The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
JMD
34,2
226
Received 15 April 2013
Revised 29 August 2013
Accepted 26 January 2014
Journal of Management
Development
Vol. 34 No. 2, 2015
pp. 226-244
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/JMD-04-2013-0051
Managing conflict with emotional
intelligence: abilities that make
a difference
Margaret M. Hopkins and Robert D. Yonker
Department of Management, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the critical relationship between emotional
intelligence (EI) abilities and conflict management styles in the workplace.
Design/methodology/approach – Totally, 126 participants completed a measure of EI and an
assessment of conflict management styles. Regression analyses were then performed.
Findings – Results of regression analyses indicate several significant relationships between EI
abilities and participants’ conflict management styles. The EI abilities of problem solving, social
responsibility, and impulse control were the most directly related to how participants managed conflict
at the workplace.
Research limitations/implications – Future research should attempt to replicate these findings in
other samples. In addition, researchers should investigate other significant variables that explain
people’s choices in conflict management styles.
Practical implications – Implications of these findings suggest that for management development
purposes, people should attempt to improve on the EI abilities of problem solving, social responsibility,
and impulse control in order to manage workplace conflict effectively.
Originality/value – This investigation contributes to the literature by identifying specific EI abilities,
rather than a macro measure of EI, that are associated with different styles of conflict management.
Keywords Conflict management styles, Emotional intelligence abilities
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Emotions “consist of neural circuits (that are at least partially dedicated), response
systems, and a feeling state/process that motivates and organizes cognition and action”
(Izard, 2010, p. 367). Traditionally, emotions in the workplace have had a negative
connotation and were expected to be concealed (Putnam and Mumby, 1993). A more
realistic perspective is that emotions have a direct impact on individual choices and decision
making, and thus should be acknowledged for their part in navigating relationships and
human interactions. Emotions can be helpful mechanisms for individuals to manage their
relationships with others (Kumar, 1997).
There has been a burgeoning interest in the role that emotions and emotional
intelligence (EI) play in organizational settings over the past few decades. EI is the
capacity to understand our emotions and manage them effectively, and to understand
and effectively manage the emotions of others (Goleman et al., 2002; Mayer and
Salovey, 1997). Management scholars have examined emotional expression as one
component of the overall work experience and have found that emotions are
significantly related to job satisfaction, job behavior, and job performance
(e.g. Rafaeli and Sutton, 1989; Staw et al., 1994) and that EI has a positive
relationship with job performance (e.g. Dulewicz et al., 2005).
The role of emotions in work conflict situations is especially important to understand
as conflicts are emotionally charged ( Jones, 2000). Allred (1999) noted, “It seems ironic that
conflict, which is among the most emotion-arousing phenomena, has been predominantly Managing
studied as though those emotions had no bearing on it” (p. 27). Emotions have a profound conflict with
impact on how a person conceptualizes the conflict, and on their decision-making capacity,
ultimate choices and behaviors to enact those choices. “[…] conflict is an emotionally
emotional
defined and driven process, and recognizing this fact fundamentally alters one’s approach intelligence
to conflict management” (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001, p. 263).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between emotions and 227
conflict management in the workplace. Specifically, this research will explore the
connections between EI abilities and different styles of managing conflict. This is an
important focal area given the pervasiveness of conflict at the workplace.

Conflict management and emotions

Conflict has been defined as “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent
parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from the other
party in achieving their goals” (Hocker and Wilmot, 1985, p. 23). Conflicts in work settings
have been categorized into three types: relational, task, and process conflict ( Jehn and
Mannix, 2001). Relational conflict includes affective components such as friction related to
interpersonal incompatibilities. This type of conflict has the potential to produce negative
interpersonal emotions. Task conflict is an awareness of differences in opinion related to
the group task. Process conflict relates to disagreements as to how the work will be
accomplished and the task achieved.
Conflict is a double-edged sword that may produce positive outcomes such as
innovation ( Jehn, 1997) as well as negative outcomes such as animosity ( Jehn, 1995).
Modes of conflict management are not necessarily rational thought processes but
rather incorporate emotional states (Desivilya and Yagil, 2005). Emotions play an
important role as mediators of the cognitive process on conflict-related behavior
(Betancourt, 2004).
Mintzberg (1973) identified conflict management as one of the primary roles of
a manager. Lax and Sebenius (1986) maintained that managing is a process of ongoing
negotiation and that conflict styles are integral to the role of management. Managers
believe that dealing with conflict is one of their most challenging tasks (Skjorshammer,
2001). Fostering a cooperative working climate and positive employee relationships is
in the best interests of the employees and the entire organization.
Recognizing the relationship of emotion to organizational conflict provides
opportunities for managers to manage conflict effectively. Leaders who manage conflict
effectively may reduce negative emotions and enhance team performance (Ayoko and
Konrad, 2012). People with an overreliance on their emotional framework in conflict
management are not only less effective in handling the conflict but also realize a negative
impact on their job satisfaction and performance ( Jehn, 1997). Baron (1991) reported that
when strong negative emotions are involved in a conflict situation, the individuals
involved will more likely reduce their capacity to resolve the conflict. Perceptions of
incompatibility can produce emotions which influence the conflict process. Research on
the effects of affect in conflict has found that positive affect is typically associated with
pro-social behavior and results in cooperative styles of conflict management while
negative affect may result in competitive behaviors with limited opportunity for joint
outcomes (Bell and Song, 2005).
Different styles of conflict management have been directly related to task conflict,
relationship conflict, and stress levels (Friedman et al., 2000). The use of the integrating
JMD conflict management style reduced task conflict, relationship conflict as well as stress;
34,2 and use of the dominating and avoiding styles of conflict management increased task
conflict, relationship conflict, and stress. The integrating conflict management style is
perceived as the most effective and appropriate style; the avoiding is seen as ineffective
and inappropriate; and the dominating style is viewed as inappropriate when used by
others but effective when used in tandem with the integrating style (Gross and Guerrero,
228 2000). Two additional styles of conflict management, compromising and obliging, are
perceived as neither effective nor ineffective.
Similarly, Ayoko and Callan (2010) argue that employees can respond to conflict in
two distinct ways: either a productive reaction which helps individuals learn from the
disagreements and manage them, or a destructive reaction which demonstrates
difficulty in dealing with the conflict and getting past the differences. Investigating
these two reactions to conflict in a work team setting, these authors found that low
levels of destructive reactions to conflict were related to higher levels of team task
performance and higher levels of destructive reactions were associated with increased
bullying behaviors. Another study underscored the role of emotions in work team conflict
management and related positive emotions to the integrating and compromising
approaches to conflict and negative emotions to the dominating and avoiding styles of
conflict management (Desivilya and Yagil, 2005).
Strong relationships between emotions and negotiations have also been found in
previous research. A positive affect results in a preference for cooperative negotiation
strategies, increases joint gains and creative problem solving while negative affect
increases the use of competitive strategies and decreases joint gains (Allred et al., 1997;
Baron, 1990; Forgas, 1998). Three different experiments illustrated the advantage of
negotiators strategically demonstrating positive emotions in contrast to negative
emotions (Kopelman et al., 2006). The negotiators showing positive emotions were more
likely to achieve their objectives than those who demonstrated negative or neutral
emotions. Fisher and Shapiro (2006) also directly connect the importance of emotions to
negotiations, proposing that negotiators should attend to five emotionally charged core
concerns that motivate conflict: appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role.
While positive emotions and negative emotions have diverse effects in a conflict
or negotiation situation, the over-expression of emotions or the inappropriate display of
emotions may reduce the ability to manage conflict effectively. For example, highly
emotional conflicts are seen as more intractable than less emotional conflicts ( Jehn, 1997).

Conflict management and EI

Awareness of emotions results in the ability to manage emotions and influence
workplace relationships (Yang and Mossholder, 2004). Self-awareness is the foundation
of the concept of EI. Although scholars continue to define the construct of EI, a common
understanding of EI is a person’s ability to identify and perceive emotions in
themselves and in others, and to understand and manage those emotions effectively
(Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002). EI “[…] determines how well we understand and express
ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands,
challenges and pressures” (Bar-On, 2007).
Prior empirical studies report that EI is correlated with overall job performance
(Dulewicz et al., 2005), and it has been found to predict sales performance (Wong et al., 2004),
supervisor ratings of overall job performance (Law et al., 2004; Slaski and Cartwright,
2002), and the classroom performance of professionals (Sue-Chan and Latham, 2004).
Additional positive associations between EI and performance were found for such Managing
populations as account officers, the military, and school principals (Bachman et al., conflict with
2000; Bar-On et al., 2005; Williams, 2008). The influence of EI on team performance has
also been found to be considerable (Druskat and Wolff, 2001; Jordan and Troth, 2004;
emotional
Lopes et al., 2005). intelligence
There is some evidence of a direct relationship between EI and effective conflict
management. EI facilitates a leader’s ability to have successful interactions and 229
positive relations with others (Law et al., 2004; Lopes et al., 2003), to develop collective
goals with their direct reports (George, 2000), and to discern the emotional climate in
organizations (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002). Individuals with a high degree of EI may
have less relationship conflict or manage this conflict more effectively (Lopes et al.,
2005). Yang and Mossholder (2004) proposed that greater levels of group EI will
decrease group-level task and relationship conflict. Teams with a less defined EI
climate (i.e. lacking empathy and emotion management) experience greater task and
relationship conflict (Ayoko et al., 2008). And a leader’s emotion management mitigates
the negative effects of relationship conflict on their team’s performance (Ayoko and
Konrad, 2012). A lack of impulse control, or the inability to manage emotions, has been
cited as the primary reason for the career derailment of successful executives (McCall
and Lombardo, 1983). The inability to handle emotions effectively may prevent the
necessary information processing for managing conflict constructively (Baron, 1991).
Fulmer and Barry (2004) theorize that emotionally intelligent negotiators will more
accurately understand and manage highly charged situations. A survey of mediation
training organizations found that emotions were rated as more important than
substantive issues in mediation (Schreier, 2002).
Several empirical studies indicate that EI contributes to a cooperative course of
action in conflict management. One study investigating the relationship between EI
and negotiations suggests that EI is a significant factor toward realizing integrative
outcomes (Foo et al., 2004). In another study examining the connection between
EI and conflict management, Jordan and Troth (2002) revealed that individuals
with higher levels of EI are more likely to engage in a collaborative approach
toward conflict management. In particular, they discovered a significant relationship
between one of two scales of EI that they measured (individuals with the ability
to understand and manage their own emotions) and taking a cooperative approach to
conflict situations. There was no significance between the other measured scale
of EI, understanding and managing others’ emotions, and the collaborative conflict
management style.
Teams with a high level of EI are also more likely to use the integrating conflict
management style during a team task ( Jordan and Troth, 2004). Team performance
was significantly related to the team’s ability to be aware of and manage their emotions
but not their ability to be aware of and manage the emotions of others.
An investigation of MBA students in China examined the link between the
subordinates’ conflict management styles and their supervisors’ EI (Yu et al., 2006).
The higher the supervisor’s EI score, especially in the subscales of empathy and
self-regulation, the more likely the integrating style and the compromising style of
conflict management were used by the subordinate. Another study across seven
countries measured the relationship between the motivation dimension of EI and
different styles of conflict management (Rahim et al., 2002). When the supervisors
self-reported a higher use of motivation, the subordinates indicated a reliance on the
preferred problem-solving approach to conflict as opposed to a bargaining style.
JMD Summary
34,2 The extant research on the relationship between EI and conflict management has
examined these connections at the individual and the team level. The majority of these
studies have found some significance between higher levels of EI and the capacity to
manage conflict effectively. Our study builds on the existing research by investigating
with a finer grain the multiple components of EI and their unique relationships with
230 different modes of conflict management. Specifically we pose the following research
question:
RQ1. Which EI abilities are directly associated with specific styles of managing
conflict?
EI is a multi-faceted concept. The majority of the current research has measured either
a composite EI score or one or two indicators of EI, typically the areas of empathy,
self-regulation and emotion management, or motivation (e.g. Jordan and Troth, 2002;
Rahim et al., 2002; Yu et al., 2006). In a study examining two scales of EI, only one of the
two scales (being aware of and managing one’s own emotions) has been found to be
significantly related to collaborative methods of conflict management ( Jordan and
Troth, 2002). The other primary dimension of EI, understanding and managing
the emotions of others, was not found to be linked to cooperative styles of conflict
management.
The purpose of our study is to explore a comprehensive model of EI and examine
whether certain aspects of EI relate to particular styles of conflict management.
We extend the current research by investigating exactly which facets of EI contribute
to collaborative styles of conflict management and which components of EI are linked
to less cooperative conflict management styles. These relationships are important
because they will inform our understanding of exactly how EI is associated with
managing conflict, as we unpack the concept of EI and investigate it at a deeper level.
This data will ultimately assist managers in their identification and development of
effective behaviors for interpersonal conflict management.

Method
Participants
Totally, 126 students enrolled in five separate upper-level undergraduate and graduate
management classes at a large Midwestern university participated in this study. Totally,
56 percent of the participants were male. The mean age of the sample was 23.96 (S ¼ 3.97)
years old. On average, participants had 6.17 (S ¼ 3.40) years of work experience and 1.04
(S ¼ 1.93) year of experience at the management level.

Procedure
Data were collected from participants at two points in time. First, participants were told
that the purpose of the research study was to investigate how people respond to
conflict while at work. In addition, they were advised what their role as participants
would be in the study and assured that all responses would remain anonymous and
confidential. Once informed consent was given, participants were asked to complete the
Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II) (Rahim, 1983) to assess their
predominant conflict management styles while at work. Completing the ROCI-II took
about 15-20 minutes. Participants were also asked to indicate their gender, age, years of
working experience, and years of managerial experience in this first data collection
session. One week following the first data collection point, participants were asked to Managing
complete the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 2002). Completion of conflict with
this instrument took approximately 30-40 minutes.
emotional
intelligence
Measures
BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). The EQ-i is made up of 133 brief items that
231
measure emotional intelligence (EQ) (Bar-On, 2002). When scored, the EQ-i yields a total
EQ score, five composite scale scores (i.e. Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability,
Stress Management, General Mood), and 15 EQ subscale scores (i.e. Within Intrapersonal
(Self-Regard, Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Independence, Self-Actualization),
within Interpersonal (Empathy, Social Responsibility, Interpersonal Relationship), within
Adaptability (Reality Testing, Flexibility, Problem Solving), within Stress Management
(Stress Tolerance, Impulse Control), and within General Mood (Optimism, Happiness)).
Coefficient α’s were computed for each subscale and can be found in parentheses next to
the subscale name in Table I. Some sample items from the EQ-i are as follows: It’s hard for
me to understand the way I feel; It’s fairly easy for me to tell people what I think; and
I know how to keep calm in difficult situations. Participants respond to these items by
indicating whether the statement is Very seldom or Not true of me, Seldom true of me,
Sometimes true of me, Often true of me, or Very often true of me or True of me.
(ROCI-II). This 28-item inventory which measures respondents’ approach to conflict
management (Rahim, 1983) was used to produce five scale scores (i.e. Integrating,
Avoiding, Dominating, Obliging, and Compromising). This instrument is well-established,
popular, and as psychometrically sound as any other instrument measuring this construct
(e.g. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Indicator) (Ben-Yoav and Banai, 1992;
Chakrabarty et al., 2002; Rahim, 1983; Van De Vliert and Kabanoff, 1990). Coefficient α’s
were computed on the scales from our sample and can be found in Table I next to the scale
name in parentheses. Some sample items are as follows: I try to find a middle ground to
resolve an impasse, I use my expertise to make a decision in my favor, and I usually avoid
open discussion of my differences with my supervisor. Participants respond to these items
by indicating their strength of agreement/disagreement: Strongly disagree, Disagree,
Neither disagree or agree, Agree, Strongly agree.

Results
Before inferential statistics were computed, descriptive statistics and bivariate
correlations were calculated on all relevant measures. They can be found in Table I.
Next, multiple regression models were constructed to investigate to what extent, if
any, the 15 EI subscales predicted participants’ conflict management styles. Models
incorporating the subscales of EI as predictors were run for each of the five criterion
variables (i.e. Integrating, Compromising, Obliging, Dominating, and Avoiding). The EI
subscales were used in order to explicate which distinct aspects of EI were contributing
factors to the five styles of conflict management. For each regression model, the age,
gender, and work experience (in years) of the participants were entered in the first
“block” to serve as covariates or control variables. Considering the exploratory nature
of this investigation, all 15 EI subscales were then entered into the next “block”.
An iterative model fitting approach was then employed to ascertain the best prediction
model for each conflict management mode. As can be seen in Tables II through VI,
unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE B), standardized
 34,2

232
JMD

Table I.

variables
among study
deviations, and
Means, standard

bivariate correlations
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

1. Gender 1.00
2. Age −0.09 1.00
3. Work Experience −0.01 0.37 1.00
4. Emotional
Self-Awareness (0.80) 0.16 0.13 0.15 1.00
5. Assertiveness (0.73) −0.08 −0.11 0.13 0.50 1.00
6. Self-Regard (0.87) −0.19 0.00 −0.02 0.35 0.54 1.00
7. Self-Actualization (0.79) 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.46 0.48 0.63 1.00
8. Independence (0.52) −0.23 0.14 0.27 0.17 0.41 0.47 0.40 1.00
9. Empathy (0.78) 0.36 0.11 0.12 0.44 0.24 0.19 0.37 −0.13 1.00
10. Interpersonal
Relationship (0.78) 0.25 0.01 0.09 0.63 0.48 0.50 0.54 0.14 0.67 1.00
11. Social Responsibility
(0.77) 0.37 0.08 0.08 0.38 0.23 0.26 0.42 −0.02 0.81 0.67 1.00
12. Problem Solving (0.83) −0.05 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.51 0.46 0.45 0.33 0.40 0.50 0.46 1.00
13. Reality Testing (0.76) 0.01 0.17 0.21 0.49 0.39 0.51 0.51 0.44 0.34 0.47 0.51 0.48 1.00
14. Flexibility (0.76) −0.09 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.49 1.00
15. Stress Tolerance (0.84) −0.30 0.07 0.00 0.31 0.51 0.56 0.34 0.47 0.17 0.35 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.54 1.00
16. Impulse Control (0.84) −0.01 0.15 0.04 0.27 −0.01 0.26 0.15 0.22 0.14 0.16 0.26 0.19 0.61 0.41 0.32 1.00
17. Happiness (0.78) 0.05 −0.11 0.01 0.37 0.49 0.73 0.59 0.32 0.29 0.65 0.73 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.42 0.20 1.00
18. Optimism (0.80) −0.07 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.51 0.65 0.58 0.34 0.41 0.58 0.65 0.61 0.48 0.43 0.69 0.12 0.61 1.00
19. Integrating (0.80) 0.03 −0.13 0.14 0.29 0.37 0.28 0.33 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.28 0.46 0.18 0.11 0.14 −0.11 0.27 0.33 1.00
20. Avoiding (0.82) 0.11 0.05 −0.13 −0.14 −0.32 −0.27 −0.22 −0.29 0.01 −0.10 −0.27 −0.32 −0.12 −0.16 −0.25 0.04 −0.18 −0.25 −0.26 1.00
21. Dominating (0.60) −0.10 −0.08 −0.02 −0.04 −0.03 0.07 0.01 −0.02 −0.01 −0.01 −07 −0.11 −0.15 −0.18 −0.10 −0.26 −0.01 −0.01 0.01 0.32 1.00
22. Obliging (0.73) −0.04 −0.07 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.18 0.15 0.05 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.10 −0.09 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.13 1.00
23. Compromising (0.59) 0.15 −0.05 0.16 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.29 0.12 −0.01 0.12 −0.03 0.14 0.16 0.51 −0.16 −0.09 0.15 1.00
M 1.44 23.96 6.17 99.76 100.25 99.55 99.83 99.50 100.04 99.59 99.75 99.56 100.24 99.25 99.60 99.83 99.86 99.13 4.20 3.03 3.22 3.78 3.75
SD 0.50 3.97 3.40 14.63 14.63 15.21 15.12 15.12 15.08 15.04 14.76 14.81 14.50 14.97 15.03 15.02 15.00 14.95 0.46 0.76 0.57 0.46 0.51
n 131 131 131 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 130 130 130 130 130
Note: Significant correlations (p o0.05) are in italics
 Model 1 Model 2
Managing
Variable B SE B β B SE B β conflict with
Gender −0.08 0.09 −0.09 −0.05 0.08 −0.06
emotional
Age −0.02 0.01 −0.18* −0.02 0.01 −0.21* intelligence
Work Experience 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.17*
Problem Solving 0.04 0.01 0.38** 0.04 0.01 0.36**
Impulse Control −0.01 0.01 −0.14 233
Happiness −0.01 0.01 −0.06
Independence 0.01 0.01 0.06
Emotional Self-Awareness 0.01 0.01 0.15
Social Responsibility 0.03 0.01 0.31* 0.02 0.01 0.23*
Flexibility −0.01 0.01 −0.10
Self-Actualization 0.01 0.01 0.05
Assertiveness 0.01 0.01 0.05
Optimism 0.00 0.02 0.02
Reality Testing −0.01 0.01 −0.08
Self-Regard 0.01 0.01 0.14
Empathy −0.01 0.02 −0.10 Table II.
Stress Tolerance −0.01 0.01 −0.17 Summary of
Interpersonal Relationship 0.00 0.01 0.00 regression analysis
R2 0.38 0.29 for EI subscales
Overall Model F 3.62** 9.84** predicting
Notes: n ¼ 126. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01 integrating score

regression coefficients ( β ), R2, the overall model F, and statistical significance

indicators are reported.
Table II shows the results of the regression analyses where participants’ Integrating
scores were regressed on the subscales of EI and the covariate/demographic variables.
As can be seen, the first model accounts for 38 percent of the variance in the criterion
variable. The overall regression model is statistically significant. However, only the EI
subscales of Problem Solving and Social Responsibility are statistically significant
predictors of participants’ Integrating scores. Therefore, in the spirit of model fitting,
the statistically non-significant EI subscales were dropped and another model
containing the covariates and statistically significant EI subscales was run. As can be
seen, this new model is also statistically significant, more parsimonious, and accounts
for 29 percent of the variance in participants’ Integrating scores.
Table III represents the results of the regression analysis where participants’
Dominating scores were regressed on the subscales of EI and the covariate/demographic
variables. The first model accounts for 18 percent of the variance in the participants’
Dominating scores. Impulse Control (negative) and Self-Regard proved to be statistically
significant predictors of participants’ Dominating scores. What also can be seen is that
the overall model is not statistically significant. Therefore model two, consisting of the
covariates and two aforementioned EI subscales, was run next. This model proved to be
statistically significant and accounted for 9 percent of the variance in the criterion
variable. It should also be noted that in this model the Self-Regard subscale was not
a significant predictor of participants’ Dominating scores. The final model contained the
covariates as well as the EI subscale of Impulse Control (negative). Again, this was a
statistically significant prediction model, more parsimonious and accounted for essentially
the same amount of variance as the prior model did (i.e. 8 percent).
 34,2

234
JMD

predicting
Table III.
Summary of

for EI subscales

dominating score
regression analysis
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Gender −0.12 0.12 −0.10 −0.05 0.10 −0.05 −0.08 0.10 −0.07
Age −0.02 0.02 −0.15 −0.01 0.01 −0.05 −0.01 0.01 −0.06
Work Experience 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 −0.01
Problem Solving −0.02 0.02 −0.18
Impulse Control −0.02 0.01 −0.28* −0.03 0.01 −0.29** −0.02 0.01 −0.25**
Happiness −0.01 0.02 −0.10
Independence 0.02 0.02 0.13
Emotional Self-Awareness 0.02 0.02 0.14
Social Responsibility −0.02 0.02 −0.16
Flexibility −0.02 0.02 −0.20
Self-Actualization 0.00 0.02 0.03
Assertiveness −0.03 0.02 −0.19
Optimism −0.01 0.02 −0.08
Reality Testing 0.00 0.02 −0.01
Self-Regard 0.03 0.02 0.33* 0.01 0.01 0.13
Empathy 0.04 0.02 0.30
Stress Tolerance 0.00 0.02 0.04
Interpersonal Relationship 0.00 0.02 0.04
R2 0.18 0.09 0.08
Overall Model F 1.31 2.45* 2.51*
Notes: n ¼ 126. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01
 Model 1 Model 2
Managing
Variable B SE B β B SE B β conflict with
Gender 0.17 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.14
emotional
Age −0.01 0.01 −0.09 −0.01 0.01 −0.10 intelligence
Work Experience 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.01 0.17
Problem Solving 0.04 0.001 0.34** 0.03 0.01 0.29**
Impulse Control −0.01 0.01 −0.07 235
Happiness 0.02 0.02 0.15
Independence 0.01 0.02 0.04
Emotional Self-Awareness 0.00 0.01 −0.04
Social Responsibility 0.00 0.02 0.03
Flexibility −0.02 0.01 −0.15
Self-Actualization 0.00 0.02 0.03
Assertiveness −0.01 0.02 −0.06
Optimism −0.01 0.02 −0.07
Reality Testing 0.00 0.02 0.01
Self-Regard 0.00 0.01 −0.04
Empathy 0.01 0.02 0.05 Table IV.
Stress Tolerance 0.01 0.02 0.13 Summary of
Interpersonal Relationship −0.01 0.02 −0.15 regression analysis
R2 0.18 0.14 for EI subscales
Overall Model F 1.27 4.71** predicting
Notes: n ¼ 126. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01 compromising score

Model 1 Model 2
Variable B SE B β B SE B β
Gender −0.14 0.10 −0.15 −0.16 0.09 −0.17
Age −0.01 0.01 −0.11 −0.02 0.01 −0.14
Work Experience 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07
Problem Solving 0.01 0.01 0.05
Impulse Control −0.01 0.01 −0.20
Happiness −0.02 0.02 −0.17
Independence −0.01 0.02 −0.06
Emotional Self-Awareness 0.00 0.01 0.03
Social Responsibility 0.03 0.02 0.35* 0.03 0.01 0.31**
Flexibility 0.01 0.01 0.09
Self-Actualization 0.00 0.01 -0.04
Assertiveness 0.01 0.02 0.05
Optimism 0.02 0.02 0.22
Reality Testing 0.02 0.01 0.18
Self-Regard −0.01 0.01 −0.08
Empathy −0.01 0.02 −0.11 Table V.
Stress Tolerance −0.01 0.01 −0.08 Summary of
Interpersonal Relationship 0.00 0.02 −0.05 regression analysis
R2 0.17 0.10 for EI subscales
Overall Model F 1.19 3.18* predicting obliging
Notes: n ¼ 126. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01 score
JMD Model 1 Model 2
34,2 Variable B SE B β B SE B β
Gender −0.05 0.16 −0.03 0.14 0.13 0.10
Age 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.10
Work Experience −0.03 0.02 −0.12 −0.03 0.02 −0.14
Problem Solving −0.04 0.02 −0.26* −0.05 0.01 −0.31**
236 Impulse Control 0.01 0.02 0.07
Happiness 0.00 0.03 0.02
Independence −0.02 0.03 −0.11
Emotional Self-Awareness −0.01 0.02 −0.05
Social Responsibility 0.00 0.02 0.03
Flexibility 0.00 0.02 −0.02
Self-Actualization −0.01 0.02 −0.04
Assertiveness −0.02 0.03 −0.11
Optimism −0.01 0.03 −0.03
Reality Testing 0.02 0.02 0.11
Self-Regard −0.02 0.02 −0.14
Table VI. Empathy 0.01 0.03 0.06
Summary of Stress Tolerance 0.00 0.02 −0.02
regression analysis Interpersonal Relationship 0.02 0.02 0.13
for EI subscales R2 0.21 0.13
predicting avoiding Overall Model F 1.53 4.51**
score Notes: n ¼ 126. *p o0.05; **p o0.01

Table IV illustrates the results of the regression analysis where participants’

Compromising scores were regressed on the subscales of EI and the covariate/demographic
variables. As can be seen in the table, the first model accounts for 18 percent of the
variance in the criterion variable. Problem Solving is a statistically significant predictor
of participants’ Compromising scores. The overall prediction model was not
statistically significant. Therefore, another model was run. This model contained the
covariates and the Problem Solving subscale of EI. This new model proved to be
statistically significant and accounted for 14 percent of the variance in participants’
Compromising scores.
Tables V shows the results of the regression analysis where participants’ Obliging
scores were regressed on the subscales of EI and the covariate/demographic
variables. The first regression model accounts for 17 percent of the variance in the
criterion variable. Social Responsibility is a statistically significant predictor of
participants’ Obliging scores. The overall prediction model was not statistically
significant until the statistically non-significant EI subscales were dropped from the
equation. This new model accounted for 10 percent of the variance in participants’
Obliging scores.
The results from the last regression analysis can be found in Table VI. In this
regression analysis, participants’ Avoiding scores were regressed on the subscales of
EI and the covariate/demographic variables. Similar to previous analyses, the first
model accounted for more variance (i.e. 21 percent), but the overall prediction model
was not statistically significant and there was only one statistically significant EI
subscale predictor. More specifically, Problem Solving (negative) proved to be
a statistically significant predictor of participants’ Avoiding scores. As a result, another
regression model consisting of the covariates and Problem Solving was run.
This second prediction model was statistically significant, again more parsimonious, Managing
and accounted for 13 percent of the variance in participants’ Avoiding scores. conflict with
A summary of the significant results appears in Table VII.
emotional
intelligence
Discussion
Individuals in a conflict situation require the skills and ability to make informed
judgments in order to effectively manage the conflict. Emotions are a contributing 237
factor to an individual’s conceptualization of a conflict and their decision-making
capability to effectively manage the conflict. Our study identifies specific relationships
between EI abilities and different styles of conflict management. These results
contribute to our understanding of which EI abilities are important to leverage in
various approaches to managing conflicts.
One premise of our study is that effective managers must have the ability to use
a variety of styles of conflict management. This perspective is contrary to previous
research as well as conventional wisdom which highlight the collaborative approaches.
Conflict is situational and context specific. Thus, there are certain circumstances when
each style of conflict management is appropriate. For example, avoiding a conflict is
relevant when the issue is trivial; and dominating in a conflict can be used when
prompt, decisive action is necessary in a critical situation or the relationship with
others involved in the conflict is not valued. It is recognized that these two styles, the
avoiding and the dominating, should be used judiciously, however, and that the ideal
scenario is to work toward the more cooperative conflict management styles.
Ultimately managers need to recognize those conflict situations that call for certain
approaches to managing conflicts and be flexible enough in their styles to effectively
address the conflict.
Our results suggest that an array of EI abilities is important to effective conflict
management. We found significant relationships between elements of EI in three of the
five scales of the Bar-On EI model and different styles of conflict management.
These scales include Interpersonal (individuals who have good social skills),
Adaptability (individuals who are flexible and realistic), and Stress Management
(individuals who can cope with stressful situations). This repertoire of EI abilities
enables a manager to respond appropriately and avoid a narrow, one-size-fits-all
approach to different conflict scenarios. The scales with no significant findings were
the Intrapersonal (measures the inner self) and General Mood (measures happiness and
optimism) scales. An explanation for these insignificant results may be that the items in
the conflict management instrument primarily focus on interactions with others as
opposed to self-awareness or self-reflection.

Criterion variable Predictor variable B SE B β R2 Overall model F

Integrating Age −0.02 0.01 −0.21* 0.29 9.84*
Work Experience 0.02 0.01 −0.17*
Problem Solving 0.04 0.01 0.36** Table VII.
Dominating Impulse Control −0.02 0.01 −0.25** 0.08 2.51* Summary of
Compromising Problem Solving 0.03 0.01 0.29** 0.14 4.71** statistically
Obliging Social Responsibility 0.03 0.01 0.31** 0.10 3.18* significant results
Avoiding Problem Solving −0.05 0.01 −0.31** 0.13 4.51** yielded from all
Notes: n ¼ 126. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01 regression analyses
JMD In particular, Problem Solving and Social Responsibility were discovered to be the most
34,2 important EI abilities used with multiple styles of conflict management. Problem
Solving is a comprehensive ability in which a person recognizes and defines problems
as well as generates and implements effective solutions (Bar-On, 2002). An individual
who demonstrates this aspect of EI makes a decision on the optimal solution based
on assessing the pros and cons of each possible outcome. This ability indicates
238 that the person simultaneously pursues both their own concerns and the concerns of
others in the conflict and is flexible in solving problems in order to achieve the most
reasonable solution.
The flexibility characteristic of the Problem-Solving ability is particularly important
as it allows the individual to select the optimal conflict management style based on the
details of the situation. The Problem-Solving ability was positively related to the more
cooperative Integrating style and the give-and-take Compromising style of handling
conflicts. There was also a negative relationship between Problem Solving and the
Avoiding conflict management style.
The Integrating style of handling conflict is directly associated with the ability to
effectively solve complex problems. Consider the manager faced with two high-performing
employees who do not cooperate with each other nor share information. The manager
must diagnose the actual underlying problems between the two employees and not just
rely on the noticeable presenting issue, i.e., a lack of cooperation. There could be numerous
reasons for the behavior of the two employees, and using the problem-solving ability in
order to achieve an integrative outcome is paramount. If a consensus cannot be reached
between these two employees, then a temporary outcome using the Compromising style of
handling conflict can be an effective back-up course of action. Ultimately, a manager who
has the ability to problem solve will tend to confront issues as opposed to avoid them.
The second EI ability that was related to multiple styles of conflict management was
Social Responsibility, an interpersonal ability. Social Responsibility indicates that an
individual is aware of and takes responsibility for the impact of their decisions and
activities on others. They are attuned to interpersonal relationships and are cooperative,
contributing members of their work groups. Socially responsible people can determine
when it is optimal to satisfy others’ concerns in a conflict situation (Bar-On, 2002).
Thus individuals who demonstrate this EI ability are able to adapt their approach to
a conflict based on the particulars of the circumstances, especially focussed on the
relationships with others.
Social Responsibility was positively related to the cooperative Integrating and
Obliging conflict management styles. One primary responsibility of a manager is to
motivate, communicate, and develop his people in order to create an effective and
productive team. Drucker (1993) refers to this aspect of management as the integrating
function. A manager’s capacity to achieve the integrating function of his role is
predicated on his skill in fostering interpersonal relationships, a foundation of the
Social Responsibility EI ability. Social Responsibility was also positively related to the
Obliging conflict management style, a style that focusses on the concerns of others.
A socially responsible individual emphasizes the mutual interests of both parties
in a conflict and minimizes the differences in order to satisfy the other party’s concerns.
There may be several possible circumstances when a manager must use the Obliging
conflict management style, especially when the intent is to preserve the relationship
with the other person involved in the conflict.
The final set of significant relationships includes the ability of Impulse Control from
the Stress Management EI scale. Managers who demonstrate Impulse Control are
patient and able to show composure and provide constructive comments in trying Managing
situations (Zhou and George, 2003). We found that individuals with Impulse Control conflict with
are less likely to use the Dominating style of handling conflict. The Dominating
style takes a competitive, win-lose approach and is an aggressive, authoritarian
emotional
approach to dealing with conflict situations. Managers who have the ability to control intelligence
their impulses will be inclined to think through their behavior before taking action, thus
spending the time to contemplate reasonable solutions to a conflict. Researchers at the 239
Center for Creative Leadership found that managers are more likely to “derail” if they
are not emotionally stable, and effective managers are able to handle pressure and
retain their composure in times of conflict (McCall and Lombardo, 1983).
A lack of Impulse Control will result in rash judgments, decisions and actions without
the benefit of assessing the alternatives toward an optimal solution in a conflict situation.
It is as ineffective to excessively demonstrate an EI ability as it is to under-use these
abilities. For example, too much Impulse Control may inhibit a person from making
choices and taking appropriate steps toward managing a conflict.

Summary
First, our results indicate that a range of abilities from the Interpersonal, Adaptability,
and Stress Management areas of EI are directly related to different styles of conflict
management. A manager who demonstrates this array of abilities can be flexible in
adjusting his behavior to most effectively address a conflict situation.
Second, the Integrative style of handling conflict which involves examining
differences to reach a mutually acceptable solution is linked to two specific EI abilities:
Problem Solving and Social Responsibility. With this knowledge, managers working
toward an integrative process and outcome can be very strategic in their use of these
two aspects of EI.
Third, our study extends the current research examining EI and styles of conflict
management by identifying relationships between specific EI abilities and certain
styles of handling conflict. As discussed above, the importance of the Problem-Solving
ability and the interpersonal skill of Social Responsibility toward an integrative
outcome are distinctive findings. A manager who can identify and address the
problems in conflict situations will ultimately be better able to effectively manage
the overall conflict. The ability to interact and relate well to others (Social Responsibility)
is an integrating function of a manager, one which provides a manager with an
understanding of how to better create and develop cohesive work groups. Finally,
managers with the Impulse Control ability will not tend toward using the competitive
Dominating approach to conflict management. On the contrary, they can control their
emotional impulses and are better equipped to handle emotionally charged conflict
situations.

Limitations
As in any study, there are limitations that may affect the generalizability of the
findings. First, both measures (i.e. the EQ-i and ROCI-II) are self-report instruments.
To minimize socially desirable responses, all participants were instructed to answer
honestly and told that their responses were anonymous and confidential. Nevertheless,
future research should attempt to employ measures that would be less influenced by
socially desirable responding. Perhaps the use of actual performance management
measures at the workplace that assess employees’ conflict management skills could be
JMD used to further this stream of research. In addition, 360 degree assessments could be
34,2 used to measure the EI abilities.
Another issue to consider when interpreting results from this study is the sample
used. As discussed in the Method section, the participants in this study were students
who, in terms of the working population, could be classified as fairly young in age.
Nevertheless, these participants on average had over six years of work experience.
240 Future research may want to replicate these results with a non-student sample.
As can be seen in the Results section of the paper, some of the regression models did
not account for large amounts of variance in the participants’ conflict management
scores. Therefore, it is important to investigate what other important variables are
related to the manner in which people manage conflict at the workplace. Finally, given
the exploratory nature of this investigation, the pattern of results yielded in this
investigation should be replicated using other samples.

Implications
Conflict is a part of organizational life, and effectively dealing with conflict in the
workplace is a persistent challenge for managers. A survey of 660 human resource
practitioners found that 44 percent of the respondents have to manage conflicts at work
continually or frequently (The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
2008). Nearly two-thirds report that conflict at work has contributed to absenteeism
and one-half indicate that conflict has resulted in people leaving their organization
(The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2008). More effective
conflict management would result in better teamwork, employee engagement, and
productivity.
The capability to identify and address the underlying tensions in a conflict before
they escalate would assist managers in dealing with a conflict. Managers need to
address conflicts at their source. Further interaction with staff and peers to better
understand them as well as modeling appropriate conflict management behaviors are
two additional conflict management strategies for managers. Underlying these global
strategies is EI.
One critical point of intervention is in management training and development
programs offered within organizations or by external firms. These programs can better
incorporate the development of self-awareness and interpersonal skills as well as
conflict management styles. Training and development activities that strengthen
a manager’s capacity to reflect on his own behaviors in order to be more self-aware are
essential. These could include practicing mindfulness, writing in a journal, frequently
assessing strengths and weaknesses, and actively seeking directed feedback from
others.
The ability to problem solve, one aspect of EI directly related to the integrative
cooperative style of conflict management, is another critical area for management
development. Case studies and simulations are effective tools to strengthen problem
solving. An additional strategy is for organizations to schedule time to debrief prior
decisions, projects or processes. Allowing time to deconstruct the thought processes
and actions taken in past decisions by managers will increase the understanding and
learning in their problem-solving methods.
The development of a manager’s interpersonal skills is a third focal area for
programs, especially in the EI ability of Social Responsibility. A first step toward
a manager becoming more socially responsible is to strengthen his capacity to show
empathy. Role plays as well as obtaining feedback are two effective means toward Managing
enhancing empathy and social responsibility. conflict with
Impulse Control is another important ability for effective conflict management.
Reflection activities that strengthen emotional self-awareness as discussed above can
emotional
contribute to the development of self-control, since the manager is becoming more intelligence
consciously aware of his triggers in stressful situations.
In addition, targeted training and development in managing conflict is warranted 241
either through formal programs or individual coaching. The objective of this development
process is to increase a manager’s capacity to identify the source of the conflict (problem
solving) and to intervene with the appropriate conflict management style. Managers need
to be facile in all styles of conflict management as they can be used effectively in certain
situations. Managers must also be a role model for the conflict management behaviors
that they expect to be demonstrated throughout the organization. Finally, organizations
should reward the effective use of EI abilities and conflict management styles by their
managers in order to reinforce expected behaviors.

References
Allred, K.G. (1999), “Anger and retaliation: toward an understanding of impassioned conflict in
organizations”, in Bies, R.J., Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiation
in Organizations, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 27-58.
Allred, K.G., Mallozzi, J.S., Matsui, F. and Raia, C.P. (1997), “The influence of anger and
compassion on negotiation performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 175-187.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2002), “Emotion in the workplace: the new challenge for
managers”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 76-86.
Ayoko, O.B. and Callan, V.J. (2010), “Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and social
outcomes: the moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 220-235.
Ayoko, O.B. and Konrad, A.M. (2012), “Leaders’ transformational, conflict, and emotion
management behaviors in culturally diverse workgroups”, Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 694-724.
Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hartel, C.E.J. (2008), “The influence of team emotional intelligence
climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict”, Small Group Research, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 121-149.
Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K. and Sitarenios, G. (2000), “Emotional intelligence in
the collection of debt”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 176-182.
Bar-On, R. (2002), EQ-I BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory Technical Manual, Multi-Health
Systems, North Tonawanda, New York, NY.
Bar-On, R. (2007), available at: www.reuvenbaron.org/bar-on-model/essay.php?i ¼ 2 (accessed
January 31, 2013).
Bar-On, R., Handley, R. and Fund, S. (2005), “The impact of emotional intelligence on
performance”, in Druskat, V., Sala, F. and Mount, G. (Eds), Linking Emotional Intelligence
and Performance at Work: Current Research Evidence with Individuals and Groups,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-19.
Baron, R.A. (1990), “Environmentally induced positive affect: its impact on self-efficacy, task
performance, negotiation, and conflict”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 368-384.
JMD Baron, R.A. (1991), “Positive effects of conflict: a cognitive perspective”, Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
34,2
Bell, C. and Song, F. (2005), “Emotions in the conflict process: an application of the cognitive
appraisal model of emotions to conflict management”, The International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 30-54.
Ben-Yoav, O. and Banai, M. (1992), “Measuring conflict management styles: a comparison
242 between the MODE and ROCI-II instruments using self and peer ratings”, International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 237-247.
Betancourt, H. (2004), “Attribution-emotion processes in white’s Realistic empathy approach to
conflict and negotiation”, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 369-380.
Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), “Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:
application to organizational conflict management”, The International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-275.
Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G. and Gilbert, A. (2002), “Evaluation of Rahim’s organization conflict
inventory-II as a measure of conflict-handling styles in a sample of Indian salespersons”,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 549-567.
(The) Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2008), Leadership and the Management
of Conflict at Work, The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Desivilya, H.S. and Yagil, D. (2005), “The role of emotions in conflict management: the case of
work teams”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 55-69.
Drucker, P.F. (1993), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. (2001), “Building the emotional intelligence of groups”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 81-90.
Dulewicz, C., Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2005), “The relevance of emotional intelligence for
leadership performance”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 71-86.
Fisher, R. and Shapiro, D. (2006), Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Penguin
Books, New York, NY.
Foo, M.D., Elfenbein, H.A., Tan, H.H. and Aik, V.C. (2004), “Emotional intelligence and
negotiation: the tension between creating and claiming value”, The International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 411-429.
Forgas, J.P. (1998), “On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiation strategies
and outcomes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 565-577.
Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C. and Tsai, J.C. (2000), “What goes around comes around:
the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress”, The International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No.1, pp. 32-55.
Fulmer, I.S. and Barry, B. (2004), “The smart negotiator: cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence in negotiation”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 245-272.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-1055.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with
Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Gross, M.A. and Guerrero, L.K. (2000), “Managing conflict appropriately and effectively:
an application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles”,
The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 200-226.
Hocker, J.L. and Wilmot, W.W. (1985), Interpersonal Conflict, 2nd ed., William C. Brown, Managing
Dubuque, IA.
conflict with
Izard, C.E. (2010), “The many meanings/aspects of emotion: definitions, functions, activation, and emotional
regulation”, Emotion Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 363-370.
intelligence
Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-284.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational 243
groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-557.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 238-251.
Jones, T.S. (2000), “Emotional communication in conflict: essence and impact”, in Eadie, W. and
Nelson, P. (Eds), The Language of Conflict and Resolution, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 81-104.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: implications
for human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 62-79.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2004), “Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotional
intelligence and conflict resolution”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-218.
Kopelman, S., Rosette, A.S. and Thompson, L. (2006), “The three faces of Eve: strategic displays
of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Kumar, R. (1997), “The role of affect in negotiations: an integrative overview”, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 84-100.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Song, L.J. (2004), “The construct and criterion validity of emotional
intelligence and its potential utility for management studies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-496.
Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (1986), The Manager as Negotiator, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Straus, R. (2003), “Emotional intelligence, personality, and the
perceived quality of social relationships”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 641-658.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Cote, S. and Beers, M. (2005), “Emotion regulation ability and the quality
of social interaction”, Emotion, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 113-118.
McCall, M.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983), “Off the track: why and how successful executives get
derailed”, Technical Report No. 21, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D.J.
(Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, Basic
Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-31.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Putnam, L.L. and Mumby, D. (1993), “Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality”, in
Fineman, S. (Ed.), Emotion in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 36-57.
Rafaeli, A. and Sutton, R.J. (1989), “The expression of emotion in organizational life”, in Staw, B.M.
and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 1-42.
Rahim, M.A. (1983), “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-376.
JMD Rahim, M.A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J.-H., Yu, C.-S., Chan, K.A., Susana, K.W.Y.,
Alves, M.G., Lee, C.-W., Rahman, M.S., Ferdausy, S. and van Wyk, R. (2002), “A model of
34,2 emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies: a study in seven countries”,
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 302-326.
Schreier, L.S. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and mediation training”, Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 99-119.
244 Skjorshammer, M. (2001), “Conflict management in a hospital: designing processing and
invention methods”, Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 156-166.
Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2002), “Health, performance and emotional intelligence: an
exploratory study of retail managers”, Stress and Health, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 63-68.
Staw, B.M., Sutton, R.I. and Pelled, L.H. (1994), “Employee positive emotion and favorable
outcomes at work”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Sue-Chan, C. and Latham, G.P. (2004), “The situational interview as a predictor of academic and
team performance: a study of the mediating effects of cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 312-320.
Van De Vliert, E. and Kabanoff, B. (1990), “Toward theory-based measures of conflict
management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 199-209.
Williams, H.W. (2008), “Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 36-54.
Wong, C.S., Law, K.S. and Wong, P.M. (2004), “Development and validation of a forced choice
emotional intelligence measure for Chinese respondents in Hong Kong”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 535-559.
Yang, J. and Mossholder, K.W. (2004), “Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of
intragroup emotional processing”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 589-605.
Yu, C.-S., Sardessai, R.M. and Lu, J. (2006), “Relationship of emotional intelligence with conflict
management styles: an empirical study in China”, International Journal of Management
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 3 Nos 1-2, pp. 19-29.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003), “Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional
intelligence”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4-5, pp. 545-568.

About the authors

Dr Margaret M. Hopkins is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business and
Innovation at the University of Toledo. Her major research interests are in the field of leadership,
including leadership development, gender and leadership, emotional intelligence, and executive
coaching. She is currently serving as an Executive Committee Member in the Management
Education and Development Division of the Academy of Management. Dr Margaret M. Hopkins
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: margaret.hopkins@utoledo.edu
Dr Robert D. Yonker is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business and
Innovation at the University of Toledo. His major research interests are in the field of negotiation
and conflict management. In addition to his research, he teaches classes and provides training in
these two areas. He is a former Associate Editor for the American Journal of Business (AJB).

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.