Constructive Conflict

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) 126 –136

© The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430212439907

gpir.sagepub.com

Article

G P I R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Article

439907 XXX10.1177/1368430212439907Schlaerth et al.Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2013

1Alliant International University, USA 2University of Birmingham, UK

Corresponding author: Julie Christian, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK Email: [email protected]

Emotional intelligence (EI) plays a significant role in positive workplace outcomes, such as company rank and salary increases (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001), job performance (Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006), as well as managing conflict constructively (e.g., Bodtker & Jameson, 2001). EI enables leaders to regulate their emotions so as to cope effectively with stress and adjust to organizational changes (Lopes et al., 2006). While there has been consid- erable scientific interest in the relationship between EI, constructive conflict management and leadership, there remains a lack of consistent

outcome, and clear evidence as to when these variables interact (Harms & Credé, 2010; Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Daus, 2008). That is, “Does EI predict constructive conflict management?” and if so “Is this relationship stronger for leaders

A meta-analytical review of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leaders’ constructive conflict management

Andrea Schlaerth,1 Nurcan Ensari1 and Julie Christian2

Abstract In this paper, we report the findings of a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and constructive conflict management, and the moderational role of leadership position and age. A total of 20 studies yielding 280 effect sizes and involving 5,175 participants were examined. The results supported the hypothesis that EI is positively associated with constructive conflict management, and this relationship was stronger for subordinates than leaders. Contrary to our predictions, age was not a significant moderator. The limitations and implications are discussed in terms of psychometric issues, use of EI in leadership development and facilitation of problem solving, and for the further development of a constructive organizational culture.

Keywords emotional intelligence, conflict management, constructive conflict management, leaders, meta-analysis

Paper received 08 August 2011; revised version accepted 26 January 2012.

Schlaerth et al. 127

than non-leaders?” The present meta-analysis sought to provide a systematic review of the rela- tionship between EI and conflict management, the moderating roles of leadership position and age, in an effort to distill best practices that might apply across a wide-range of organizational settings. Although the conflict management con- struct includes both destructive and constructive domains (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2008), this meta-analysis focuses only on constructive con- flict management, specifically what works well in organizations when managing human capital, because (a) past research emphasized the impor- tance of the relationship between EI and collabo- rative conflict resolution strategies (e.g., Jordan & Troth, 2002a); (b) understanding constructive conflict management is key to leadership effec- tiveness because leaders are expected to encour- age and reinforce constructive conflict management practices and strategies; (c) it is becoming increas- ingly important to shift “the predominant negative bias of traditional psychology” (Sheldon & King, 2001, p. 216) to the applications of positive approaches in the workplace, and to encourage leadership potential and strength in using positive approaches while resolving conflicts in organizations.

Emotional intelligence and conflict management EI has been defined as the individual’s “ability to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustra- tions; to control impulses and delay gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize and to hope” (Goleman, 1995, p. 34). Its main dimen- sions are: (1) the ability to accurately perceive emotions, (2) use of emotions in facilitating thought, (3) understanding emotions, and (4) managing emotions for personal growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). EI creates abilities that improve work outcomes in many ways: It increases the level of awareness of leaders, enables them to identify, use, understand and manage their emo- tions and the emotions of others, improves leader- member relationships, and thereby increases success at work (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). EI skills

contribute to leaders’ ability to manage and monitor their own emotions, to correctly gauge the emotional state of others and to influence their opinions (Goleman, 1998).

Trustworthiness is an important component of EI. Lack of EI causes leaders to lose the trust of their employees. In Goleman’s model of EI (1995), one of the dimensions of EI is self-man- agement or self-regulation which is the ability to keep disruptive emotions and impulses while maintaining standards of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. Leaders with strong EI convey trust within the workplace which fosters con- structive attitudes within and between groups, and exude honesty and the importance of other viewpoints and opinions from their decision- making (Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Furthermore, leaders with strong EI find ways to further increase team effectiveness and intellectual growth by minimizing barriers to information; they are willing to equally bear the burdens of work, and they seem to reflect on constructive discontent (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Brown, Bryant, & Reilly, 2006; Cooper, 1997; Fambrough & Hart, 2008; Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Thus, EI enables leaders to harness emotions and manage them effectively, consequently develop effective leader-subordi- nate relationships (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Yammarino & Atwater, 1997).

Past studies showed that leaders with higher levels of EI were more likely, or more able, to engage in functional confrontation with employ- ees and groups, which is called constructive conflict management (Jordan & Troth, 2002a, 2002b). There are mainly six dimensions of con- structive conflict management: (1) Collaborative/ Integrating dimension refers to retaining high con- cern for self and others, strong cooperation and assertiveness, and involves openness, exchange of information, and examination of differences associated with problem solving and creative solutions; (2) Confronting dimension refers to having an open and direct communication towards crea- tive problem solving; (3) Problem Solving dimension refers to expressing concerns for own and others’ problems, exchanging information about

128 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1)

priorities and preferences, insights and trade-offs between important and unimportant issues; (4) Compromising dimension refers to giving conces- sions, exhibiting cooperation and assertiveness, and giving up something to make a mutually acceptable decision; (5) Accommodating/Obliging/ Yielding/Smoothing dimension refers to showing low concern for self and high concern for others, being cooperative and unassertive, attempting to play down the differences, and emphasizing commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party; and finally (6) Productive Reaction to Conflict dimension refers to a positive and func- tional solution-oriented approach, and learning from disagreements and settling disagreements (Amason, 1996; Ayoko et al., 2008; Jordan & Troth, 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Rahim, 1983, 2011; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Rahim, Psenicka, Polychroniou, Zhao, & Chan, 2002; Van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990). Overall, constructive conflict management strategies may benefit the organiza- tion by enhancing interpersonal communication, leader-member relationship and performance (Jordan & Troth, 2002a).

Effective and appropriate conflict manage- ment relies strongly on an individual’s skills in self- management, and the ability to find constructive solutions (Jordan & Troth, 2002a). EI plays an important role in conflict management because constructive solutions may require compromise which requires an ability to recognize and regulate emotions. Furthermore, higher levels of EI may facilitate collaborative and problem-solving behavior, in which emotions are both controlled and generated to develop new solutions that satisfy both parties’ needs. On the other hand, individuals with lower levels of EI are more likely to engage in greater use of forcefulness and avoid- ance, which may signal destructive management (Goleman, 1995). Accordingly, we predicted a positive relationship between EI and constructive conflict management. More specifically, consider- ing that EI is an ability to manage own and others’ emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), we hypothe- sized that there is a positive relationship between “ability to manage own emotions” and construc- tive conflict management (Hypothesis 1a), and

“ability to manage others’ emotions” and construc- tive conflict management (Hypothesis 1b).

Potential moderators of the relationship between EI and conflict management We explored two potential moderators of the EI-constructive conflict management relationship: leadership position and age.

Leadership position Although conflict is a main function of work culture and a necessary component of a successful business (Caudron, 2000), it leads to desirable outcomes only if resolved constructively and managed effectively. The responsibility of resolving and mitigating conflicts in organizations is typically given to leaders because (a) leaders are assumed to have a significant role to play in reframing an organization’s positive value orientation (Weider- Hatfield & Hatfield, 1995); (b) by the nature of their roles and responsibilities, leaders have more opportunities to get training on how to tackle sen- sitive issues, about conflict management, group dynamics, or problem-solving skills; (c) conflict management skills of leaders improve as they get more experience in dealing with conflicts.

While leaders are willing and mostly obligated to embrace conflict management responsibilities, non-leaders in the organization are usually not prepared and not expected to deal with conflicts directly. It is not always feasible to provide equal opportunities for personal and career develop- ment (such as conflict management training) for all employees because training programs require vast financial and organizational resources. Consequently, non-leaders’ personal attributes and skills (such as their EI levels) play a major role in dealing with conflict. Employees with high EI, despite their lack of training, will better deal with conflicting situations than those with lower EI. Thus, when a conflicting situation arises, EI skills become more critical for non- leaders than for leaders who may use other resources and opportunities provided to them by their organizations. Accordingly, we hypothe- sized that the relationship between EI and

Schlaerth et al. 129

conflict management is stronger for non-leaders than leaders (Hypothesis 2).

Age As people get older, they have higher emo- tional-social intelligence, improved emotional functioning, higher degrees of differentiated emo- tional experiences, and better regulation of their emotional states (Bar-On, 2006; Carstensen, Pasu- pathi, Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000). Improvements in emotional functioning have been linked to increases in self-awareness and interpersonal skills dimensions, as well as to “develop in concert with cognitive and social skills” (Chapman & Hayslip, 2006, p. 411). As age increases, life experience increases, thereby equipping older individuals with better tools and more constructive approaches to use in a given conflict situation (Luong, Charles & Fingerman, 2011). Individuals who are 40 years and older are better able to regulate and monitor their emotions and to understand the emotions of others (Carstensen, 1992, 1995; Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Larson, DeVoe & Schoeberlein, 1989). Past research considered 40 years of age to be an acceptable cutoff to distinguish between young and old workers because “it represents the start of career maintenance stage” (Ng & Feldman, 2008, p. 393; Thornton & Dumke, 2005). Accordingly, the level of EI plays a more critical role for younger employees who are not as experienced and equipped to deal with conflicts as the older employees. Consistently, we hypothesized that the relationship between EI and constructive conflict management is stronger for younger than older employees (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Literature search A quantitative review of the existing literature studying the relationship between EI and con- structive conflict management, and the key study variables was performed. Studies were then grouped based on leader versus non-leader posi- tion, and the age of the participants. An exten- sive systematic review of the literature was conducted from September 2009 through

February 2010. This review accessed full-text studies published world-wide from 1990–2010, using electronic platforms which included the Sage Online Journal, Google Scholar search engine, and EBCOhost, PsychInfo, ProQuest Dissertation & Abstracts, Academic Search Premier, and the Business Source Complete databases. The key search terms used to locate published and unpublished reports of the exist- ing studies were: “emotional intelligence”, “lead- ership”, “conflict management”, and “constructive conflict”. A search of the refer- ence section of each relevant article provided additional studies for this research. Also, a man- ual search of key journals on conflict was also complied and used, for example the International Journal of Conflict Management.

Selection criteria The meta-analysis included only correlational studies that studied the relationships between EI and constructive conflict management. The neces- sary correlation r-statistics had to be reported in these studies. For studies in which correlation amongst these variables were reported, effect sizes were calculated by transforming each reported correlation coefficient to an effect size score by using the Comprehensive Meta Analysis (CMA) (Version 2.0) statistical software program (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009).1

Coding procedure Based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) model, EI is defined as the ability of an individual to monitor and regulate one’s own and understand other’s emotions, to discriminate among the positive and negative effects of emotion, and to use emotional information to appropriately guide one’s thinking and action. The two main dimensions of EI that the current meta-analysis coded were “Ability to Deal with Own Emotions” and “Ability to Deal with Others’ Emotions” (Jordan & Troth, 2002a). The main dependent variable coded in this meta- analysis was constructive conflict management which was operationalized as the extent to which

130 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1)

employee manages conflict using a constructive conflict management style (collaborative and integrating, accommodating, obliging, yielding, smoothing, compromising, confrontational, prob- lem-solving oriented, or productive reactions to conflict) (Amason, 1996; Ayoko et al., 2008; Jordan & Troth, 2002a, 2004; Rahim, 1983, 2011; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Rahim, Psenicka, Polychroniou, Zhao, & Chan, 2002; Van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990).

The first step in coding was to organize and catalogue the research data systematically. A master candidate list of articles was compiled. The classification was done using a priori classifi- cation of overall EI and the two main dimen- sions of EI, as well as constructive conflict management. Leadership position (leader vs. non-leader) was coded based on the category and demographics of the samples reported, including the participants’ position or organiza- tional role, job function, and level of education. Leader was operationalized as the employee who is in the position to lead a group or an organiza- tion; whereas non-leader was operationalized as the employee who does not act in a leading posi- tion in the organization. Age of the participants, as the predicted moderator, was coded based on the information provided in the “participant sections” of the studies. If a range was given, an average score was calculated and implemented.

Additional measures in the categorization of data components included sample size, unit of analysis (individual or team), type of conflict (task, relationship, or process), and type of instrument used to measure EI. Four instru- ments used to assess EI in the studies collected for this meta-analysis were: (1) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi) (Bar-On, 1995) assesses an indi- vidual’s potential to succeed in life, and meas- ures interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general mood; (2) Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) measures four competency areas, including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills; (3) Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Version 2.0 (Mayer, Salovey,

Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003) measures the ability to accurately perceive emotions, use of emotions in facilitating thought, understand and manage emotions; (4) Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile––Version 6 (WEIP6) (Jordan & Troth, 2002a) assesses one’s ability to deal with, control, dis- cuss, and recognize own and others’ emotions.

The coding was completed by two coders to ensure reliability and accuracy of data entered. The coders were graduate students with post- graduate qualifications (Master’s or Doctoral degree), and they also had statistical analysis experience. The inter-rater agreement between the two coders was 98%.

Results The outcome of the literature search revealed 29 studies, including a total of 20 studies yielding 280 effect sizes and involving 5,175 participants. Of the participants, 57% of the participants were men, and 41% held a leadership position. The age range was 17–75 years. Also, more than half of the sample was drawn from organizational settings (56%); 35% of these were sampled from business settings with the majority of the remaining employees coming from the public sector (18%). International research data were used in this meta-analysis involving participants from 15 countries. All of these studies were published in English, with the exception of two that were translated from Turkish to English by a native speaking professional. We have decided to include these two articles published in Turkish because reliance only on English language publi- cations may pose potential bias in meta-analyses (Petitti, 2000).

Within the 20 studies selected form the meta- analysis, a separate effect size was calculated for each correlation. As suggested by Rosenthal (1991), each correlation coefficient r, or meta- analysis estimate index as reported by each study, was transformed to a Fisher’s z-score. To assure accuracy, and to provide an additional record of the raw data, we compiled the correlation coeffi- cients from the primary studies. This data was then input into the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Schlaerth et al. 131

(CMA) (Version 2.0) statistical software program to perform descriptive analyses and determine the overall strength and consistency of the effect. The random-effects model was selected for this meta-analysis because this model provides a more balanced weight to large and small studies in the same statistical analysis. A separate meta-analysis was performed for each hypothesis using the transformed Fisher’s z-values, which also allowed for correction of bias (Borenstein et al., 2009). The CMA statistical analysis calculated the values for the number of effect sizes (K), mean weighted effect sizes (Fisher’s z), standard error, and homo- geneity among these effect sizes (Q) for each hypothesis separately.

The mean Fisher’s z ranged from .13 to .29 across 20 studies, yielding 280 effect sizes in total (See Table 1). When examining overall EI, higher level of EI was associated with stronger con- structive conflict management (Fisher’s z = .29, p < .01). When “Ability to Deal with Own Emotions” dimension of EI was examined, it was associated with stronger constructive conflict management, supporting Hypothesis 1a (Fisher’s z = .13, p < .01). Similarly, the individual’s “Ability to Deal with Others’ Emotions” was associated with stronger constructive conflict management (Fisher’s z = .15, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was also supported.

Tests of homogeneity among these effect sizes (Q) were calculated to analyse the variability among the obtained effect sizes. The results revealed significant heterogeneity among the effect sizes of Overall EI (Q = 20.97, p = .00), and “Ability to Deal with Own Emotions” (Q = 164.48, p = .00). The results showed no signifi- cant heterogeneity among the effect sizes of “Ability to Deal with Others’ Emotions”

(Q = 83.60, p = .72). Since the homogeneity index is a possible indicator of moderating effects pre- sent in the relationship, the impact of putative moderators on the effect size should be further assessed (Borenstein et al., 2009).

Given the heterogeneity of the effect sizes, age and leadership role were tested as potential moderators for overall EI. The results of the mixed effects regression (method of moments) computation revealed that age was not a modera- tor, thus Hypothesis 3 was not supported (Q = .30, p = .59). On the other hand, leadership posi- tion position was a significant moderator (Q = 29.49, p = .0001). The relationship between over- all EI and constructive conflict management was stronger for non-leaders (Fisher’s z = .43) than for leaders (Fisher’s z = .26), thus supporting Hypothesis 2.

When additional measures were examined as potential moderators, there was no significant finding with one exception: The type of instru- ment used to measure EI marginally moderated the relationship between EI and constructive conflict management (Q = 11.10, p = .05).2 The effect sizes for each of the instruments were as follows: Fisher’s z = .50 for EIQ, Fisher’s z = .07 for EQ-I, Fisher’s z = .02 for MSCEIT, Fisher’s z = .15 for SUEIT, Fisher’s z = .29 for WEIP, and Fisher’s z = .26 for WLEIS. Thus, the highest effect sizes were found in studies that used EIQ, and the lowest effect sizes were found in studies that used MSCEIT.

Discussion Emotional competency is an essential skill in the workplace. According to Goleman (1998), those who can manage conflict effectively are “the kind

Table 1. The number of effect sizes (K), mean weighted effect sizes (Fisher’s z), standard error, and homogeneity tests (Q)

Constructive conflict dimensions

K No. of studies included

Mean Fisher’s Z

p-value for Fisher’s Z

Standard error

Q p-value for Q

Overall EI 29 12 .29 .00 .09 20.97 .00 Own EI (Hypothesis 1a) 168 16 .13 .00 .02 164.48 .00 Others’ EI (Hypothesis 1b) 83 14 .15 .00 .02 83.60 .72

132 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1)

of peacemakers vital to any organization” (p. 180). It is a necessary component of a positive organizational environment (Ybarra, Rees, Kross, & Sanches-Burks, 2012, p. 201). This meta-analy- sis examined the relationship between EI and constructive conflict management, and the mod- erational role of leadership position and age on this relationship. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Jordan & Troth, 2002a) and hypoth- eses 1a and 1b, the results showed that employees with high levels of EI (both ability to deal with own and others’ emotions) manage conflict more constructively. The results also showed that the relationship between EI and constructive conflict management is stronger for non-leaders, sup- porting Hypothesis 2. We argued that EI is a more critical skill for non-leaders who might not have opportunities to develop their conflict man- agement and resolution skills as much as those in leadership positions. Non-leaders, for example, may work within teams with strict deadline pres- sures. As a result, they need to understand the emotions of the team members, and to be able to use the necessary strategies to deal with conflicts within teams when necessary. For these people, EI skills are critical for the individual success, as well as for positive team outcomes.

Our findings suggest that constructive man- agement skills are more critical for non-leaders, because it is the followers who actually imple- ment the strategies and vision of the leader and the organization. Thus, the form and strength of the relationship among leaders and non-leaders are critical components of a successful conflict management. Therefore, future research may look at the nature of the relationships (e.g., social network, friendships at work) to better under- stand the role of leadership and followership on conflict management (Jordan et al., 2008).

We also found that age of individuals did not moderate the role of EI on constructive conflict management, disconfirming Hypothesis 3. It is possible that EI impacts conflict management equally for older and younger people for different reasons. Younger people need stronger EI skills to deal with conflicts, to develop new social

relationships that would enable them develop their careers. Older adults, however, engage in strategies that optimize positive social experiences by avoid- ing conflict (Luong et al., 2011). Additionally older individuals may not be confronted with the same daily difficulties that their younger and middle- aged counterparts are because they are generally treated more positively and forgiven more easily (Luong et al., 2011). These possibilities need fur- ther research to understand conditions and situa- tions under which EI predicts conflict management for younger or older employees.

Limitations and directions for future research One potential limitation of this study is the low number of studies included, which may poten- tially limit the power and internal validity of the aggregate data (DeCoster, 2009). Although the design of this meta-analysis required that more than a single effect size per study to be included in the analysis, not all of the effect sizes are independent. The violation of this assumption (multiple effect sizes from a single study) could have potentially affected the internal validity of the analysis (DeCoster, 2009). Individual studies with a larger number of effect sizes could have more influence on the summary effect and over- all outcome. Future studies may want to include jackknife estimates and a resampling procedure (Berk, 2006), to analyse the weight of each indi- vidual study included in the final analysis. Additional statistical analyses could assure that no sampling bias was introduced due to the dispersion in effect sizes (Borenstein et al., 2009).

Another potential limitation is the number of different instruments used to measure EI and conflict management. The lack of theory-based specification of EI is purported to hinder the con- struct validity of EI (Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler, 2006; Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004). When we compared the effects sizes by the type of EI instrument, we found that the studies that used MSCEIT produced the smallest effect sizes. Indeed, some subtests comprising the MSCEIT

Schlaerth et al. 133

fail to exhibit satisfactory levels of internal consistency reliability in past studies (e.g., Matthews et al., 2004). While researchers have been making a scientific effort to create psychometrically valid measures, there is still no single one measure that is universally accepted to assess the EI construct. Specifically, the convergent, discriminant, and pre- dictive validity of the scales has been the target of criticism. It has been questioned whether the dif- ferent instruments measure the same construct at all since little convergence across the different measures were found when assessing the psycho- metric properties of the instruments (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Harms & Credé, 2010; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Thus, it is important for future research uncovering the basis for the discrepancies in the assessment of EI.

Future research may also examine the specific sub-dimensions of different domains of EI and their relationships with conflict management. For example, how one’s level of Social Responsibility, Organizational Awareness, or Service Orientation, specific sub-dimensions of the Dealing with Others’ Emotions domain of EI, impacts interpersonal challenges and the strategies used in conflict situ- ations in a team-setting where interdependence is high. Today’s teams involve more autonomous and self-managed teamwork, thus more research will be needed to further study the dynamics of team performances and how emotions and con- flict guide team performances. Besides applying emotional intelligence and conflict into training and development venues, additional EI and conflict research could be useful for carrying out leadership and employee training. This is particu- larly the case in the areas of selection and staffing, when supporting effective recruiting and employee selection processes for team-based organizations. It must be noted, however, that studies conducted in selection and staffing will require valid and reliable instruments to avoid legal implications and adverse impact of such factors on training, leadership training and business costs.

Given the complexity of factors involved in the relationship between EI and conflict manage- ment, there may exist a number of other possible

moderating variables such as individual’s commit- ment to the team or organization, external factors related to the conflict such as conflict duration or time pressure and how they influence whether a constructive conflict strategy is applied, the group norms of the team or organizational cul- ture, cross-cultural differences, and generational differences in conflict management research. Additionally, as we mentioned above, the nature of the relationship between the leader and his/ her followers, and his/her leadership style may shape the way the leader resolves conflicts. For instance, a close friendship between a leader and his/her follower may lead to a more peaceful resolution, whereas autocratic leaders may experi- ence difficulty resolving conflicts using collabora- tion or integration. Charismatic leaders, on the other hand, are very problem-solving focused, adept at implementing constructive conflict strat- egies, and they tend to exhibit high levels of emo- tional intuition. Future research may also focus on the role of possible mediators of the relation- ship between EI and conflict resolution, such as creativity, collaborative problem-solving behav- ior, or approach/avoidance style.

Conclusion Engaging in a conflict situation through confront- ing the conflict using positive, functional, and con- structive approaches, can yield outcomes that can benefit both the individual and the organization as a whole. Accurately perceiving and managing our own emotions, and being capable of understand- ing the perspectives of others, will have a positive impact on managing conflict constructively. To some extent, this will also be buffered for non- leaders than leaders who are already trained, expected and perhaps required to use their EI skills in managing conflict constructively. Further dimensions in the psychological coupling of con- flict and emotional intelligence research abound for follow-on studies to further tap human poten- tial. It might also be useful to explore the extent to which EI training helps to aid employees as they develop within the organization, and as they culti- vate experiences and learn to manage conflicts

134 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1)

effectively. So, while this meta-analysis indicates that the relationship between EI and construc- tive conflict management is significant, further research and more empirical evidence will be needed to scientifically demonstrate the relation- ship and conditions that might facilitate the use of different strategies for employees at differing lev- els. The general take home message still seems to be, for leaders and non-leaders alike, that, by focusing on what works well in a given organiza- tional context, all employees can build and nurture a culture that expands business capacities through strengths, trust, positive orientation, motivation, and open and effective communication.

Notes Portions of this paper formed the basis of the first author’s pre-dissertation project. We would like to thank John Schlaerth and Lucy Alford for their assistance in preparing this manuscript.

1 Consistent with Akerjordet and Severinsson (2007), no longitudinal or experimental designs were included. In terms of exclusions, one explora- tory, qualitative study using personal interviews was omitted, and four duplicate studies (i.e., duplicate study of dissertation, previously published research under a different title, and same research published in a different journal) were not included.

2 We excluded two instruments that were only used in one study for this particular analysis.

3 Studies with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis data.

References

Akerjordet, K., & Severinsson, E. (2007). Emotional intelligence: A review of the literature with specific focus on empirical and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 1405–1416.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strate- gic decision-making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

*Animasahun, R. A. (2008). Predictive estimates of emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, self- efficacy and creativity skills on conflict resolution behavior among the NURTW in the South-Western Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 6, 68–74.

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247–261.

*Aslan, S. (2008). Is there any relationship between emotional intelligence and conflict handling styles? The study of validity and reliability Schutte’s EQ inventory. The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 13, 179–200.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self- other agreement on leadership perceptions mod- erate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45,141–164.

*Ayoko, O. B, Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reaction to conflict. Small Group Research, 39, 121–149.

Bar-On, R. (1995). EQ-I: The Emotional Quotient Inventory manual: A test of emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional- social intelligence (ESI), Psicothema, 18, 13–25.

Berk, R. (2006). Statistical inference and meta-analysis. Department of Statistics Papers, Department of Statistics, UCLA, UC Los Angeles. eScholarship, University of California. Retrieved from http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/6kk0w5fb.

Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation: Application to organizational conflict manage- ment. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 259–275.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343–362). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.

Brown, F., Bryant, S., & Reilly, M. (2006). Does emotional intelligence––as measured by the EQI––influence transformational leadership and/or desirable out- comes? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 330–351.

Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectiv- ity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338.

Schlaerth et al. 135

Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span the- ory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 151–156.

Carstensen, L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. (2000). Emotional experience in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 644–655.

Caudron, S. (2000). Keeping team conflict alive. Public Management, 82(2), 5–9.

Chapman, B., & Hayslip, B. (2006). Emotional intel- ligence in young and middle adulthood: Cross- sectional analysis of latent structure and means. Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 411–418.

Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training & Development, 51(12), 31–39.

DeCoster, J. (2009). Meta-Analysis Notes. Retrieved from http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html.

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 81–90.

Fambrough, M., & Hart, R. (2008). Emotions in leadership development: A critique of emotional intelligence. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(5), 740–758.

*Gambill, C. (2008). Emotional intelligence and conflict management style among Christian clergy. (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minnesota. Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3290945).

*Godse, A. S., & Thingujam, N. S. (2010). Perceived emotional intelligence and conflict resolution styles among Information Technology professionals. Singapore Management Review, 32, 69–83.

Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). An assessment of emotional intelligence: A comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86 (1), 33–45.

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

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Harms, P. D. & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intel- ligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5–17.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2008). Emotional intelligence: Rhetoric or reality? In S. Cartright, & C.L. Cooper. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Psychology (pp. 37–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

*Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002a). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 62–79.

*Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002b). Emotional intel- ligence and performance in groups. Paper presented at the International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

*Jordan, P.J., & Troth, A.C. (2004). Managing emo- tions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195–218.

Labouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., DeVoe, M., & Schoeberlein, S. (1989). Emotions and self-reg- ulation: A life span view. Human Development, 32, 279–299.

*Lee, Fen Ming (Ellen) (2003). Conflict management styles and emotional intelligence of faculty and staff at a selected college in Southern Taiwan. (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Dakota, South Dakota. Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3085443).

Lopes, P., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicotherma, 18, 132–138.

Luong, G., Charles, S. T., & Fingerman, K. L. (2011). Better with age: Social relationships across adult- hood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 9–23.

*Malek, M. (2000). Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolu- tion styles. Available from Dissertation Abstracts International, 12(05), 2805B. (UMI No. 9970564).

Matthews, G., Roberts, R., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179–196.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105.

*Morrison, Jeanne B. (2005). The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and preferred conflict-handling styles: A correlational analysis of

136 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1)

selected registered nurses in southern Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(06), 2293A. Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3179350).

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relation- ship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392–423.

*Özdemir, A. Y., & Özdemir, A. (2007). Duygusal zeka ve catisma yontemi stratejileri arasindaki iliskilerin incelenmesi: Universitede calisan akademik ve idari personel uzerine uygulama. Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 18, 393–410.

Petitti, D. B. (2000). Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of han- dling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.

Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing conflict in organizations. New Brunswick, CT: Transaction Publishers.

Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1323–1344.

*Rahim, M. A., & Minors, P. (2003). Effects of emo- tional intelligence on concern for quality and prob- lem solving. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18, 150–155.

*Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J., Yu, C., Chan, K., et al. (2002). A model of emo- tional intelligence and conflict management strate- gies: A study in seven countries. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 302–326.

*Rizkalla, L., Wertheim, E. H., & Hodgson, L. K. (2008). The roles of emotion management and per- spective taking in individuals’ conflict management styles and disposition to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1594–1601.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 6. Sage Publications, Inc.

*Salami, S. O. (2010). Conflict resolution strategies and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of trait emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 38, 75–86.

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

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.

Sheldon, K. M. & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychol- ogy is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216–217.

*Sherman, S. (2009). The correlation between critical think- ing, emotional intelligence, and conflict management modes of financial services managers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Phoenix, Arizona. Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3370943).

*Shih, H., & Susanto, E. (2007). Does emotional intel- ligence have important roles in the public organizations? A case of public organization in Indonesia. Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 1137–1150.

Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transforma- tional leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367–390.

Thornton, W.J.L. & Dumke, H. (2005). Everyday problem solving and decision making in aging: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging, 20(1), 85–99.

Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward the- ory-based measures of conflict management. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199–209.

Weider-Hatfield, D., & Hatfield, J. (1995). Relationships among conflict management styles, levels of conflict, and reactions to works, Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 687–98.

Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1997). Do managers see themselves as others see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 35–44.

Ybarra, O., Rees, L., Kross, E., & Sanches-Burks, J. (2012). Social context. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of posi- tive organizational scholarship (pp. 201–214). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

*Yu, C., Sardessai, R. M., & Lu, J. (2006). Relationship of emotional intelligence with conflict management styles: An empirical study in China. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 3, 19–29.

*Zaiton, A. M. (2006). The effects of emotional intelligence on conflict management style (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universiti Utara Malaysia. Available from eThesis.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 371–399.