Building Team Emotional Intelligence
This article was originally published in Dr. Michael Watkins’s LinkedIn Newsletter, The Leading Edge, on September 11, 2024.
Note: This article resulted from discussions with Marcel Hilgers, a participant in my current Transition to Business Leadership (TBL) Program at IMD, who did similar work with his team.
Team emotional intelligence(TEQ) is the shared emotional awareness and self-regulation in a team that contributes to deeper collaboration and higher performance.
By building TEQ in your team, you create a psychologically safe environment in which team members feel comfortable taking risks and sharing ideas.
So, we need good ways to build high-TEQ teams!
The starting point is to understand the unconscious factors influencing our interactions in teams.
The concepts of “triggers” and “response modes,” drawn from Schema Therapy, an integrative school of psychotherapy I also use in coaching, are very helpful for developing TEQ in your team.
Triggers, or “hot buttons,” are events or interactions in your team that activate someone’s fight-or-flight programming and shift them to a less rational state. Triggers are usually the result of fundamental human needs for respect, fairness, autonomy, clarity, inclusion, and status not being met.
“Response modes” are how people respond when they are triggered. Think of it as what version of them, for example, an irrationally angry or victimized version, shows up when they are caught up in fight-or-flight.
If your team members understand each other’s triggers and response modes, it helps them recognize when a colleague is reacting because they have been triggered. This awareness allows teams to avoid knee-jerk reactions and escalating conflict. Instead, they can address the underlying issues and have more constructive interactions.
This awareness also allows team members to discuss sensitive topics carefully and adapt their communication styles to avoid unintentionally provoking strong emotional responses.
Common Triggers
The table below summarizes seven common emotional triggers that you will see in team settings. Look at the table and reflect on what most triggers you when you are interacting with others. Think too about why you think others are getting triggered.
Consider using this table to facilitate an open discussion with your team about each other’s triggers. Doing so has many benefits. By recognizing potential sources of conflict before they escalate, you can proactively address issues and maintain a harmonious work environment. When people know their own and others’ triggers, they can interact more sensitively, leading to stronger working relationships and more successful outcomes.
You also can leverage this awareness to develop norms and processes that minimize the occurrence of these triggers, creating a more stable and predictable team dynamic. This will help you foster a more supportive environment where team members feel valued and understood.
Common Response Modes
Understanding triggers is a good start. But it’s equally important for your team members to understand how they typically respond when they are triggered.
Response modes are patterns of behavior that show up when someone gets triggered. These automatic reactions are shaped by personality, experiences, and learned coping mechanisms.
In the team context, there are five common response modes:
- Combative – People become argumentative, aggressive, or confrontational. They may raise their voice, use accusatory language, or become defensive. While this can sometimes lead to productive debates, it often escalates conflicts and undermines cohesion.
- Passive-Aggressive – These people respond to triggers by expressing negative feelings indirectly rather than addressing issues openly. This can manifest as subtle sabotage, procrastination, sarcasm, or veiled criticism. While those in this mode may avoid confrontation, their actions can create an atmosphere of tension and mistrust within the team
- Withdrawing – Some people respond by disengaging or avoiding the situation. They might stop participating in discussions, physically remove themselves, or emotionally disconnect. engagement.
- Ruminating – Some team members overthink the situation, leading to anxiety or indecision. They may become paralyzed by analysis, constantly revisiting the triggering event without taking action. This can slow down team processes and create a cycle of stress and inaction
- Harmony-seeking – In this mode, people suppress their true feelings to maintain harmony. They might agree with others despite internal disagreement, take on extra work to avoid confrontation, or constantly seek approval. While this can temporarily smooth over conflicts, it often leads to resentment and prevents honest communication.
Here too, you can share these common responses to your team and facilitate an open discussion of team members response modes.
When team members understand and respect each other’s emotional vulnerabilities, it creates a more supportive and psychologically safe environment. This helps to builds a foundation for trust, open dialogue, and collaborative problem-solving – all essential for high-performing teams.
The journey to high-TEQ is ongoing, requiring regular check-ins, open communication, and commitment to personal and team growth. By prioritizing emotional intelligence alongside technical skills, you can create resilient, adaptable teams ready to tackle today’s many business challenges.
Michael Watkins has spent the past two decades working with leaders, both corporate and public, as they transition to new roles, negotiate the future of their organizations, and craft their legacy as leaders. A recognized expert in his field, he ranked among Thinkers50’s top fifty management influencers globally in 2019. He is the best-selling author of The First 90 Days, Updated and Expanded: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, the globally acknowledged handbook for leadership and career transitions, which recently earned the accolade of Amazon’s Top 100 Leadership Books. He is Professor of Leadership and Organizational Change at the IMD Business School in Switzerland and previously served on the faculty at INSEAD and Harvard University, where he earned his PhD in Decision Sciences.


