Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution: Implications for Human Resource Development

http://adh.sagepub.com/Resources

Advances in Developing Human

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/4/1/62The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1523422302004001005

2002 4: 62Advances in Developing Human ResourcesPeter J. Jordan and Ashlea C. Troth

Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution: Implications for Human Resource Development

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Advances in Developing Human ResourcesAdditional services and information for

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/4/1/62.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 1, 2002Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 11, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 11, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://adh.sagepub.com/

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/4/1/62

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ahrd.org

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/4/1/62.refs.html

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/4/1/62.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2002Jordan, Troth / EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Emotional Intelligenceand Conflict Resolution:Implications for HumanResource Development

Peter J. JordanAshlea C. Troth

The problem and the solution.There continues to be stronginterest regarding the emotional intelligence construct, primar-ily because of the construct’s potential as a predictor of work-place behavior in organizations. Little research has been con-ducted, however, that considers the implications of emotionalintelligence for organizational change and human resourcedevelopment in organizations. The study outlined in this articleexplores the connection between emotional intelligence andpreferred styles of conflict resolution and examines the implica-tions for human resource development and micro level organi-zational change specifically. One hundred and thirty-ninerespondents were administered the Workgroup EmotionalIntelligence Profile, a measure of group members’ emotionalintelligence when working in teams, as well as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Instrument. The results consistentlyshowed that individuals with high emotional intelligence pre-ferred to seek collaborative solutions when confronted withconflict. Implications for human resource development andorganizational change are also discussed.

A growing number of scholars suggest emotional intelligence has substan-tial potential as a predictor of workplace behavior in organizations and cancontribute to our understanding of relationships in the work context(Goleman, 1998; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). One element thatappears to be constant in organizations undergoing change is conflict(Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis, & Harris, 2000). Whereas researchersseparate conflict into task conflict and socio-emotional conflict (Borisoff &Victor, 1998), we advance the proposition that conflict is inherently emo-tional. If conflict involves the perception of threats to individual goals(Borisoff & Victor, 1998), then it is naturally emotional. In this article we

Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 4, No. 1 February 2002 62-79Copyright 2002 Sage Publications

� Chapter 4

at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 11, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from


empirically investigate the notion put forward by emotional intelligencescholars that individuals with high emotional intelligence may be moreeffective in resolving conflict than individuals with low emotional intelli-gence (Goleman, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). We then move on to exam-ine the implications for human resource development in organizations.

To assist with conceptualizing the relationships that emerge in organiza-tions between emotion and organizational change, Callahan and McCollum(2002 [this issue]) have identified a new model for considering emotion man-agement in organizations. By combining psychological and sociologicalapproaches, they have provided a broad platform for considering the role ofemotions in human resource development. Similar to Short and Yorks’(2002 [this issue]) article, we will be conceptualizing emotion as a force tobe managed in our examination of the links between emotional intelligenceand conflict resolution. However, unlike the other chapters in this issue, weare focusing on emotion and organizational change at the micro-level oforganizational behavior. We believe that a micro-focus is equally valuableas research into the emotional implications of large organizational change. Inan era in which the benefits of continuous change are extolled as contributing toinnovation in organizations (Senge, 1992), it is appropriate to examine changeat the micro-level, the primary site of continuous change (Senge, 1992).

Although there has been considerable research conducted into conflict inorganizations over an extensive period (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Walton &Dutton, 1969), interest regarding the role of emotions in organizations hasbeen much more recent (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Ashkanasy,Härtel, & Zerbe, 2000; Fineman, 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).Existing research into emotions in the workplace has focused on issues suchas emotional labor (Hochschild, 1979; Morris & Feldman, 1996), emotionalexpression and organizational culture (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989), orga-nizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990), feelings in work settings(Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1989), emotions and work motivation (e.g., George &Brief, 1992, 1996; Isen & Baron, 1991; Locke & Latham, 1990), generalmood and work satisfaction (Forgas, 1995), and the type of emotions experi-enced at work (Fisher, 1997). Emotions have also been shown to determineaffect-driven behaviors such as impulsive acts, organizational citizenshipbehaviors, and transient effort (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). However, inthe main, this work has focused on the role of emotion as it influences theattitudes and behaviors of individual workers. It would seem appropriate toextend this research to include a consideration of the implications for humanresource development.

Emotional IntelligenceIn the early 1990s, Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined the emotional

intelligence construct as involving the ability of an individual to monitor

Jordan, Troth / EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 63



one’s own and others’emotions, to discriminate among the positive and neg-ative effects of emotion, and to use emotional information to guide one’sthinking and actions. In later work, Mayer and Salovey (1997) argued thatemotional intelligence is differentiated from other forms of intelligence(e.g., Gardner’s [1983] constructs of interpersonal or intrapersonal intelli-gence) because it deals specifically with the management of emotions andemotional content. This conceptualization fits within the framework pro-vided by Callahan and McCollum (2002) regarding the consideration ofemotion as a force to be managed. Although there is broad agreement thatemotional awareness and emotional control are core factors of emotionalintelligence, there is also disagreement over other factors that contribute tothe construct (Mayer et al., 2000). For instance, Mayer and Salovey’s (1997)conceptualization of emotional intelligence focuses on emotional abilitiesthat link emotion and cognition, whereas Goleman’s (1995) broader defini-tion incorporates social and emotional competencies, including some per-sonality traits and attitudes.

The current study adopts Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model of emotionalintelligence that encompasses (a) perception, (b) assimilation, (c) under-standing, and (d) management of emotions. This model emphasizes thatemotional intelligence is a multidimensional construct and that these foursteps are iterative, rather than linear. Perception refers to an ability to beself-aware of emotions and to express emotions and emotional needs accu-rately to others. A part of this self-awareness is the ability to distinguishbetween accurate and inaccurate expressions of emotions, and honest anddishonest expressions of emotions. Assimilation refers to an individual’sability to use emotions to prioritize thinking by focusing on important infor-mation that explains why feelings are being experienced. This factor alsoincludes the ability to adopt multiple perspectives to assess a problem fromall sides, including pessimistic and optimistic perspectives. Understanding,the third component of emotional intelligence, refers to an individual’s abil-ity to understand complex emotions such as simultaneous feelings of loyaltyand betrayal. This factor also refers to an ability to recognize the likely tran-sitions between emotions, for example, moving from feelings of betrayal tofeelings of anger and grief. Finally, emotional management revolves aroundthe regulation of emotions. That is, an individual’s ability to connect or dis-connect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation.For example, when faced with what is perceived as a personal injustice dur-ing a change program, an individual’s feelings of anger may motivate or dis-tract them from completing a specific task. The individual with high emo-tional intelligence would be able to connect to their anger and regulate it tomotivate their performance, whereas an individual with low emotional intel-ligence may allow anger to consume their thoughts and dwell on the injus-tice that may have precipitated their anger in the first place. Each of these

64 Advances in Developing Human Resources Februar y 2002



abilities has implications for human resource development and, in particu-lar, how individuals manage change.

Some of the abilities related to emotional intelligence have been shown to becapable of influencing workplace behaviors. For instance, self-awarenesshas been shown to contribute to a leader’s performance (Sosik & Megerian,1999), whereas emotional regulation has been considered a prerequisite formaintaining relationships in the workplace (Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman,1998). Measures of emotional intelligence have also been linked to perfor-mance in managerial inbox tests (Daus & Tuholski, 2000) and performancein selection interviews (Fox, 2000). In line with these studies, we alsoexpect that various components of emotional intelligence will influence anemployee’s preferred style of conflict resolution behavior and that this willcontribute to a better understanding of organizational performance and itsdeterminants. For instance, a finding that emotional intelligence predicts aspecific style of conflict resolution could provide important information formanagers in allocating jobs to staff during the implementation of a changeprogram or in determining employees who need assistance to manage thechange process.

The Role of Emotional IntelligenceDuring Organizational Change

With regard to organizational phenomena, there is probably no greaterpotential for emotion-eliciting events than organizational change, whetherthe transformation is a major restructure or minor reorganization(Mossholder et al., 2000). Change can trigger a wide range of positive (e.g.,excitement, creativity) and negative responses (e.g., anger, anxiety, cyni-cism, resentment, resignation) and thus pose significant challenges both tothose who implement and those who are affected by the change (O’Neill &Lenn, 1995). However, whereas human resource development theory tendsto focus on cognition and emergent attitudes rather than emotion (e.g.,Brockner, 1988; Brockner, Grover, Reed, & DeWitt, 1992), the small bodyof research that has emerged examining the role of emotion during organiza-tional change has largely focussed on emotional responses or reactions anddownplayed the associated cognitive processes (O’Neill & Lenn, 1995).The emotional response and reaction approaches taken to date reflect thepower or structure quadrants described by Callahan and McCollum (2002)in this issue.

As mentioned earlier, we believe that emotional intelligence, which con-ceptualizes significant links between emotions and cognition (Salovey &Mayer, 1990), also provides a useful theoretical framework to examine anindividual’s adjustment to organizational change. Except for Huy’s (1999)theoretical model suggesting that emotional intelligence assists individual




adaptation and change in the form of receptivity, mobilization, and learning,no other publications have investigated the links between this construct andchange-related behaviors. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical evidencelinking emotional intelligence to workplace behaviors in general (Huy,1999; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). One of the aims of the current study is toaddress this empirical deficit. Similar to Huy, our thinking is grounded inthe social interactionist perspective (Hochschild, 1979) and falls within theinterpretative quadrant of Callahan and McCollum’s (2002) model. That is,we assume that individuals can manage and make sense of their own andothers’ emotions and thus effect social relation outcomes tied to micro-organizational change such as conflict resolution.

Conflict During Organizational ChangeConflict in organizations, if managed correctly, can be a source of

improved organizational outcomes (Brown, 1983). Organizations in whichfunctional conflict is a part of the culture tend to be more creative andresponsive to clients and have higher employee job satisfaction. In line withthis, it is conceivable that an organization that encourages constructive con-flict, allowing both parties to express their needs and opinions to reach a col-laborative solution or compromise, might be more receptive to change. Nev-ertheless, the literature shows that employees tend to resist organizationalchange in general (e.g., Judson, 1991; Odiorne, 1981; Strebel, 1996).Employee resistance to management initiatives is linked to dysfunctionalconflict during organizational change and associated with negative out-comes such as job dissatisfaction and expressed grievances (Kirkman,Jones, & Shapiro, 2000). Identifying factors that might moderate thischange resistance in the form of dysfunctional conflict would be beneficial.In the following sections, we propose that emotional intelligence will pro-mote the use of constructive conflict resolution strategies and diminish thelikelihood of destructive conflict strategies. Therefore, empirical evidenceobtained to support this link might indicate the potential value of anemployee’s emotional intelligence as an indicator of organizational suc-cess, and more specifically, success during organizational change.

Sternberg and Soriano (1984) argued that workers have an underlyingpreferred style for dealing with conflict situations. Thomas (1977) identi-fied the following five styles of conflict resolution, which are determined byhow cooperative and assertive an individual is in a conflict situation: (a) forc-ing or competing, having a focus on winning the conflict; (b) avoiding, with-drawing from a conflict, and allowing the other party to gain all demands;(c) accommodating, making concessions in a conflict situation; (d) compro-mising; based on giving concessions, and (e) collaborating, seeking mutu-ally advantageous gains by both parties.




Considerable research has been conducted into conflict resolution strate-gies and their impact in the workplace. For instance, in examining genderroles and conflict in the workplace, Tannen (1994) found that workers aregenerally dissatisfied in situations in which one party dominates a workingrelationship. This suggests that conflict resolved through competition,accommodation, or avoidance has negative consequences for ongoingworking relationships and ensuing implications for post-change work per-formance. It is possible that this type of behavior may emerge from theinability of an individual to control their emotions. On the other hand,Jamieson and Thomas (1974) found that compromise is an appropriateaction when time and resources are limited. For the emotionally intelligentindividual, compromise in the appropriate circumstances may be a sign oftheir ability to recognize and regulate their emotions to enhance the relation-ship with their fellow workers and to achieve their goals during times ofchange. Similarly, we contend that higher levels of emotional intelligencemay facilitate collaborative and problem-solving behavior, in which emo-tions are both controlled and generated to develop new solutions that satisfyboth parties’ needs.

Emotional Intelligence and Conflict ResolutionThe links between an individual’s preferred style of conflict resolution

and their level of emotional intelligence is the focus of the present study.Goleman (1998) suggested that individuals with high emotional intelli-gence will have superior conflict resolution skills, engaging in greater col-laboration. This assertion is based on the belief that individuals with highemotional intelligence work to maintain relationships. Although not specif-ically referring to styles of conflict resolution, Cooper and Sawaf (1997)and Bar-On, Brown, Kirkcaldy, and Thome (2000) considered flexibility inresponse a hallmark of emotional intelligence, that is, a response commen-surate with the situation. Taken together, these theorists suggested that theemotionally intelligent individual may adopt a range of conflict resolutionstyles depending on the situation.

To date, no empirical research has been conducted to determine if there isa link between emotional intelligence and preferred styles of conflict reso-lution. In their research, Salovey and Mayer (1990) identified emotionalintelligence as including the ability to problem solve using both emotionaland cognitive abilities. Not all styles of conflict resolution combine emo-tional and cognitive elements. For instance, whereas forcing and compro-mise can use emotional elements, these styles of conflict resolution are pri-marily cognitive activities in which the individual is looking to gain orconcede a position (Borisoff & Victor, 1998). It is also possible that otherstyles such as avoiding or accommodating may be influenced primarily by




emotional antecedents such as fear (Borisoff & Victor, 1998). We contendthat when faced with a conflict situation, collaboration may be a principalmethod of problem solving for individuals with high emotional intelligence.Collaboration involves both cognitive ability to assist in the formation ofsuperordinate goals and creative solutions (Thomas, 1977) and emotionalabilities to recognize others’ emotional requirements and to control one’sown emotions in the pursuit of these superordinate goals.

In summary, we expect people with higher levels of emotional intelli-gence to engage in higher levels of compromising and collaborating stylesof conflict resolution because of their ability to be aware of and manage theemotions of themselves and others. On the other hand, we expect individualswith lower levels of emotional intelligence to endorse the less effectivestrategies of forcing and avoidance. Therefore, this study has been designedas an exploratory study to determine whether emotional intelligence islinked to preferred styles of conflict resolution and, if so, which components ofemotional intelligence will be most salient in predicting conflict behavior.

In light of the previous articles in this issue, we believe our empiricaldesign and focus on micro-organizational change provides a useful exten-sion and valuable alternative perspective to the other articles in this issue.As discussed earlier, a micro-view of change might be useful in an environ-ment in which the benefits of continuous change are promoted to make ourorganizations innovative (Senge, 1992). Finally, an empirical approach tothis topic provides a basis on which further quantitative research can be con-ducted into emotion and organizational change outcomes.

Method

Respondents

The participants in this study were 139 students enrolled in an introduc-tory management course. The average age of the respondents was 21.5 years(ranging from 17-55 years), and 54.5% were female. The majority of stu-dents had full-time or part-time work experience. Although the participants’experiences of conflict resolution in a work setting were limited, the samplewas considered appropriate for an exploratory study.

Measures

Emotional intelligence. Respondents’ emotional intelligence was assessedby asking participants to complete the 36-item self-reporting section of theWorkgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile—Version 6 (WEIP6) (Jordan,Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, in press). The measure employs a 7-point




response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) withitems such as, “I am aware of my own feelings when working in a team,” and “Iam able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling.” TheWEIP6 captures the two dimensions of Ability to Deal With Own Emotions(Scale 1) and Ability to Deal With Others’Emotions (Scale 2) discerned by Jor-dan et al. (in press). Alpha reliability coefficients of .81 (Self) and .85 (Other) wereadequate, and the two scales were significantly correlated at r = .46, p < .01.

Scales 1 and 2 can further be delineated into 5 subscales. Scale 1 com-prises the subscales Ability to Control Own Emotions (6 items, α = .72),Ability to Discuss Own Emotions (Knowledge) (4 items, α = .83), and Abil-ity to Recognize Own Emotions (5 items, α = .77). Scale 2 comprises thesubscales Ability to Manage Others’Emotions (6 items, α = .84) and Abilityto Recognize Others’ Emotions (6 items, α = .77). These scales conform toMayer and Salovey’s description of the emotional intelligence construct(Jordan, 2000).

Conflict resolution. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Instrument(Kilmann & Thomas, 1977) was used to assess respondents’behavior in conflictsituations—episodes in which the interests of two people appear incompatible.The Conflict Model Instrument captures a person’s conflict behavior along twodimensions: (a) assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to sat-isfy his or her concerns, and (b) cooperativeness, the extent to which the individ-ual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. The Conflict Model Instru-ment presents 30 conflict situations, each with two behavioral response options.Respondents are asked to indicate which option would be most characteristic oftheir behavior in each situation with items such as, “I might try to soothe the oth-ers’feeling and preserve our relationship,” “I press to get my point made,” and “Itry to find a compromise solution.” The behavioral responses tap one of five con-flict resolution strategies defined by the two basic dimensions: Forcing (asser-tive and uncooperative), Accommodating (unassertive and uncooperative),Avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), Collaborating (assertive and cooper-ative), and Compromising (intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperative).Possible scores for each conflict strategy ranged from 0 through 12.

To test gender effects on the conflict resolution scales, a series of 1-wayANOVAs revealed significant main effects for Forcing, F (2, 96) = 4.42, p <.01; Collaboration, F (2, 96) = 3.48, p < .05; and Compromise, F (2, 96) =3.35, p < .05. Men were more likely to report use of force, whereas womenreported more use of collaboration and compromise. No gender effects werefound for Avoidance or Accommodation, Fs < 1.

ResultsTable 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the

WEIP6 and the conflict resolution scales. As expected, significant correla-




tions were found between Ability to Deal With Own Emotions (Scale 1),Ability to Deal With Others’ Emotions (Scale 2), and the total WEIP6 scale.An investigation of the means shows that collaboration is the preferred styleof conflict resolution for the sample. Detailed analysis of the subscales ofthe WEIP6 revealed the significant associations between Collaboration andthe WEIP6 subscales of Awareness of Own Emotions, r = .28, p < .05; Dis-cussion of Own Emotions, r = .40, p < .01; Control of Own Emotions, r = .39,p < .01; Recognition of Others’ Emotions, r = .36, p < .01; and Managementof Others’ Emotions, r = .46, p < .001. This pattern of results strongly sug-gests that individuals with higher levels of emotional intelligence are morelikely, or are more able, to engage in collaborative conflict resolution.

A detailed examination of the subscales of the WEIP6 also reveals signif-icant negative correlations between respondents’ability to control their ownemotions and Force, r = -.22, p < .05, and Avoidance, -.24, p < .05. It appearsthat individuals who report less control of their own emotions will engage ingreater use of the conflict resolution strategies of forcefulness and avoid-ance. On the other hand, a positive correlation of r = .24, p < .05, was foundbetween Management of Others’ Emotions and Forcefulness.

Given the strong univariate links found between emotional intelligenceindicators and the conflict strategy of collaboration, a hierarchical regres-sion analysis was conducted to assess the relative importance of the emo-tional intelligence scales (Scales 1 and 2) in predicting collaboration (seeTable 2). Gender was entered at Step 1 as a control variable because of ear-lier analyses showing respondent gender influences the amount of collabo-ration. However, gender did not emerge as a significant predictor of collabo-ration in the regression analysis. At Step 2, addition of Scales 1 and 2(Ability to Deal With Own Emotions, Ability to Deal With Others’ Emo-tions) resulted in a significant increase in explained variance. This effectwas attributable to the Scale 1 score; higher values on Scale 1 were associ-ated with greater use of collaboration, whereas Scale 2 was not a significantpredictor of collaboration. The overall regression equation at the final stepwas statistically significant with Multi R = .55, R2 = .30, Adjusted R2 = .28,F (2, 48) = 6.88, p < .001.

Given that Scale 1 (Ability to Deal With Own Emotions) emerged as thesignificant predictor of collaboration in the previous regression, a furtherhierarchical regression was conducted to assess the relative importance ofthe subscales of this dimension in predicting collaboration (see Table 3). AtStep 1, entry of the control variable of gender failed to predict reliably. How-ever, the addition of the emotional intelligence self subscales at Step 2—Awareness of Own Emotions, Discussion of Own Emotions, and Control ofOwn Emotions—resulted in a statistically significant increase in theamount of variance in collaboration. Scores on both Discussion of OwnEmotions and Control of Own Emotions emerged as significant predictors,




71

TABLE 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the Major Scales of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile—Version 6 (WEIP6) and Conflict Resolution

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Ability to Deal With OwnEmotions 74.61 10.14 1.00

2. Ability to Deal With Others’Emotions 57.99 8.37 0.58** 1.00

3. Self WEIP total 130.94 18.20 0.91** 0.86** 1.004. Force 4.64 2.65 –0.03 0.12 0.02 1.005. Collaborate 6.84 2.33 0.47** 0.47** 0.53** –0.20* 1.006. Compromise 8.27 2.04 0.04 0.14 0.09 –0.25** –0.02 1.007. Avoid 8.08 2.22 –0.20 –0.05 –0.12 –0.29** -0.16 –0.04 1.008. Accommodate 6.75 2.13 –0.01 –0.09 –0.08 –0.26** –0.25** –0.07 0.05 1.00

*p < .05. **p < .01.

at UN

IVE

RS

ITY

OF

BR

IGH

TO

N on July 11, 2014

adh.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


with high scores on both subscales being associated with greater collabora-tion. Awareness of Own Emotions did not emerge as a significant predictor.With Multi R = .52, R2 = .27, and Adjusted R2 = .23, the overall regressionequation was statistically significant, F (4, 51) = 4.80, p < .01.

DiscussionA clear pattern of results was found in the current study between individ-

ual styles of conflict resolution and emotional intelligence. As expected, thepositive links found between collaboration and both WEIP6 scales suggestindividuals with higher levels of emotional intelligence are more likely, orare more able, to engage in collaborative conflict resolution. Conversely,individuals with lower levels of emotional intelligence were more likely toengage in greater use of the conflict resolution strategies of forcefulness andavoidance. These results strongly support Mayer and Salovey’s (1997)


TABLE 2: Prediction of Collaboration With Gender,Scale 1,and Scale 2 as Independ-ent Variables

Predictor r �

Step 1 R2 = .03 F (1, 50) = 1.13Gender .16 .16

Step 2 R2 (change) = .28 F (change) = 9.45**Gender .16 .17Scale 1 (Ability to Deal With

Own Emotions) .49 .32**Scale 2 (Ability to Deal With

Others’ Emotions) .46 .26

**p < .01.

TABLE 3: Prediction of Collaboration With Gender, Awareness of Own Emotions,Discussion of Own Emotions, and Control of Own Emotions as Independ-ent Variables

Predictor R

Step 1 R2 = .03 F (1, 54) = 1.77Gender .18 .24

Step 2 R2 (change) = .23 F (change) = 5.23**Gender .18 .19Awareness of own emotions .25 –.05Discussion of own emotions .38 .28*Control of own emotions .39 .33*

**p < .01.



model of emotional intelligence, as effective and appropriate conflict man-agement skills rely strongly on an individual’s skills of self-managementand the ability to find solutions without negative affect (Carlopio,Andrewartha, & Armstrong, 1997).

Nevertheless, the finding that Ability to Deal With Own Emotions (Scale 1),and not Ability to Deal With Others’ Emotions (Scale 2), emerged as thesalient predictor of collaboration in the regression analysis was unexpected.In the literature (e.g., Canary & Cupach, 1988; Canary & Spitzberg, 1987),collaboration is the conflict resolution strategy that relies most on an indi-vidual’s ability to deal with the opinions and rights of others, as well as theirown, to achieve a win-win outcome. Therefore, it was expected that bothScale 1 and Scale 2 would emerge as significant predictors of collaboration.However, the null result regarding Ability to Deal With Others’ Emotionsmay be due to the limited power for the multivariate analysis conducted. Anexamination of Table 2 shows that Ability to Deal With Others’ Emotionshad a reasonable beta weight, β = .26, which may have been significant witha greater number of participants in the study.

The results of the current study further revealed that when the relativeimportance of the subscales of Ability to Deal With Own Emotions wasassessed, Discussion and Control of Own Emotions emerged as salient pre-dictors of collaboration. It appears that when individuals are attempting toachieve mutually advantageous gains for both parties in a conflict situation,their ability to be assertive and cooperative (the two main characteristics ofcollaboration) are linked primarily to their ability to discuss and controltheir own emotions, rather than to their initial emotional awareness. In termsof workplace applications, this result suggests that employees who aretaught emotional management and discussion skills within organizationsmight be better equipped to deal with and resolve conflict situations in theirday-to-day work.

Implications for Human ResourceDevelopment Practitioners

Our findings point to the potential of emotional intelligence to predict arange of interpersonal qualities in the workplace that may contribute to suc-cessful organizational change. Based on our research outlined in this chap-ter, it is clear that the different components of emotional intelligence (Abil-ity to Deal With Own Emotions and Ability to Deal With Others’ Emotions)are more closely aligned with collaborative conflict resolution techniquesthan with competition or avoidance. Collaboration can be linked to a rangeof skills that are useful for management and employees during change epi-sodes. These include mediation skills, leadership style, and the use of socialnetworks at work. This then provides the human resource development prac-




titioner with a profile of individuals who may be able to successfully man-age their emotions and work though change processes.

In addition, Salovey and Mayer (1990) pointed out that emotional intelli-gence is not fixed for life and that emotional intelligence may be improvedwith suitable training (see also Goleman, 1995). In recent research, Jordanet al. (in press) have demonstrated that coaching can improve the effective-ness of low emotional intelligence teams so that their performance is func-tionally identical to that of high emotional intelligence teams. In thisrespect, our research suggests that the emotions that are generated during anorganizational change process may be managed by providing employeeswith the necessary skills to manage those emotions. In this regard, emo-tional intelligence improvement programs may be a means by which humanresource development practitioners can provide employees with additionalskills to address conflict in the workplace.

Limitations and Future DirectionsIt is important to acknowledge several limitations with this study that

offer direction for researchers interested in exploring the relationshipbetween emotional intelligence and conflict behaviors in an organizationalchange context further. First, our sample consisted of undergraduate stu-dents in an introductory management course. Given that the average age ofthe respondents is 21.5 years, it is possible that they have relatively little lifeexperience. If emotional intelligence is a result of maturity, the sample mayhave less variance in emotional intelligence and lower levels overall com-pared to experienced workers. Furthermore, it is possible that the modes ofconflict resolution that students in this sample would most likely choosefrom are restricted given their experience. To boost the generalizability ofour findings, it would be highly desirable to measure employees’ conflictbehaviors during change in an organizational context and then examine howthese strategies link to emotional intelligence.

The measurement of students’ preferred resolution style is also limiting,given that conflict scholars argue that the most effective conflict resolutionstrategy is contingent on the situation (Borisoff & Victor, 1998). Collabora-tion is not always the most effective strategy. It depends on the situation,especially because collaboration is the most time and energy intensive of thefive strategies. In the spirit of “choosing one’s battles wisely,” conflict reso-lution scholars argue that collaboration may be most effective when conflictmatters greatly to you, whereas accommodation or compromise may be themost effective when the conflict matters greatly to the other party but mat-ters little to you. Indeed, Hooijberg’s (1996) work on leader behavioral flex-ibility among managers showed that more effective managers had a largerrepertoire of leader behavior than did less effective managers. Given that




“flexibility in response” is also a hallmark of emotional intelligence (Bar-On et al., 2000; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997), that is, a response commensuratewith the situation, it might be fruitful to follow Hooijberg’s lead and exam-ine behavioral flexibility in the context of emotional intelligence and con-flict resolution. It is conceivable that individuals with higher emotionalintelligence, like Hooijberg’s highly effective managers, have a larger rep-ertoire of conflict resolution strategies at their disposal that would be partic-ularly useful during organizational change.

Furthermore, the study reported here is only intended as an exploratorystudy of the links between emotional intelligence and preferred styles ofconflict resolution. As such, we can only speculate how emotional intelli-gence will determine the respondent’s behaviors in a conflict situation. Webelieve a longitudinal study, conducted before and after organizationalchange, would enable researchers to tease out the nature of the emotionalintelligence–conflict behavior relationship further. Perhaps an alternate andmore amenable design may be to incorporate a pretest/posttest emotionalintelligence skills training package and examine the effect this has on con-flict behavior during change.

Finally, we believe it would be fruitful to move beyond the examinationof the emotional intelligence–conflict link at the individual level. A com-mon change in organizations is the move toward self-managing work teams(SMWTs), which have been linked to conflict (Kirkman et al., 2000). Aninteresting research direction would be to examine the links between emo-tional intelligence and conflict behaviors in SMWTs with the team as a unitof analysis. Incorporation of self-other agreement in this area might also beinteresting, particularly regarding the Ability to Deal With Others’ Emo-tions subscale that constitutes the second WEIP scale. It is conceivable thatthere would be greater agreement between high emotional intelligence indi-viduals and others (compared with low emotional intelligence individualsand others) on this score and that this would have implications for teaminteractions that would be particularly salient during organizational change.

ConclusionThe current study was limited to assessing preferred conflict resolution

styles in a general context. Yet, our results strongly suggest that moreresearch within workplace samples might be fruitful. More specifically, itwould be beneficial to measure employees’ conflict resolution strategies interms of specific workplace change scenarios and examine how these strate-gies link to emotional intelligence. Our findings also suggest the potential ofemotional intelligence to predict a range of interpersonal qualities in theworkplace during organizational change. Indeed, it might be worthwhile toinvestigate how the different components of emotional intelligence (ability




to deal with own emotions and ability to deal with others’ emotions) differ-entially link to other interpersonal skills needed by management andemployees in the workplace during organizational change, such as media-tion skills, leadership style, and the use of social networks at work.

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, contin-uance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psy-chology, 63, 1-18.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.Human Relations, 48, 97-125.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C.E.J., & Zerbe, W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Emotions in the work-place: Research, theory, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Bar-On, R., Brown, J. M., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Thome, E. P. (2000). Emotional expressionand implications for occupational stress: An application of the Emotional QuotientInventory (EQ - i). Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1107-1118.

Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict management: A communication skillsapproach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brockner, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors’reactions: Research, theory,and practice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 213-255.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. F., & DeWitt, R. L. (1992). Layoffs, job insecurity, andsurvivors’ work effort: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 35, 413-425.

Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Callahan, J. L., & McCollum, E. E. (2002). Conceptualizations of emotional behavior inorganizational contexts. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 4-21.

Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associatedwith conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305-325.

Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptionsof conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.

Carlopio, J., Andrewartha, G., & Armstrong, H. (1997). Developing management skillsin Australia. Sydney, Australia: Addison Wesley.

Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadershipand organizations. New York: Grossett Putnam.

Daus, C. S., & Tuholski, S. (2000). Emotional intelligence, cognitive ability and mood:Their interactive influence on task performance. In P. J. Jordan, Emotional intelli-gence at work: Does it make a difference? A symposium conducted at the Academy ofManagement Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

Fineman, S. (Ed.). (2000). Emotion in organisations (Vol. 2). London: Sage.Fisher, C. D. (1997). Emotions at work: What do people feel and how should we measure

it? (Discussion Paper No. 63). Gold Coast, Australia: Bond University.




Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 117, 39-66.

Fox, S. (2000). Where’s the intelligence in “emotional intelligence”? In P. J. Jordan,Emotional intelligence at work: Does it make a difference?. A symposium conductedat the Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:Basic Books.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A conceptual analysis ofthe mood at work–organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,112, 310-329.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effectsof feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 18, 75-109.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:Bantam.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.Hochschild, A. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rule, and social structure. American Jour-

nal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of

the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49, 917-946.Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change.

Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 1-53.Jamieson, D. W., & Thomas, K. W. (1974). Power and conflict in student-teacher rela-

tionships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10, 321-336.Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal

study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 44, 238-251.

Jordan, P. J. (2000). Measuring emotional intelligence in the workplace: A comparison ofself and peer ratings of emotional intelligence. In P. J. Jordan (Ed.), Emotional intelli-gence at work: Does it make a difference? A symposium presented at the Academy ofManagement Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C.E.J., & Hooper, G. (in press). Workgroup emo-tional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectivenessand goal focus. Human Resource Management Review.

Judson, S. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance tochange. Cambridge, MA: Basis Blackwell.

Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.Sterling Forest, NY: Xicom.

Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams?Examining the “resistance barrier” to work team effectiveness. International Journalof Conflict Management, 11(1), 74-92.




Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucraticimpersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469.

Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educa-tors (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelli-gence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396-420). New York:Cambridge.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents and consequencesof emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2000). Emotionduring organizational transformations: An interactive model of survivor reactions.Group and Organization Management, 25(3), 220-243.

Odiorne, G. S. (1981). The change resisters: How they prevent progress and what manag-ers can do about them. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

O’Neill, H. M., & Lenn, D. J. (1995). Voices of survivors: Words that downsizing CEOsshould hear. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 23-34.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Acad-emy of Management Review, 12, 23-37.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life.Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1-42.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Per-sonality, 9, 185-211.

Senge, P. (1992). The fifth discipline. Milsons Point, Australia: Random House.Short, D. C., & Yorks, L. (2002). Analyzing training from an emotional perspective.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 80-96.Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and

performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership per-ceptions. Group and Organization Management, 24, 367-390.

Sternberg, R. J., & Soriano, L. J. (1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 115-126.

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3),8692.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Thomas, K. W. (1977). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), The

handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 839-935). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). “Real feelings”: Emotional expression and organi-zational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103.




Walton, R. E., & Dutton, J. M. (1969). The management of interdepartmental conflict: Amodel and review. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 73-84.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussionof the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Researchin Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.




Documents

Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution: Implications for Human Resource Development