Keywords

Emotional intelligence; Team Dysfunction; Individual work performance; Employees; Service Sector.

Introduction

As the rapid expansion of technologies continues to grow, organizations face some challenges to survive and remain competitive. This necessitates changes in organizational structure to achieve positive outcomes. In doing so, the organization relied on the employees and successful teamwork, working as core assets, individual needs to be emotionally productive to influence positive psychological outcomes for improving individual and workplace performance (Kubiak, 2020). Thus, the concept of EI is now becoming more important for improving an organization's effectiveness on the one hand, and the principles of cooperation as a modern style of work have grown important for improving the working environment on the other (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006). Teams are now being used as a working system by all types of organizations, which is a developing trend in the workplace (Bui et al., 2019). As a result of this propensity, there is a predisposition that has emerged in an organization's management system to restructure the operating systems of businesses into teams. (Abdu Yosr Yaquot et al., 2021). Individual decision-making is less valuable than collaborative decision, according to a study. However, a very challenging collaboration often yields an emotional outcome (Stephens & Carmeli, 2016). The level of cooperation and collaboration within a team distinguishes it from an ineffective team. Successful teams provide the company with several advantages also enhancing productivity and overall performance (Mohamad & Jais, 2016). The concept of a successful team, cooperation, and social interdependence have got strong relationships in past literature. "When people share common goals and their outcomes are influenced by others' activities, there is social interdependence." (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Social interdependence can be positive, negative, or non-existent (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Positive interdependence promotes positive interactions between the members of the team to attain the goal while negative interdependence or no interactions results in individuals avoiding interacting with each other which will affect the concept of teamwork. The ability of team members to manage conflict, issues, feelings, and emotions can also have an impact on the success of the team, thus any negative behavior may negatively affect job productivity.

The success of teams is influenced by team members' consideration, encouragement, empathy for one another, and control of their emotions (Gordon et al., 2020). It is therefore critical for any organization to maximize the performance of team success and to put forth significant effort to achieve it by paying close attention to any dysfunctionality, which may exist within a team (de Mol et al., 2020). Lack of attention to the results at work leads to dysfunction since it makes people's emotional distress worse, for this reason analyzing a person's emotional intelligence is crucial. Thus, examining emotional intelligence (EI) from teams and organizational perspective (Druskat, 2013; Krén & Séllei, 2020; Supramaniam & Singaravlloo, 2021) is important, as it has received significant currency in recent studies, particularly noteworthy is that statistically significant linking of EI and success of a team has been discovered in previous work (Clarke, 2010; Papoutsi et al., 2019) Attributes that are needed for effective teamwork are different with diverse perspectives depending on the skills of individuals tackling technical or time management issues within the team. EI is a competency of individual performance for successful teamwork and is increasingly being promoted as a necessary element (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). All the team members for some reason may not work together effectively, and the consequences sometimes can be disastrous which may lead to dysfunctionality of teams (Rashid, 2020). The relationship between "Teamwork and task performance (TP)" has been the subject of extensive research (van der Vaart, 2021) or on "EI" and "TP" (O'Boyle et al., 2011) stating that "EI" is widely applied in organizations because of the association between EI and TP. Literature shows the importance of EI on job performance in successful teams in an organizational setting that is defined in two ways i.e., firstly self-employed work performance in successful teams (Carmeli & Josman, 2006). Secondly, the connection between EI and TP also, team emotional intelligence (TEI) and TP are also explored (Mindeguia et al., 2021).

To advance the study of EI, certain studies have been conducted on the relationship between EI and job performance (Mohamad & Jais, 2016). Previous researches lack in the utilization of EI with the teams that became dysfunctional for some reasons. The research on EI with team dysfunction may serve as a stepping stone to advance this topic further since it attempts to investigate the relationship between Team dysfunction, Emotional intelligence and individual work performance. while also trying to investigate the variables of these Constructs. This study bridges a gap in the literature by including emotional intelligence as a relevant variable with Respect to team Dysfunction and individual work performance, which has received less attention in earlier research. It also adds to the corpus of current knowledge. In light of the theoretical analysis and proposed model, the following research questions were created:

RQ1. How does team dysfunction impact Individual work performance of Employee in Service sectors of India?

RQ2. How do Emotional Intelligence influence Individual work performance in dysfunctional teams in in Service sectors of India?

RQ3. What is the relationship between all constructs and Emotional Intelligence toward performance in dysfunctional teams in Service sectors of India?

The article is divided into three sections: a thorough discussion of the results obtained; a review of pertinent literature on the topic; a conclusion section outlining the study's limitations and implications for academia and industry; and a thorough explanation of the study's methodology, findings, and presentation.

Theory Development and Hypotheses: Team Dysfunction (TD)

The prior research has paid a lot of attention to the link between EI and effective teamwork (Carmeli & Josman, 2006). As a result, antecedents and consequences of well-being in the workplace are seeking attention day by day (Mindeguia et al., 2021). To improve an organization's performance and productivity, employee motivation and well-being are required to reduce conflict within the team. Organizations are formed with the collaborative efforts of employees who work as core assets and as team members, it is, therefore, important for any organization to work for the maximization of the success of teams by paying careful attention to any dysfunctionality within a team (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006). However, many situations arise that may lower the skills of 'self-regulation', 'self-awareness', 'Motivation', 'Empathy', and 'social skills in an individual.

Despite the organization's efforts to provide a complacent environment for employees through team building, training, and development. Sometimes employees fail to envisage the task in teams. The team probably becomes dysfunctional because teams are made up of deceptive and different kinds of individuals who are culturally different (Lencioni, 2002). However, it is difficult for top management of the organization to face team dysfunction and focuses on teamwork because executive teams set an accent for how employees work together. To make the team functional and cohesive, a level of discipline is required. The first team has to identify the traits that are responsible for team dysfunction and after identifying that, the team leader and team members have to work on these traits to overcome this problem. Thus, every member of the team works hard to fulfill their responsibilities, and any conflicts that arise within a team can result in low morale for the group. According to Lencioni the concept of Dysfunctions of a team is discussed in below Table 1.

Table 1 Team Dysfunction Discussions and Factors
Reference	Discussion	Results	Factors
Lencioni, P.M. (2002)	“When team members are unable to admit their faults and reluctant to seek assistance from others, there is a belief among team members that their peers' motives are not good and that there is a need to be protective or guarded around the group”.	Resulting in being reluctant to one another in a team, that may often create an absence of trust between the members	Absence of Trust (AT)
Lencioni, P.M. (2002)	With a strong establishment of trust, teams can easily engage in debates and ideological conflicts. Fear of conflict is the reluctance to involve in productive work and arguments in the debate which leads to discomfort and growth.	Results in a lack of development of creative ideas and group thinking that may often affect the confidence of members of the team which may affect the decision-making.	Fear of Conflict (FC)
Lencioni, P.M. (2002)	Trust and conflicts create an environment in which transparency among the team members will lead to commitment towards work, when Team members are not bought into the important decisions of the team they don't feel committed.	The teams that fail to commit suffer from ambiguity among the members about the decision and priorities.	Lack of commitment (LC)
Lencioni, P.M. (2002)	Through the establishment of trust, ideological conflict, and commitment, there is a clear understanding of their goals and decisions, and are accountable to each other. If the team members are not making each other accountable, they may not work effectively and also do not make good decisions.	Teams that avoid accountability will suffer from animosity between the team members that create strain in their relationships	Avoidance of Accountability(AA)
Lencioni, P.M. (2002)	When there is a lack of accountability, lack of commitment, absence of trust towards the common goal, Team members put their feeling of status and ego ahead of the team, resulting in a shift from Team achievement to own achievement arises	Teams that are not focused on the results suffer from stagnation in the form of a team that fails to grow easily, fails to defeat competitors, and encourages employees to focus on their career and growth	Inattention To Results(IR)

Emotional intelligence (EI)

EI becoming popular in recent times and have a great influence on individual as well as organizational performance. Salovey and Mayer came up with the idea for EI for the first time in 1990. Gardner's hypothesis of multiple intelligences, which was released in 1983, inspired this idea. According to this theory, the concept of interpersonal intelligence understands other people's abilities (Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Sabbah et al., 2020). In their 1990 study, "EI" was defined by Salovey and Mayer as having the capacity to control one's own and other people's emotions and to use those feelings as a basis for decision-making and action. EI thus employs "recognition," "appraisal," and "expression and management of one's own emotions as well as handling of other emotions" (Carmeli & Josman, 2006). As a result, Goleman (1998) described the concept of EI, which is divided into five parts: "Self-awareness," "Self-regulation," "Motivation," "Empathy," "Social Skills," and "Emotional Intelligence." He did this by starting with Salovey and Mayer's model." EI is defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997) as consisting of four dimensions: self-awareness and self-expression, self-control, use of emotions to enhance performance and self-awareness and self-recognition of emotions in others." The EI was first introduced into the literature in 1990, and it was followed by several definitions and dimensions that were gathered from the literature, as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2 Emotional Intelligence Definitions and Dimensions
Authors	Definition of “Emotional intelligence”	Dimensions
Mayer & Salovey (1997)	“Understanding how to control and regulate one's own and other people's emotions”.	“Self-emotional Appraisal”. “Other emotional Appraisal”. “Regulation and Use of Emotions”
Goleman(1998)	“The capacity to recognize one's own and other emotions in order to promote understanding”.	“To perceive emotions” “Regulate and use Emotions”.
George, 2000	“Being able to recognize, access, and produce emotions to support thought, as well as comprehend, control, and use emotions and emotional intelligence to advance intellectual development”.	“To perceive and access emotions.” “To understand and regulate emotions”.
Petrides et al., 2004	“Emotional intelligence as a construct reflect in a way that individual perceive and evaluate their emotional abilities and also acknowledges the subjective nature of emotions”.	“Perceive and Evaluate Emotions”. “Emotional self-Efficacy”.
Wong et al., 2007	“The capacity to properly control one's emotions and engage in social interactions is known as emotional intelligence.”	“Managing Emotions”. “Interaction with Others' feelings and emotions”.
O’Boyle et al., 2011	“Ability to perceive, understand and manage emotions to facilitate thoughts”.	“Ability Emotional Intelligence” “Self-Report Emotional intelligence”. “Mixed emotional Intelligence”.
Hatipoğlu, 2015	“The ability to notice emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, interpret those emotions, and manage their information is known as emotional intelligence.”	“Perceive and assimilate emotions”. “Understand and manage Emotions”.
Emanuel & Gudbranson, 2018	“The ability to recognize, express, and recall one's own feelings as well as those of others is known as emotional intelligence.”	“Appraising Emotions”. “Articulation of one’s and others' emotions”. “To retrieve emotions”.
Lubbadeh, (2020)	“A person's capacity to manage and control emotions, including stress and urges, as well as to navigate complicated interpersonal and intrapersonal situations and come to wise conclusions is known as emotional intelligence.”	“To understand and harmonize one’s feelings and emotions” “To recognize, interpret and communicate with other people feeling and emotions”.
Abdu Yosr Yaquot et al., 2021	“Emotional intelligence is a set of abilities that influence the response of one’s ability”.	“Self-awareness”. “Self-management” “Social awareness”. “Social skills”.

Based on definitions by different authors and literature (Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Sabbah et al., 2020; Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Goleman 1998 and Mayer and Salovey 1997). from the above table, the basic dimensions of Emotional intelligence that are inferred are discussed below:

The degree of awareness about own emotions and ability to communicate with them verbally or nonverbally in various situations is different among individuals (George, 2000; Carmeli & Josman, 2006). The ability to control one's emotions is seen to be a crucial component of effective job performance since it allows one to elicit emotions that will improve performance (O'Boyle et al., 2011). “The ability to identify and regulate one's emotions can lead to a greater understanding of one's own and other people's feelings. This is known as self-awareness”. It is important to guide and improve job performance by interacting with colleagues and establishing positive and productive teamwork skills. Members of the team need to be self-aware as they may affect the team dynamics (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006). The ability of a person to precisely identify their feelings and express them in a way that others can understand them (Mayer & Salovey 1990; Carmeli & Josman, 2006). Empathy identifies, recognizes, and understands others' feelings by interpreting their perspectives (Goleman 1998b). Team members with a feeling of empathy have an awareness of different kinds of people and accept different personalities. Emotionally intelligent individuals are skilled enough in setting and promoting positive states for others as they can know the world from another person's perspective. Furthermore, the use of emotions can facilitate the progress of a particular task by regulating and monitoring emotions, especially during conflicts, stressful situations, pressures, and deadlines enhancing the smooth completion of that task or project that promotes positive and effective relationships among the members of teams (Howard, 2000; Daniel, 1998).

Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Individual Work Performance (IWP)

Organizations within the social system are essential for facilitating interactions between people and external entities. These contacts can elicit and include emotions that have an impact on people's behavior. Previous studies state that there is a positive association between EI and social interactions and performance can be enhanced through effective interactions (Carmeli & Josman, 2006). EI is widely used in the past to link with task performance (O'Boyle et al. 2011). This facilitates performance by helping others during group tasks where team motivational, behavioral, and attitudinal processes are influenced by shared positive moods of work units (Mindeguia et al., 2021). Past literature indicates EI as a tool that can regulate to improve work behaviors through which job performance can be improved (Gong et al. 2019); (Suhairy et al. 2022).

There has been a substantial amount of research on the connection between EI and work performance (Joseph et al., 2015; Bozionelos & Singh, 2017). Work plays a significant role in practically everyone's lives and success or failure there can have severe repercussions in other areas of their lives, such as their mental health, physical health, and family relationships (Bozionelos & Singh, 2017). A study on individual performance as a team member is much needed (Alerasoul et al., 2021). However, emotional intelligence related to job satisfaction can be explained easily through TP (Miao et al., 2017). A meta-analysis revealed that the connection between emotional intelligence and employee job satisfaction is mediated by job performance. Job performance is considered the ultimate criterion for the assessment of self-report job performance. The dimensions of self-report performances are based on the TP which is defined as the core responsibilities of an employee, which involve technical behavior and activities which contribute to the production of goods and services (Balkin & Werner, 2022). Furthermore, contextual performance refers to behavior that supports the system in which the technical and other activities of an organization are facilitated to achieve a goal (Baroudi et al., 2019). The final component is counterproductive to work behavior that undermines or violates the organization's standards and norms; examples include complaining and performing the task incorrectly (Czarnota-Bojarska, 2015; Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019).

Objective of the Study

From literature and theoretical explanation, the present study tries to draw the relevance of EI in a dysfunctional Team. The proposed conceptual relationship between the constructs EI on individual work performance and dysfunctional teams is being analyzed.

The investigation's goal:

1. To examine how the EI of Teams members in various service sectors relates to Team Dysfunction (TD).

2. To investigate the connection between Individual Work Performance (IWP) of Teams in various Service Sectors and EI.

3. To investigate the Impact of Team Dysfunction (TD) on Teams in Different Service Sectors' Individual Work Performance (IWP).

From the Previous literature, it was found that EI is associated with individual work performance as its baseline components consist of "Regulation of emotions", "Self-awareness", and "Empathy" in creating a systematic alteration of the emotional ability of individuals existing in social systems and organizations (Gong et al., 2019; Alonazi, 2020).Most businesses are built on the idea of teamwork to increase productivity, thus previous research has looked at team emotional intelligence about task performance, but the idea of team dysfunction has not explored much (Mindeguia et al., 2021; Supramaniam & Singaravelloo, 2021). The integrated model of the link between TD, EI, and IWP was discussed in Figure 1, which was based on the literature.

In light of this reasoning, the following hypotheses are put forth:

H₁: There is a positive relationship between TD and EI in the context of the service sector.

H₂: There is a positive relationship between EI and IWP in the context of the Service sector.

Data and Methodology

The data were collected from members of teams (individuals) working as team members in different sectors of India (Like IT, Construction, Sales, Insurance, etc.). Teams typically perform better than people operating alone in the setting of a fast-growing environment at completing complicated tasks, especially those that require a variety of skills, experiences, and viewpoints Kozlowski, (2018). As a result, most companies work on teamwork, and organizations perform better using teams, this makes India a good location to study the effect of team dysfunctions on organization and individual performance. More importantly, most firms' Team dysfunctions in India had not previously been extensively studied and when such studies were done regarding different sectors, the majority were conducted in developed countries. Therefore, studying different sectors of India can be valuable for demonstrating the impact of Team Dysfunction on individual performance from the point of view of these sectors (Peterson, 2017; Pane et al., 2018). The sectors were selected based on three criteria; the organization had to be actively working on teams. Secondly as mentioned by (Farh et al., 2012; Edmondson & Harvey, 2018), Consequently, this criterion was applied to selected sectors, which represented a variety of industries. Thirdly, an important criterion was the respondents' readiness to submit the needed data.

Employees (managers and lower-level of employees) who worked as team members were asked to participate in the study. A 53-item questionnaire on the relevant variables, TD, EI, and IWP, was prepared and circulated to all participants. A pilot study including 25 team members with extensive experience working in teams—including those in production, service, project, and management teams—was undertaken to develop the questionnaire. As a result of their comments and ideas, the questionnaire was updated at this point. Two stages of data collection took place in January and September of 2022. The TD team member questionnaire was sent in one phase. Three weeks later, the EI and IWP surveys were made available by the researchers. Using a Google form, a strong response rate was achieved for both survey rounds. A total of 430 questionnaires were distributed to team members of different sectors of India. 25 of the questionnaire replies were zero, and 35 surveys were discovered to be incomplete during data entry. Therefore, these responses were removed from the data leaving 370 (86%) usable ones. SPSS data analysis tools were used to assess normality, outliers, and common method variance. The final respondents were selected based on their demography, the items included gender, age, and sector of participants as shown in Table 3. Based on gender analysis, it is observed that 60.77% were male and 39.23% are female employees. The category of age that comprises the largest percentage is between 25 to 30 years which represents 67.9% of the overall sample. The majority of respondents in the analysis of employees are from the IT sector (61.1%), which provides valid and accurate responses.

Table 3 Demographics of the Survey Respondents
Characteristics	Segregation	Percentage
Gender	Male Female	60.77% 39.23%
Age(Years)	25 to 30 years 31 to 35 years 36 to 40 years 41 to 45 years	67.9% 20.9% 7.4% 3.7%
Sector	IT Construction Business Insurance Sales Others	61.1% 1.9% 9.8% 3.7% 5.1% 19%

SPSS 22 was used for descriptive analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and hierarchical regression analysis method suggested by Cohen & Cohen (2013), and Amos version 22 was used for Path analysis.

Dependent Variable

Individual Work Performance (IWP): IWP was assessed by using 18-scaled individual work performance questionnaires given by Koopmans (2015). This scale assessed three aspects of individual performances: "Task Performance (TP)"; "Contextual Performance (CP)" and "Counterproductive work behavior (CPW)". Employees were asked to evaluate their performance on the following criteria: TP; CP and CPW. These items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5(Always).

Individual Work Performance (IWP): IWP was assessed by using 18-scaled individual work performance questionnaires given by Koopmans (2015). This scale assessed three aspects of individual performances: "Task Performance (TP)"; "Contextual Performance (CP)" and "Counterproductive work behavior (CPW)". Employees were asked to evaluate their performance on the following criteria: TP; CP and CPW. These items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5(Always).

Independent Variables: Team Dysfunction (TD)

15 scale assessment of teamwork by Lencioni, P (2002) to measure team dysfunction. This scale assessed factors related to team dysfunction: AT; FC; LC; AA; IR. Employees were asked to assess the team on the following criteria: AT; FC; LC; AA; IR, these items were assessed on a 5-point liker scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5(Always).

Emotional Intelligence (EI)

In the past, various tools have been proposed to measure EI (for ex. Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Dulewicz et al., 2003). "The Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale" (WLEIS, 2002), which has 16 items, was used in this study to measure emotional intelligence. WLEIS is utilized because of its consistent internal structure (Bru-Luna et al., 2021; Acosta-Prado et al., 2022), a prior study (Salovey et al., 2004) discovered some reliability and validity issues with early self-report assessments of EI.

EFA was conducted on 370 employees using the principal axis component. Over all 5-factor solution was more similar across the samples thus the study focused on these 5 factors as shown in Table 4. Factor 1 consists of 3 TD items with a substantial factor loading of LC, AT, and IR. Factor 2 consisted of 3 factors of SE as an EI factor i.e.; RE, UE1, and U3. Factor 3 consisted of 4 items of EA of EI UE4, UE5, OE1, and OE2. Factor 4 consisted of 6 items of CP of the IWP factor and last factor 5 consisted of 7 items of CPW of the IWP factor. Due to low factor loading or strong factor cross-loadings, 26 items were dropped.

Table 4 Results of Factor Analysis for Team Dysfunction, Emotional Intelligence and Individual Work Performance
	Trust (T)	Self-Emotion (SE)	Emotion Appraisal (EA)	Contextual performance (CP)	Counterproductive work behaviour (CPW)
LC3(Lack of commitment 3)	0.735
AT2(Absence of Trust 2)	0.742
IR1(Inattention To Results 1)	0.857
RE2(Regulation of emotions 2)		0.598
UE1(use of emotions 1)		0.72
UE3(Use of emotions 3)		0.579
UE4( Use of emotions 4)			0.576
UE5(Use of emotions 5)			0.786
OE1(Others Emotions 1)			0.714
OE2(Other emotions 2)			0.654
TP1(Task performance)				0.596
CP2(Contextual performance 2)				0.784
CP3(Contextual performance 3)				0.789
CP5(Contextual performance 5)				0.656
CPW1(Counter productive work behaviour 1)				0.766
CPW2((Counter productive work behaviour 2)				0.653
CPW4(Counter productive work behaviour 4)					0.706
CPW5(Counter productive work behaviour 5)					0.755
CPW6(Counter productive work behaviour 6)					0.786
CPW7(Counter productive work behaviour 7)					0.893
CPW8(Counter productive work behaviour 8)					0.888
CPW9(Counter productive work behaviour 9)					0.827
CPW10(Counter productive work behaviour 10)					0.841
(T)α= 0.713;(SE) α=0.536;(EA) α=0.8; (CP)α=0.864;(CPW) α=0.844; Factor loading ≥ .5

The results of this factor analysis indicated 5-factor solutions: Trust, Self-appraisal, Emotion Appraisal, contextual performance; Counterproductive work behavior. Together they explained 665 of the variances with an eigenvalue greater than 1.90. The α for T, SE, EA, CP, and CPW were .713; .536; .80; .864; .844 respectively as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Rotated Component Matrix
Rotated Component Matrix
	Component
	Trust(T)	Self-appraisal (SE)	Emotion Appraisal (EA)	Contextual performance (CP)	Counterproductive work behavior (CWP)
LC3	0.735
AT2	0.742
IR1	0.857
RE2		0.598
UE1		0.72
UE3		0.579
UE4			0.576
UE5			0.786
OE1			0.714
OE2			0.654
TP1				0.596
CP2				0.784
CP3				0.789
CP5				0.656
CPW1				0.766
CPW2				0.653
CPW4					0.706
CPW5					0.755
CPW6					0.786
CPW7					0.893
CPW8					0.888
CPW9					0.827
CPW10					0.841
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
(T)α= 0.713;(SE) α=0.536;(EA) α=0.8; (CP)α=.864;(CPW) α=0.844; Factor loading ≥ .5

Data Analysis

To evaluate the association between TD and individual outcomes: EI and IWP (Carmeli, 2003). Using the independent variables TD and EI, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted on the components (Trust, Self-Emotion, and Emotion Appraisal). To more clearly illustrate the type of relationship, path analysis is carried out.

Results

The results in Table 5 provide preliminary support for the significant correlation between TD and IWP (r =.316; p< .001), SA (r=.643; p< .001), and EA (r= .392 p< .001). This study further investigates the relationship between elements of TD i.e.; T, (SA, EA) of EI and IWP, and found that a positive relationship was established between these factors.

Before estimating the hierarchal regression model, As indicated in Table 6, the variables of the analysis, we calculated the correlation coefficients to examine the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach's alpha, low to moderate correlation is seen between each of the four dimensions. Hence, a low correlation does not give rise to multicollinearity. The dependent variable IWP was found to have a significant correlation with TD, SA, and EA, providing initial support to H1 and H2.

Table 6 Correlations, Reliability of Measures, Means and Standard Deviations of Variables Among the Study
	Mean	SD	T	SA	EA	IWP
T	3.66	0.902	1
SE	4.082	0.696	.125*	1
EA	3.91	0.805	.143**	.643**	1
IWP	3.66	0.55	.316**	.417**	.392**	1
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

After Factor analysis and correlation, a hierarchal regression model was run as shown in Table 7 to analyze the relationship between TD, EI, and IWP that supports hypothesis 1 (H1) and hypothesis 2 (H2), which proposed a strong and positive association between TD and EI components (β = .31; p< .005H2, which asserts that EI and IWP variables are positively and significantly related (SE (β = .27; p<0.005) and EA (β =0.181; p<0.005). Predictor of dependent variable (IWP) is Trust (β = .315) followed by factors (SE (β = .27; p< .005) and EA (β = .181; p< .005). The reliability of the full set of chosen predictor variables' ability to predict values for the outcome variable is assessed using R2. Variables entered in block 1(Trust) explained 9.9% of the variance (.099 *100) independent variable. After model 2 variables (SE and EA) have been included the model as a whole explained 26% of the variance in the Dependent variable. The model was spastically significant (F (1,366) = 40.405; p< .005) and explained 9.9% of the variance in IWP when the trust was included as a predictor. The overall variation explained by the model as a whole was 27% after including SE and EA (F (3,364) = 43.818; p< .005). The introduction of SE and EA explained 17% of the variance in IWP after controlling Trust (R2 change = .16; F (2,364 = 41.09; p< .005) Individual standardized partial regression coefficients, on the other hand, β are assessed to see if specific predictors significantly add to the variation that is taken into account by the result variables.

Table 7 Hierarchical Regression Results for TD, EI and IWP Factors
	IWP
	β	R2
Predictor variable
Step 1		0.099
Trust	0.31
Step 2		0.265
Trust	0.256
Self Emotion	0.271
Emotion Appraisal	0.181

Discussion

The present study analyzed the connection between team dysfunction, Emotional intelligence, and Individual work performance. Hierarchical regression models explain the aforementioned relationship in the service sector, further, the direct and indirect effects of TD and EI on IWP were calculated using path analysis as shown in Figure 2, which more clearly demonstrates the nature of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable.

Empirical results show that TD significantly impacts Individual work performance. To better visualize this interaction, and the relationship between the constructs, the path analysis results are discussed here: the Bentler CFI (comparative fit index), IFI (incremental fit index), and NFI (Non-normed fit index) were selected for the path analysis. Values between 0 and 1 with more than or equal to.090 on each of these indices indicated a good fit. The resulting path model's CFI, IFI, and NNFI values were.85, .848 and.808 respectively, suggesting satisfactory model fit. Additionally, the final path model's Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value was.091, indicating an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Given the final model, which gives parameter estimates for the direct and indirect effects on the dependent variable, the model fit is adequate.

The findings of path analysis showed how TD affects EI and IWP. The results demonstrated that TD has an indirect effect on IWP and a direct effect on EI (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Emotional intelligence was proposed to significantly impact Individual work performance. The regression model provided support for this proposition. Additionally, our results corroborate a prior study (Hjalmarsson & Dderman, 2022). Our results contradict those of Cole et al. (2008), which claimed that team dysfunctional behavior had an impact on team performance. Porath et al. (2015) conducted a study on dysfunctional behavior and team dynamics and discovered a methodological gap. (Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006) study revealed a positive correlation between teams' performance and related psychological aspects. Although it was initially believed that teamwork consistently improves performance for employees compared to individuals operating alone, there are still problems that come with it (Stephens, & Carmeli, 2016).

The current study's measurement of EI about TD and IWP is significant since doing so will increase our motivation to perform our best work George, & Brief (1996). TD and EI are still in their early phases for the researchers to examine their role in different aspects of organizations that will affect the performance of individuals. The study's main objective was to use three standardized scales to explore the link between TD, EI, and IWP in the samples of 370 because of previous investigations (Hamid & Raza, 2016; Bozionelos & Singh, 2017; Farh et al., 2012) found that the study is generalized, though participants chosen for this study are diverse. Responses from many organizations may support collapsing from one data set. Additionally, the current study focused on well-established evidence on how individuals perform in teams that become dysfunctional, in contrast to other studies that employed emotional intelligence to improve both team effectiveness and individual work performance (Ilarda & Findlay, 2006; Carmeli & Josman, 2006). The present study elicited the role of EI and IWP in connection with team dysfunction, thus giving a clearer and more objective test of the relationships between these factors. As a construct, "EI" has a strong correlation with IWP that in general is consistent and provides substantial proof for linking EI and IWP but is not significantly related to team dysfunction, As the Factor loadings show that only trust-related factors are major reasons for team dysfunction. In this study, the variable of Self-Emotion appraisal and Emotion-appraisal are relevant according to the findings, which that means due to the absence of trust, team members are not able to regulate and manage their own as well as other's emotions. Findings show showing that employees are avoiding helping their co-workers and volunteering for the task resulting in not supporting the environment in which the technical core operates. An explanation for the different interpretations of results that concluded thorough analysis could be that respondents are from relatively diverse teams which may not meet the minimum requirement of scales.

The link between TD, EI, and IWP has been found with its core components: Trust, Self-emotion, Emotion-Appraisal, and IWP and are the only constructs that systematically affect an individual's emotional ability inside social systems and organizations, EI is strongly correlated with IWP. Evidence from analyzing the present study shows that TD is significantly associated with EI indicating employees working with different sectors in team’s dysfunction are not emotionally competent. The current study, experimentally illustrates the relationship between TD, EI, and IWP, offered proof that TD, a significant organizational construct, is playing a crucial role for the employees in evaluating Team performance. So, the study's respondents, who come from cross-border teams in various industries, may also have difficulty understanding the survey's questions, raising concerns about the validity of the answers. It is crucial to provide them with diverse frameworks to preserve their emotional capacities so that workers can work under pressure by controlling their own and others' emotions.

The result of path analysis illustrated that there are direct and indirect effects between TD, EI, and IWP. It was found that TD directly affects EI and EI affects IWP which means dysfunctionality in teams affects the emotional competency of an individual which affects the individual performance. Therefore, working environment that ignores any dysfunctionality may affect performance (Johnson et al., 2013). One argument for the detrimental impact of TD on EI and IWP is that members of dysfunctional teams would lose their originality and creativity as a result of a lack of trust, which will negatively impact the effectiveness of the team.

Managerial Implication and Limitation

Team dysfunctions can harm individual work performance when teams experience dysfunctions such as poor communication, lack of trust, or unresolved conflicts, it creates a hostile or unproductive work environment. This, in turn, affects individual motivation, engagement, and overall job satisfaction, leading to lower individual work performance.

A significant improvement could be seen in individual performance through EI in the literature that is attempted by almost all organizations nowadays. The results show that employees' EI and IWP get affected when teams become dysfunctional (Yu et al., 2023), Supporting the findings of Lencioni. The findings suggest that dysfunctionality in a team may affect the emotional level of employees (Gong & Wang, 2019). Research in India by a wide range of sectors indicates that the implementation of EI in teams that has become dysfunctional is significant (Nunkoo & Sungkur, 2021). This research has added to the expanding body of literature on the understating of TD to both individuals and organizations and how teams’ dysfunction can affect the outcomes of individuals. The benefit of this study is that firms can implement appropriate strategies to deal with team dysfunction, pay closer attention to their employees' mental health, and develop better teamwork skills. In summary, team dysfunctions, Emotional intelligence, and individual work performance are interconnected. By addressing team dysfunctions, nurturing Emotional intelligence, and promoting high individual work performance can lead to improved team dynamics, increased productivity, and overall success for the team.

The study supports a finer-grained understanding of the dysfunctionality of teams and its effect on individual work performance (Baur et al., 2022) linked with emotional intelligence (Zhang & Wan, 2021). It is speculated individuals who have high emotional intelligence create strong relationships with individual performance that lead to a better understanding of oneself and others under pressure. For a successful organization, these characteristics are known for their contribution (Liao et al., 2021). The study emphasizes that there is still much work to be done to bring more clarity and identify the practices for team dysfunction and emotional intelligence (Nateri et al., 2020). The managers can opt for some practical suggestions through this study. First, the study believes that individuals working with ineffective teams are not significantly emotionally strong (Diener et al., 2020), so managers should work on identifying practices for dysfunctionality and to improve the emotional abilities of individuals Second, this study echoes the management of emotions within self and others to improve individual work performance, manger should work on it. As it is speculated individuals who have high Emotional intelligence create a strong relationship with individual performance that leads to a better understanding of oneself and others under pressure.

Conclusion

The study's flaw, which also distresses similar studies, is the prevalence of a popular technique that is employed to create dependent and independent effect variables. Another drawback is the sample; due to the study's use of a variety of industries, including IT, construction, insurance, and others, and the study's small sample size, future studies should focus only on one industry to ensure the validity of their findings. Future research should aim to more accurately conceptualize and quantify this relationship and try to apply the findings to other fields as well. Task and contextual performance must be examined independently since, according to the literature, there is variation between the two and that each has a unique impact on job satisfaction.

References

Abdu Yosr Yaquot, A.A., Abdullah Al-Ghaili, M.A., & Mohsen Al-Harethi, A.A. (2021). The Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Job Involvement on Project Team Member’s Performance. Jurnal Manajemen Dan Organisasi, 12(3), 202–219.

Acosta-Prado, J.C., Zárate-Torres, R.A., & Tafur-Mendoza, A.A. (2022). Psychometric Properties of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale in a Colombian Manager Sample. Journal of Intelligence, 10(2), 29.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alerasoul, S. A., Afeltra, G., Hakala, H., Minelli, E., & Strozzi, F. (2021). Organisational learning, learning organisation, and learning orientation: An integrative review and framework. Human Resource Management Review, 100854.

Balkin, D. B., & Werner, S. (2022). Theorizing the relationship between discretionary employee benefits and individual performance. Human Resource Management Review, 100901.

Baur, J.E., B.H., & Bonner, R.L. (2022). Boiling frogs: Reconsidering the impact of deviance targets, severity, and frequency in teams. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1026–1037.

Bozionelos, N., & Singh, S.K. (2017). The relationship of emotional intelligence with task and contextual performance: More than it meets the linear eye. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 206–211. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bru-Luna, L.M., Martí-Vilar, M., Merino-Soto, C., & Cervera-Santiago, J.L. (2021). Emotional Intelligence Measures: A Systematic Review. Healthcare, 9(12), 1696.

Bui, H., Chau, V. S., Degl’Innocenti, M., Leone, L., & Vicentini, F. (2019). The Resilient Organisation: A Meta‐Analysis of the Effect of Communication on Team Diversity and Team Performance. Applied Psychology, 68(4), 621–657.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788-813.

Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence, Task Performance, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–41.

Chen, A., Treviño, L. K., & Humphrey, S. E. (2020). Ethical champions, emotions, framing, and team ethical decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(3), 245–273.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership and Key Project Manager Competences. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 5–20.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P.P. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Hillsdale.

Cole, M.S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 945–958.

Czarnota-Bojarska, J. (2015). Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction: A surprisingly rocky relationship. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(4), 460–470.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Daniel, G. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence (Reprint). Bantam Books, 1998.Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). Basic Books.

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence: content, construct and criterion‐related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(5), 405–420.

Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J.-F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347–360.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

El Baroudi, S., Khapova, S. N., Jansen, P. G. W., & Richardson, J. (2019). Individual and contextual predictors of team member proactivity: what do we know and where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 29(4), 100671.

Emanuel, E. J., & Gudbranson, E. (2018). Does Medicine Overemphasize IQ? JAMA, 319(7), 651

Farh, C. I. C. C., Seo, M.-G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderating role of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 890–900.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and Leadership: The Role of Emotional Intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18, pp. 75–109). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Gong, T., & Wang, C.-Y. (2019). How does dysfunctional customer behavior affect employee turnover. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(3), 329–352.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gordon, I., Gilboa, A., Cohen, S., Milstein, N., Haimovich, N., Pinhasi, S., & Siegman, S. (2020). Physiological and Behavioral Synchrony Predict Group Cohesion and Performance. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 8484.

Hamid, H. S. A., & Raza, M. N. A. (2016). Measuring Emotional Intelligence in A Malaysian Sample: An Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Hatipoğlu, Y. Z. A. G. H. Z. (2015). A Research about emotional intelligence on generations. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Review, 3, 124–133.

Google Scholar

Hjalmarsson, A. K. V., & Dåderman, A. M. (2022). Relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, and self-perceived individual work performance: A cross-sectional study on the Swedish version of TEIQue-SF. Current Psychology, 41(5), 2558–2573.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Indexed at, Google Scholar

Ilarda, E., & Findlay, B. (2006). Emotional Intelligence and Propensity to be a Team player. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(2).

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 1999. Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice, 38(2), pp.67-73.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Social interdependence - Cooperative learning in education. In B. Bunker & J.Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice. (pp. 205-251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Scott DeRue, D., Barnes, C. M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional versus dysfunctional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural feedback for self-managed teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 1–11.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E.H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298–342.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2018). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams: A Reflection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 205–212.

Krén, H., & Séllei, B. (2020). The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Performance. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 29(1), 1–9.

Google Scholar

Kubiak, E. (2020). Increasing perceived work meaningfulness by implementing psychological need-satisfying performance management practices. Human Resource Management Review, 100792.

Lencioni, P. M. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub (US).

Liao, Z., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., Song, Z., & Liu, Y. (2021). Seeing from a short-term perspective: When and why daily abusive supervisor behavior yields functional and dysfunctional consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 377–398.

Lubbadeh, t. (2020). Emotional intelligence and leadership – the dark and bright sides. modern management review.

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and work attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(2), 177–202.

Mindeguia, R., Aritzeta, A., Garmendia, A., Martinez-Moreno, E., Elorza, U., & Soroa, G. (2021). Team Emotional Intelligence: Emotional Processes as a Link Between Managers and Workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Mohamad, M., & Jais, J. (2016). Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance: A Study among Malaysian Teachers. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 674–682.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Nateri, R., Robazza, C., Tolvanen, A., Bortoli, L., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Ruiz, M. C. (2020). Emotional Intelligence and Psychobiosocial States: Mediating Effects of Intra-Team Communication and Role Ambiguity. Sustainability, 12(21), 9019.

Nunkoo, D. K., & Sungkur, R. K. (2021). Team conflict dynamics &amp; conflict management: derivation of a model for software organisations to enhance team performance and software quality. Global Transitions Proceedings, 2(2), 545–552.

O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818.  

Pane, M. M., Siregar, C., Ruman, Y. S., & Rumeser, J. A. A. (2018). The Application of the Lencioni Model in Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Distance Education and Learning, 49–53.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Papoutsi, C., Drigas, A., & Skianis, C. (2019). Emotional Intelligence as an Important Asset for HR in Organizations: Attitudes and Working Variables. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (IJAC), 12(2), 21.

Peterson, G. R. (2017). Polarity Management: A Functional Way to Handle Your Team’s Dysfunction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 53(1), 24–27.

Petrides, K.., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 277–293.

Porath, C. L., Foulk, T., & Erez, A. (2015). How incivility hijacks performance  Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 258–265.

Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Barrada, J. R., Fernández-del-Río, E., & Koopmans, L. (2019). Assessing Job Performance Using Brief Self-Report Scales: The Case of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 35(3), 195–205.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rashid, A. M. (2020). Relationship between Learning Environment and Teamwork Skills among Final Year Students of Vocational Colleges. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1A), 104–111.

Rasmussen, T. H., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2006). Teamwork and associated psychological factors: A review. Work & Stress, 20(2), 105–128.

Google Scholar

Sabbah, I. M., Sabbah, H., Khamis, R., Berbari, R., Sabbah, S., Badran, S., & Droubi, N. (2020). Factors Associated with the Emotional Intelligence among Youth University Students. European Journal of Clinical Medicine, 1(1).

Google Scholar

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.

Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Mayer, J. D. (2004). Emotional Intelligence in Practice. In Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 447–463). Wiley.

Stephens, J. P., & Carmeli, A. (2016). The positive effect of expressing negative emotions on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 862–873.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Supramaniam, S., & Singaravelloo, K. (2021). Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Organisational Performance: An Analysis in the Malaysian Public Administration. Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 76.

van der Vaart, L. (2021). The performance measurement conundrum: Construct validity of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 24(1).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71–95.

Wong, C.-S., Wong, P.-M., & Law, K. S. (2007). Evidence of the practical utility of Wong’s emotional intelligence scale in Hong Kong and mainland China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–60.

Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 566–579.

Yu, S., Kilduff, G.J., & West, T. (2023). Status acuity: The ability to accurately perceive status hierarchies reduces status conflict and benefits group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 114–137.

Zhang, Y., & Wan, M. (Maggie). (2021). The double-edged sword effect of psychological safety climate : a theoretical framework. Team Performance Management : An International Journal, 27(5/6), 377–390.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 04-May-2024, Manuscript No. AMSJ-24-14787; Editor assigned: 06-May-2024, PreQC No. AMSJ-24-14787(PQ); Reviewed: 26-Jul-2024, QC No. AMSJ-24-14787; Revised: 06-Aug-2024, Manuscript No. AMSJ-24-14787(R); Published: 08-Sep-2024