-
loop nature of our limbic systems, our emotional centers, which depend on external sources to
manage itself. We rely on connections with other people for our emotional stability, which is
why the open-loop aspect of organizational life is so important to recognize. Our behaviors and
those values that drive behaviors are contagious, even though we barely notice it.
During mirroring, our bodies take on the same physiological traits of the person with
whom we have just spent time. This is particularly noticeable during conflict, but also more
subtle with positive interactions. Emotions spread whenever people are together, even when
there is no verbal communication. The more cohesive the group, the stronger the contagion.
Leaders, however, have the strongest contagion in the limbic open-loops of groups.
People unconsciously absorb emotional cues from leadership. Other unofficial leaders who are
dominant and charismatic can also significantly impact the emotional climate of the
organization, too.
Laughter is a particularly viral emotion according to a study at Yale that found that
cheerfulness and warmth spread most readily, while depression hardly spreads at all. Laughter
creates a spontaneous chain reaction. Smiles are the most contagious and immediately,
involuntary connect two limbic systems. Happiness boosts cooperation, fairness and
performance. Conversely, leaders who are negative, cold and domineering repel people.
Leaders who are optimistic and enthusiastic are magnets for talent. Conversely, emotions like
distress not only hinder mental skills, but also makes people less able to read others’ emotional
states (Goleman et al, 2013).

Upward spirals of positive emotional improve future thinking and build a more resilient
organization in the future (Frederickson in Cameron et al, 2003). The upward spiral works with
high-arousal positive emotions like joy and excitement and also with low-arousal positive
emotions like contentment and serenity. Most importantly, those who experienced positive
emotions in the workplace were found to be more accurate and careful in decision making and
more interpersonally effective in a leaderless group discussion. Frederickson writes that
“positive emotions reverberate through other organizational members” and compassionate acts
serve as fuel for future positive behavior (Frederickson in Cameron et al, 2003, p. 173).
EI SKILLS WHICH IMPACT CLIMATE AND CULTURE
There are several important, concrete EI skills that can be applied to significantly impact
organizational climate and culture including self-awareness, empathy, emotional expression and
assertiveness.
Self-awareness is the ability to recognize how you’re feeling and why you’re feeling that
way and the impact your emotions have on the thoughts and actions of yourself and others.
Leaders with high self-awareness are self-confident, have a realistic self-assessment and self-
deprecating sense of humor (Goleman, 1998).
Adam Grant (2016, p. 94) explains how Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO, grows her
own self-awareness for the benefit of the climate and eventual culture of the organization.
Sandberg says, “When you’re the leader, it is really hard to get good and honest feedback, no
matter how many times you ask for it. One trick I’ve discovered is that I try to speak really
openly about the things I’m bad at, because that gives people permission to agree with me, which
is a lot easier than pointing it out in the first place.” This use of self-awareness engenders a

climate and culture where leaders can model openness to critical feedback. Often in
organizations, leaders unwittingly promote conformity because their egos are frail which can
cause them to be defensive to new ideas. By encouraging people to challenge top leaders,
managers become more receptive to growing from difficult feedback themselves.
Goleman (1998) defines empathy as the ability to understand the emotional makeup of
other people. Empathy is related to treating people according to their emotional state. Leaders
with high EI in empathy are experts at building and retaining talent, cross-cultural sensitivity and
service to clients and customers.
Perspective taking is a team EI skill described by Druskatt and Wolff (2001) in which
teams consider matters from another’s perspective. Adding empathy into perspective taking
enhances this tool because team members see one another making the effort to try to understand
their interests. This creates the kind of trust that leads to greater engagement. The authors call
this ‘deep perspective taking’ and it can be used in role-playing and storyboarding to build trust,
increase participation and uncover solutions to problems.
Druskatt and Wolff (2001) discuss that developing organizational EI requires cross-
boundary perspective taking and actively taking the needs and feelings of other groups into
consideration. It also requires pushing that perspective taking outside of one’s own team and
building relationships with outgroup members. At an information technology company, the
hardware engineers worked separately from the software engineers to achieve faster processing
and fewer crashes. Once the hardware team leader decided to go out of his way to build
relationships with the software staff, the company achieved 20 percent to 40 percent higher
performance than had been targeted.

IDEO is an example of an organization which takes group emotional intelligence
seriously and establishes and maintains emotionally intelligent norms of behavior at the
individual, team and organizational levels. They use the language of EI, notice their own and
other’s emotional behavior, confront with care when norms are broken and seek feedback from
inside and outside of the organization.
Barsade and O’Neill (2016) discuss a characteristic they call ‘companionate love’ in the
workplace which is the degree of compassion, affection and caring that employees feel and
express toward each other. Based on extensive data from a 16 month study of a large long-term-
care facility on the East Coast, they found that workers in teams with strong cultures of
companionate love had lower absenteeism, less burnout and greater teamwork and job
satisfaction than their colleagues who were on teams with lower levels of companionate love.
The families of patients in units with strong cultures of companionate love also reported higher
satisfaction with the organization. They also looked at 17 organizations in seven industries and
found that employees who experienced companionate love reported greater job satisfaction,
commitment and personal accountability for work performance.
Even positive emotions like compassion and empathy can have unintended negative
consequences if given too much weight. Barsade and O’Neill (2016, p. 63) describe that in a
culture of strong compassion, “People don’t want to talk about conflict because they don’t want
to get in the way of the love.” According to Adam Waytz (2016), empathy can be exhausting in
charity, healthcare and nonprofits. It can deplete itself because it is finite. If one empathizes at
work all day, there is less empathy left for your family at night. We tend to empathize towards
insiders and those we like more than those outside our circles. This causes preferential empathy
and even aggression toward outsiders, which essentially erodes ethics. Empathy toward fellow

employees can inhibit whistle-blowing as in the cases of sexual abuse (e.g. Penn State, The
Catholic Church).
Waytz (2016) recommends that, to mitigate against problematic empathy in the
workplace, managers can designate some team members to focus on certain stakeholders like
clients and others to focus on coworkers. When our mindset sees empathy as a zero sum
scenario in which someone wins and someone loses, it is more likely to cause burnout. Waytz
suggests to find integrative solutions to serve both sides’ interests in order to create win-win
scenarios and to give people breaks because when staff feel restored, they’re better able to
perform empathetic tasks. Also, Waytz suggests that it’s far better to simply ask people how
they feel, what they want and what they think rather than attempt to feel it oneself. He has found
this method to be more accurate and less taxing.
Duhigg (2016) dives deeply into high performance teams at Google to determine what
makes them so successful. Emotional expression and assertiveness are significant EI skills in his
findings. The researchers studying Google found that the best teams had members who spoke in
roughly the same proportion, which the researchers called “equality in distribution of
conversational turn-taking.” As long as everyone gets a chance to speak, the team did well but if
any one person or small group dominated, the collective intelligence declined. The high
performance teams also had high ‘social sensitivity’ meaning that they are skilled at intuiting
how others felt based on nonverbal cues (as scored using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test).
These traits are reflective of what HBS professor Amy Edmondson calls psychological safety.
Duhigg (2016, p. 26) states that psychological safety is “a sense of confidence that the team will
not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up.” It’s a climate in which one can enjoy

interpersonal trust and be themselves. Google’s data showed that psychological safety, more
than anything else, was critical to having a successful team.
Google set out to build psychological safety into the behavioral norms, climate and
culture of the organization. They agreed to adopt norms to make extra efforts to let their team
members know how their work fit into Google’s larger mission and they agreed to try harder to
notice when someone on the team was feeling excluded or sad. They also agreed to
conversational turn-taking and the use of empathy to build human bonds at work. Duhigg (2016,
p. 72) quotes a Googler as saying, “The thing is, my work is my life. I spend the majority of my
time working. Most of my friends I know through work. If I can’t be open and honest at work,
then I’m not really living, am I?”
Emotional expression and assertiveness are key in establishing organizational climate and
culture. According to Druskatt and Wolff (2016), a highly constructive means of regulating team
emotions is by establishing norms in the group for caring confrontation. In order to regulate the
culture, teams must be comfortable in ‘calling the foul’ and having the crucial conversations.
Without a constructive disruption to the inappropriate behavior, unproductive and inappropriate
behavior would continue at the expense of the mission.
CONCLUSION
With both the ‘Affective Revolution’ and the ‘Employee Performance Optimization”
movements focusing on leveraging emotions in the workplace, it is logical to begin weaving the
literature and practices of emotional intelligence development into the shaping of organizational
climate and culture.

Leaders can begin by intentionally modeling the specific emotionally intelligent
behaviors necessary for optimal organizational climate and culture. Because of the open-loop
nature of emotions, climate and culture, people in groups catch feelings through behavior
mimicry. Consciously modeling key emotions is a start, but leaders can also add them into the
core values (Zappos, Whole Foods and Southwest all list ‘love’ or ‘caring’ among their corporate
values), encourage ways of being contagious and even sometimes faking it until they feel it
(knowing that people imitate norms in order to be liked). Positive reinforcement of the new
norms will help them scale in the culture. And, with any effective culture shaping, efforts to
embed new positive, emotionally intelligent norms must be driven by top level leaders.
Companies, nonprofits, government entities and even faith communities can all better
serve their missions, stakeholders and employees by applying the well-established literature and
tools of emotional intelligence as they develop high-performance organizational climates and
cultures.

References
Barsade, S., & O'Neill, O. A. (2016). Manage your emotional culture. Harvard Business
Review, 94(1/2).
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dominus, S. (2016, February 28). Parent companies. The New York Times Magazine, 47-49.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups. Harvard
Business Review, (March).
Duhigg, C. (2016, January 28). Group study. The New York Times Magazine, 21-75.
Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional Intelligence (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, (Nov-Dec), 24-33.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Grant, A. (2016). How to build a culture of originality. Harvard Business Review, 94(3), 86-94.
Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2000). The EQ Edge. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley & Sons.
Waytz, A. (2016). The Limits of Empathy. Harvard Business Review, 94(1/2).

How Emotional Intelligence Shapes Company Culture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to How Emotional Intelligence Shapes Company Culture

Similar to How Emotional Intelligence Shapes Company Culture (20)

How Emotional Intelligence Shapes Company Culture