Goleman-Boyatzis Model of Emotional Intelligence for Dealing with Problems in Project Management

© 2017 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.


Introduction
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) defines a project as "a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result" (PMI, 2013, Ch1, Sect 1.2).Thus, the skills identified in PMBoK are generally of a technical nature and referred to as hard skills.Whilst PMBoK is considered the authority for "hard" skills, project management involves the co-ordination of people.Thus, Goodman offers a more appropriate definition as "a set of diversely skilled people working together on a complex task over a limited period" (1976, p. 494).This latter definition has the advantage of emphasising that a team of individuals are involved in a joint endeavour and, thus, skills involving the management of people, called soft skills, are required.One of these skills is EI.
Reviews of the usage of skills contained in PMBoK, and their effectiveness, have been conducted by several authors including Crawford (2000), Gowan and Mathieu (2005), Crawford and Pollack (2007), and Papke-Shields et al. (2010).The need for soft skills, in general, as opposed to EI has been discussed in several papers (Azim et al., 2010;Gillard, 2009;Pant and Baroudi, 2008).The specific application of EI to project management, regarding a construction environment, has been the subject of several works which are summarised in Table 1.As Table 1 clearly shows the body of knowledge relating to EI in project management is expanding and this research adds to that knowledge by investigating the relevance of EI to the management of large projects using the Goleman-Boyatzis model of EI (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2013).
Table 1 Summary of papers discussing the role of EI in project management Paper Contribution (Dainty, Cheng and Moore, 2005) This study identified 12 core competencies for successful projects management.Whilst this study did not discuss EI, it is interesting to note that 10 of the 12 competencies are contained in the Goleman-Boyatzis model of EI. (Mount, 2006) This study of an international business found that EI was a contributor to superior performance in the company's project managers.(Butler and Chinowsky, 2006) This study used EIQ-i that is based on the Bar-On EI model to review the EI attributes of construction executives.It concluded the top three attributes were stress tolerance, independence, and optimism; the bottom three were empathy, interpersonal skills, and social.
( Koman and Wolff, 2008) This study found that team performance was related to the EI of the team leader via the leader creating emotionally competent group norms.(Clarke, 2010a) After controlling for cognitive ability, EI was found to be positively associated with the project manager's ability to develop teamwork and manage conflict.Paper Contribution (Lindebaum and Cartwright, 2010) The study found no relationship between transformational leadership (TFL) and EI.The paper suggests that one explanation for this may be the different requirement for managerial behaviour in the context of the construction industry.
(Anantatmula, 2010) In his literature review, the author identified the following people-related factors as having been shown to be important to project success: clear communications, defined roles, and responsibilities, clearly communicated expectations, the establishment of trust, employee support and processes that reduce ambiguity.(Clarke, 2010b) This study reviewed the project managers' awareness of their team members' emotional state and the impact that awareness had on their decisions.
( Fisher, 2011) Although not identified as such, EI issues scored highly in this paper that reviewed the skills practitioners found important in being an effective manager.(Hobbs and Smyth, 2012) This paper used the Goleman-Boyatzis model to examine the working relationship on a large construction project and found that EI, as depicted by this model, assisted the project's collaborative working strategy.(Lindebaum and Jordan, 2012) This study found that EI was only one of the necessary competencies required of a project manager in the construction industry.In addition, cognitive competencies are also important.(Muller, Geraldi and Turner, 2012) This study found that relationship between EI and project success was moderated by projects involving creating something unique, solving new problems, or dealing with high uncertainty.(Druskat and Druskat, 2012) The authors provide a discussion of the unique nature of projects and the effect this nature has on the project manager's EI skills.
( Boot-Handford and Smyth, 2013) This study examines the impact of EI factors on the development of trust in the rail construction industry in the U.K. and found that EI had a positive impact.(Obradovic et al., 2013) This study of 75 project managers in Siberia found a high correlation between EI and professional success.(Mazur et al., 2013) This study reviewed megaproject (>$1 billion in value) project managers and found a relationship between EI, cognitive flexibility and project success.A major advantage of this model is that the competencies it contains are situationally dependent."It is not necessary to be competent in all 18 competencies.Research indicates the demands for emotional competencies are context specific" (Druskat and Druskat, 2012, p. 92).It is therefore possible to identify the context-specific competencies applicable to project management and thereby establish the relevance of the model in a project management context.

Emotional Intelligence
The underlying concepts of EI were published by Mayer and Salovey (1989;1993;1995;Mayer, Salovey and Sluyter 1997).In their original paper on emotional intelligence, EI was defined as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (Mayer & Salovey (1989, p. 189).In a later paper, this definition was modified to: "Emotional intelligence concerns the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought" Mayer and Roberts (2008, p. 510).
Mayer and Salovey have attempted to position EI as ability based as opposed to trait or competency based.This stance has been criticised, and it has been suggested that EI as described by Mayer and Salovey is not a true ability.This is particularly the case if a selfreported measurement is used.See, for example, (Brody, 2004;Côté, 2010;Freudenthaler and Neubauer, 2007;Keele and Bell, 2008;Locke, 2005;Petrides, 2010;2011).
Others, however, argue that the Mayer and Salovey model is indeed ability based (Cherniss, 2010;Cote and Miners, 2006;Daus and Ashkanasy, 2005;Joseph and Newman, 2010;Kong, 2014;Mayer, Caruso and Salovey, 1999;Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, 2004;2008;Mayer et al., 2001;Newman, Joseph and MacCANN, 2010)  Paper Contribution (Kerzner, 2013) Although not dealing specifically with EI, the author notes that projects fail to meet cost and time target due to motivational issues, poor morale, a lack of commitment and poor human relations.(Vierimaa, 2013) Research reported in this thesis conducted interviews with project managers and found that most those interviewed believed emotions played an important part in leadership.
( Zhang and Fan, 2013) This study tested 11 of the competencies in Goleman-Boyatzis model and found support for the hypothesis that their possession by the project manager increased the likelihood of project success.(Chang et al., 2015) The research surveyed 370 respondents from 40 complex projects and found that team leadership EI is significantly positively correlated with project team members' rating of project success and that leadership teams' maximum EI is the best indicator.
Mayer and Salovey's work was later popularised by Goleman (1995;1996).Since that time, other models of EI have been developed.The most significant being by Bar-On (1988;2000;2006), Dulwich and Higgs (2004) and Petrides and Furnham (2001).These other models treat EI as a trait or a competency or a mixture of both traits and competencies, these later constructs being referred to as mixed models.Some authors (Cherniss, 2010;Joseph and Newman, 2010;Newman, Joseph and MacCANN, 2010) have suggested using the term EI to refer to ability-based models and emotional and social competence (ESC) to refer to mixed models as a means of differentiating the two constructs.

EI MEASUREMENT
It has been suggested that measurement of EI should be considered as originating from three distinct streams (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005).
The results for stream 1 are generally obtained using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).The test involves scoring against results determined by a panel of experts.Regarding such a test as objective has issues that have been noted by several authors including (O'Sullivan and Ekman, 2004;Ortony, Revelle and Zinbarg, 2007;Roberts, Zeidner and Matthews, 2001).The results may be affected by conformity to social norms (Matthews et al., 2006), theoretical knowledge about emotions (Austin, 2010), or stereotypical judgements (O'Sullivan, 2007).
Stream 2 results are obtained using the Self-reporting of Emotional Intelligence (SREI) that is based on the Meyer-Salovey model.The relationship between self-reported EI and results from MSCEIT have not been found to be strongly correlated (Brackett et al., 2006).A more recent study found that significant variance in results using SREI could be accounted for by personality and emotional well-being measures, while those from MSCEIT were largely related to IQ and only to a much lesser extent (14%) to personality and emotional well-being measures (Webb et al., 2013).
Stream 3 contains results from self-reporting tests that are based on models using competencies or traits or a combination of both.The most significant of these test are: (1) SREI (Schutte's self-reporting emotional intelligence test) used to measure ability EI; (2) EQ-i used to measure ESC as defined in the Bar-On model; (3) ECI-2 (Emotional competency inventory, version 2) used to measure EI competencies in the Goleman-Boyatzis model; (4) TEIQue (Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire) used with the Petrides and Furnham model; and (5) EIQ (Emotional quotient inventory) used in conjunction with the Dulwich and Higgs model.
The additional problems caused by the use of self-reporting tests for EI, as compared with a more objective test, has also been the subject of several papers (Boyatzis and Sala, 2004;Bratton, Dodd and Brown, 2011;Dunning, Heath and Suls, 2004;Freudenthaler and Neubauer, 2007;Grubb III and McDaniel, 2007;Harms and Credé, 2010a;b;Hoegl, Weinkauf and Gemuenden, 2004;Jacobs, Szer and Roodenburg, 2012;Kong, 2014;Siegling, Sfeir and Smyth, 2014;Tett et al., 2012).The problems identified in these papers includes the following: • Results obtained when EI was compared to leadership ability using a single-source method were different from results comparing leadership and EI using two separate self-reporting sources.• Other peoples' views of an individual's performance are more reliable than their self-reports.Problems with self-reporting include a large percentage of people rating themselves as above average, overestimating the chance of them behaving in desirable ways and providing optimistic estimates of when projects will be completed.• Respondents with a higher IQ can anticipate the desired responses of a particular position and adjust their responses accordingly.• Understanding of how to behave emotionality (contained in self-reported tests) is not matched by actual emotional performance.• Females tend to overestimate their EI scores more than males.
• Personality factors influence the accuracy of self-reporting.
• Ability EI is moderated by age and sex.
• Actual performance is higher for managers who underestimate their EI than for those who overestimate their EI.
Despite the issues identified all the models have achieved a measure of predictive validity (McEnrue and Groves, 2006;O'Boyle et al., 2011).

OTHER ISSUES
Other issues that must be addressed are: Can EI be differentiated from IQ and the Big Five personality dimensions (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) (McCrae and Costa, 1985)? and can EI be developed?

EI COMPARISON WITH THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS (PERSONALITY FACTORS)
Law et al. ( 2004) found EI does indeed measure emotion-related abilities that are distinct from personality traits, and EI is related to, but distinct from, the Big Five personality dimensions.Grubb III and McDaniel (2007) found, regarding the Bar-On model, that EI did not have predictive validity when compared to the Big Five personality dimensions.
Trait EI also has incremental predictive validity when compared with the Big Five personality dimensions, as well as when compared with the Eysenckian Giant Three dimensions (Petrides, Pita and Kokkinaki, 2007;Siegling et al., 2015).This work was confirmed in a meta-analysis (O'Boyle et al., 2011) that found that all the major measurements of EI had incremental predictive validity when compared to the Big Five personality dimensions.An alternative view is offered in a paper by Webb et al. (2013) that concluded that the Big Five dimensions could account for 62% of results from the EQ-I test but only 14% of results from the MSCEIT.

CAN EI BE DEVELOPED?
The result of training to improve EI was reviewed by McEnrue et al. (2010) who found previous research did not provide conclusive evidence that EI could be learned due to such issues as lack of a control group, limited training duration and measurement of trait EI as opposed to measurement of ability EI.Goleman et al. (2012) and Boyatzis and Sala (2004) make the assertion that EI is thought to increase with age.In doing this, the authors are referring to the Goleman and Boyatzis model.For other examples of EI increasing with training, see (Boyatzis and Saatcioglu, 2008;Clarke, 2010c;Kotsou et al., 2011;Martins, Ramalho and Morin, 2010;Nelis et al., 2011;Nelis et al., 2009;Reuben, Sapienza and Zingales, 2009;Sala, 2005) and Schutte et al. (2013), who provide a comprehensive review of the effect of training on EI and ESC.

GOLEMAN AND BOYATZIS MODEL
Goleman's original model of EI (1995;1998) contained 27 competencies.Based on research involving 596 individuals intended to integrate the work of Goleman (1995;1998) and Boyatzis (1982), the original 27 competencies were later reduced to 18 competencies.The following definition of EI was offered: Emotional intelligence is observed when a person demonstrates the competencies that constitute self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social skills at appropriate times and ways in sufficient frequency to be effective in the situation.(Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee, 2000, p. 3).
In his discussion of this model, Boyatzis (2008;2009) defines a competency as a capability or ability that is a set of related but different behaviours organised around an underlying construct called the intent (Boyatzis, 2008;2009).This concept is used to differentiate different types of behaviours; for example, that of asking questions and listening to the answers.This may be performed with the intent of understanding another individual and thereby demonstrating empathy or that of merely appearing interested as a means of ingratiation.
Their model identifies the competencies associated with awareness of the self and others and the management of one's self and others.It is summarised in Table 2, which is adapted from Goleman et al. (2013).

The nature of projects
As previously noted projects are temporary endeavours involving people.In today's environment, major project activities such as design, procurement and construction often take place in different locations.Finally, the requirements of tight timeframes, lack of complete information or lack of project definition when the project commences also bring their own problems.The impact of these factors is discussed in more detail in the following three sections.

THE IMPACT OF TIME
The impact of time on organisations has been recognised by several academics.Issues identified include the choice of the timescale over which an event is measured Zaheer et al. (1999), the effect of the time interval considered on a leader's performance Shamir (2011).Other issues suggested by George and Jones (2000) are summarised Table 3.
Other issues identified include the impact on teams of them being drawn together for a relatively short period from the larger organisation (Hanisch and Wald, 2014;Tyssen, Wald and Spieth, 2013) and the need to resolve stakeholder conflicts in a reasonable timeframe Turner and Muller (2003).

THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
In addition to the effects of time on project teams, the different geographical locations of the teams involved in the design, management, procurement, and construction can be a factor.This issue was addressed by Vergburg et al. (2013) who concluded that for the successful

Self Other
Awareness Self-awareness: reading you own emotions together and recognising their impact.
Social awareness: attuned to how others feel.
Emotional self-awareness: recognising our emotions and their effects on personal performance including recognition of a tendency to avoid issues or situations that cause us discomfort.
Accurate self-assessment: knowing our strengths and limits.
Self-confidence: a strong sense of one's self-worth and capabilities.
Empathy: understanding others' feelings and perspectives and taking an active interest in their concerns.
Organisational awareness: understanding the organisation's issues, dynamics, and politics.
Services orientation: recognising and meeting customer needs.

Management
Self-management: focused control towards the achievement of goals.
Relationship management: the ability to guide the emotional tone of the group.
Emotional self-control: keeping disruptive emotions and impulses under control.
Transparency: maintaining integrity and acting congruently with one's values.
Optimism: persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks.
Adaptability: the ability to adapt to change and work effectively as circumstances change.
Achievement orientation: the drive to meet an internal standard of excellence.
Initiative: the readiness to act in order to seize an opportunity.
Developing others: sensing others' development needs and bolstering their abilities.
Inspirational leadership: inspiring and guiding others either as a group or an individual.
Influence: the ability to persuade others.
Change catalyst: initiating or managing change.
Conflict management: resolving disagreements when they occur or preventing a disagreement from happening or growing.
Teamwork and collaboration: working with others towards shared goals and guiding the group to achieve a collective goal.
completion of geographically dispersed projects, the following human factors were important: clarity of communication, project management style and competence, obtaining organisational support and the ability to build trust.Similar findings have been presented in papers on this topic by (Cramton and Webber, 2005;Hertel, Geister and Konradt, 2005;Lee-Kelley and Sankey, 2008;MacGregor, 2005;Montoya et al., 2009).Again, key issues of these findings relate to human interaction rather than technical issues.

PROBLEMS IN PROJECT DECISION-MAKING
In addition to the impact of time and geographic dispersion several factors have been identified as impacting on project decision-making.These factors are: degree of ambiguity and uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge and experience associated with the project (Yeo, 1993), uncertainty and risk (Tyssen, Wald and Spieth, 2014), fundamental uncertainties that exist in project scope (Atkinson, Crawford and Ward, 2006), and the changing nature of projects (Anantatmula, 2010).
Additionally, a major topic of discussion in the UK initiative entitled "Rethinking Project Management", as reported by Atkinson et al. (2006), was the fundamental uncertainties that exist in project scope, all of which have an impact on project decision-making.This uncertainty was attributed to several issues including: lack of initial clarity in the project definition; lack of experience with the activities required for the project; the occurrence of unplanned events; stakeholders' expectations; availability and experience of project resources; development and implementation of a control system; development and implementation of a project plan; and leadership and communication issues.
The works concerning the nature of projects discussed above have been reviewed and the following resultant project characteristics identified (Livesey 2016): • Limited time duration for building a team, developing rapport with stakeholders, obtaining organisational support and building a working control system; • The temporary nature of the project team formed within time constraints results in the need to blend team members from different professional and social backgrounds, and understand and develop relationships with stakeholders who are also from different backgrounds.All of whom may be in different geographic locations; • The unique nature of the project requiring a solution in a condensed time frame puts pressure on the team to understand a particular project's requirements; • The frequent lack of definition, often due to time constraints, results in considerable ambiguity and changes to scope coupled with changes to team membership.Changes in the external environment can exacerbate these problems.• Team structure and stakeholder organisation may change as the project progresses due to a variety of forces including: pressure from competing projects, identification of additional or redundant skill sets and natural attrition.All resulting issues must be solved within the given timeframe for the project; • Conflict results from communication problems, scope, and personnel changes.

Research method
To obtain a synthesised view of those project managers who had been involved with large projects it was decided to use a Delphi study.The original promoters of the Delphi technique for use by experts defined the method as "a method used to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts by a series of intensive questionnaires interspaced with controlled feedback" (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963, p. 458).The application of the Delphi technique is described in detail by Linstone and Turoff (1979), and its further use as a research tool is discussed by Skulmoski et al. (2007).The construction of the survey was reviewed by Fink (2009).
The characteristics of a typical Delphi study have been described by several authors (Gordon, 1994;Jung-Erceg et al., 2007;Keeney, Hasson and McKenna, 2011;Rowe and Wright, 1999).
A pilot Delphi study was based on the problems identified in the literature review.Results from this pilot study were used to develop an E-Delphi (SurveyMonkey).Selection of the panel was based on the following criteria: over twenty years of experience in the management of mining or infrastructure.Participants had worked on projects acting either for the client or contractors.The type of contract, EPCM, Lump Sum, etc. on which the potential panel member had worked were not used as selection criteria.
The above criteria resulted in the selection of a panel size of 25 members of which 22 responded to the issues raised in this study, the demographics of the panel are summarised in Table 4.To ensure anonymity the panel members were unaware of the identity of the other panel members or the author of any of the comments received during the study.
The Goleman-Boyatzis model (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2013), as summarised in Table 2, together with background examples to give context, were presented to the panel in four rounds.In each round, the panel members were asked to rank the various competency clusters in order of importance in dealing with the problems in project management identified in the literature.The problems and the resultant issues that the panel members were asked to consider are summarised in Table 5.Details of the study design have been reported elsewhere (Livesey, 2016b).
The respondents were given the option of deciding that a specific competency was not relevant in dealing with a problem and in a prior round panel members had been asked to confirm that they had experienced these problems in their practice of project management (Livesey, 2016a).In addition to ranking the competencies, the panel members were encouraged to comment on the relevance of the competencies to the problems presented in each round.Whilst it is accepted that team members are also stakeholders, it was decided to analyse them as a subset of stakeholders because they have different motivations and relationships with the project manager than other stakeholders.For example, it is possible to remove a disgruntled member of the team from a project but a disgruntled stakeholder, who is not a team member, must be dealt with on a continuing basis.

Results and analysis
In ranking the panel members' responses, the relative importance index as reviewed by (Holt, 2013) and used in construction projects by other researchers (Gündüz, Nielsen and Özdemir, 2012;Kometa, Olomolaiye and Harris, 1994;Sambasivan and Soon, 2007) was used.The relative importance index being based on the following formula: Relative importance index = sum of the score given to the competency by respondents maximum score that a competency could have received.
To analyse the statistical significance of the difference in EI rankings obtained in the rounds of the Delphi study, the Friedman test was employed.Where appropriate, based on the Friedman test results, a post hoc test was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.Both tests are deemed appropriate for ordinate and continuous data.For a discussion of these tests, see (Sheldon, Fillyaw and Thompson, 1996;Zimmerman and Zumbo, 1993).

Fundamental problem Resultant impact of the problem considered in the evaluation
The project's limited time frame.
Building a cohesive team.Building trust within the team.Developing rapport with stakeholders.Developing a working control system.Obtaining organisational support.
The team members' diverse backgrounds Team members' personal goals and resultant personal agendas.
Team members' cultural backgrounds.Team members' professional backgrounds.Team members' communication needs.Team members' different geographic locations.Team members' native language differences.
The stakeholders' diverse backgrounds.
Stakeholders' personal goals and resultant personal agendas.
The unique nature of each project Understanding the issues involved in the particular project.
Managing internal stakeholder expectations.
Managing external stakeholder expectations.
The belief that you and the project team can solve the project's problems.

Ambiguity and change.
Lack of a clearly defined project scope.Scope changes as the project progresses.Lack of information to make a fully informed decision.Team member changes.Unexpected and unforeseen events (e.g., subcontractor goes bankrupt).Changes in the external environment (e.g., legislative and economic).

Changes in the project team and stakeholder personnel
Loss of a cohesive team.Loss of trust between team members.Loss of relationships with key stakeholders.
Conflicts (the disagreements that arise prior to a formal dispute).
Those arising internal to the team.Those arising external to the team but internal to the parent organisation.
Those arising with subcontractors.
Those arising with other stakeholders.
In both tests, the hypotheses used were the null hypothesis (H0), that there is no difference in the distributions; and the alternative hypothesis (Ha), that there is a difference in the distributions.To test these hypotheses, a p-value of 0.05 was used.
Table 6 presents the importance index results for the self-awareness cluster.The above importance index rankings appeared very close.To check the statistical significance of the rankings, a Friedman test was performed.The results were χ2(2) =0.074 and p=0.964.Based on this, the null hypothesis was accepted, leading to the conclusion that there was no statistically significant difference in the EI rankings for the individual competencies in this cluster.The panel found the EI competencies in this cluster were 97% relevant in dealing with the project problems posed to them.
In discussing this cluster, the importance of self-confidence was the subject of commentary from the panel that is summarised below: Self-confidence is fundamental to developing a following (trust, rapport, etc.) in a team.Who could be confident in a leader if the leader is not confident in him/herself ?(Response 1) Tables 7 summarises the results for the self-management cluster.To check the statistical significance of the rankings, a Friedman test was performed.The results were χ 2 (5) =19.327  and p=0.02.Based on this, the null hypothesis was rejected, leading to the conclusion that there was a statistically significant difference in the EI rankings for the individual competencies in this cluster.

Self
A Wilcoxon tests was performed on the apparent group edges to establish that competencies could be regarded as being ranked statistically different.The results of this are summarised in Table 8.
From the above analysis the panel, clearly, ranked emotional self-control, trustworthiness/ transparency, and adaptability higher than optimism, achievement orientation and initiative.The panel found all competencies-except for initiative which scored 95%-to have a relevance to the problems in excess of 99%.In terms of commentary, the two comments below provide insight into panel members' views of the importance of adaptability and the interaction of competencies needed for success.Response 5 also relates to the need for consistent messaging.Response 6 was interesting in that it dealt with the combined impact of optimism and the need for developing trust.Tables 9 summarises the results for the social awareness cluster.The results of a Friedman test were χ2 (2) =2.000 and p=0.368.The null hypothesis was therefore accepted, indicating there was no statistically significant difference in the overall EI rankings.The panel found the competencies in this cluster to be 100% relevant to dealing with the project questions considered.

Adaptability is critical because
The importance of service orientation and its necessary interaction with other competencies are summarised in the following comments received from panel members: I place service orientation at the top because regardless of the effort that is put into team, if the customer's real needs are not understood, then all else will fail.PMs are not taught these skills, so they don't make time to set projects up for success from the beginning.(Respondent 7) Tables 10 summarises the results for the relationship management cluster.The panel found the competencies, except developing others, in this cluster to be 99% relevant to dealing with the project questions considered.Developing others was found to be 95% relevant.To check the statistical significance of the rankings, a Friedman test was performed.The results were χ 2 (5) =24.33 and p=0.000.Based on this, the null hypothesis was rejected, leading to the conclusion that there was a statistically significant difference in the EI rankings for the individual competencies in this cluster.
Wilcoxon tests were performed on the apparent group edges to establish that competencies could be regarded as being ranked statistically different.The results of the Wilcoxon are summarised in Table 11.This analysis indicates that the competencies have been ranked into three statistically significant groups with some overlap.Group 1 consists of inspirational leadership, teamwork, and collaboration, influencing others and conflict management.Group 2 consists of conflict management and change catalyst.Group 3 consists of developing others.
As indicated in the comments below, the interaction of the competencies in this cluster, particularly with respect to their impact on stakeholders, was highlighted by panel members.
A very complex area given the parameters of both internal and external stakeholders, influence, leadership, and teamwork are all paramount.Managing change is an essential skill as the project moves forward and new challenges are encountered.(Respondent 9)   Finally, one significant comment was made regarding the interaction of EI and IQ.
I think you should not downplay the degree of IQ necessary in dealing with some of the above challenges.The crucial point is that there will be a dynamic interplay of the EI and IQ when dealing with some of these problems.(Respondent 11).

Conclusion
The Delphi study confirmed the relevance of the competencies in the Goleman-Boyatzis model (Goleman et al. 2013) in dealing with the issues identified in project management resulting from the nature of a project.In doing so it moves the need for EI for a project manager, particularly one who hopes to manage larger projects, from a nice to have, to a necessity.Whilst all the competencies contained within the model were found to have a relevance of at least 95%, most of the competencies achieved a relevance of over 98%.Some differences were found between the various competency clusters.The most significant competency group was the social awareness cluster which was 100% relevant in dealing with the problems identified.The top four competencies with an importance index of 0.7 or over were: organisational awareness (0.74); trustworthiness (0.72); teamwork and collaboration (0,71); and emotional self-control (0.70).And the bottom four with score at 0.5 or below were: developing others (0.28); initiative (0.44); optimism (0.48); and achievement orientation (0.50).
-confidence to work in different spaces and places.This includes being able to trust.(Response 2) Lack of self-confidence in a conflict can quickly make one a victim.Understanding what you know and what you can contribute is key.Assertiveness not aggression.(Response 3) every matter planned will not work out as predicted.When a timeline is tight, adaptability (as in ability to implement change) is critical.Without this characteristic, fast-moving projects will move too far in the wrong direction before the necessary change is executed.(Respondent 4) A leadership role requires retention of the vision (i.e., the objectives).Retaining that common focus will develop team cohesion, ensure consistent internal and external messaging and garner wider organisational support.Optimism and initiative rank highest as the beacons to success.(Respondent 5) With a diverse team . . .building trust leads to open communication.Lack of trust shuts it down!Poring optimism into the discussion helps collaboration, leading to solutions/resolution of problems.(Respondent 6) see and feel a cohesive project delivery organisation.Weaknesses here allow stakeholders to increase influence (positive & negative), leading to change.Hence the importance of influence and strong (inspirational) leadership.(Respondent 10)

Table 1
continues on the next page Livesey Construction Economics and Building, Vol.17, No. 1 March 2017

Table 1
continues on the next page Livesey Construction Economics and Building, Vol.17, No. 1 March 2017

Table 2
Summary of the Goleman-Boyatzis model of EI

Table 4
Delphi panel members' demographics

Table 5
Problems considered by the Delphi panel

Table 6
Importance index for competencies in the self-awareness cluster

Table 9
Importance index for competencies in the social-awareness cluster

Table 10
Importance index for competencies in the relationship management cluster

Table 11
Wilcoxon test results for the relationship management cluster EI competencies tested Wilcoxon asymmetrical p value Comment