USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
INSTRUCTIONS ENCLOSED IN FILE UPLOADS
One of the major challenges for managing conflict is that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. The result is that there are a number of different models and strategies that have been developed over the years. Conflict is all around us; while some are constructive, others are destructive. As a leader or a manager, it is up to you to determine when to encourage conflict and when to curb it.
Use resources from professional literature in your research. Professional literature may include the University library; relevant textbooks; peer-reviewed journal articles; and websites created by professional organizations, agencies, or institutions (.edu, .org, or .gov).
On the basis of your research and experience, in a minimum of 400 words, respond to the following points:
· In your own words, describe what is meant by constructive conflict.
· Identify and describe an example from your personal or professional experience where you were part of constructive conflict.
· Next, discuss the steps a leader can take to encourage or foster constructive conflict to increase organizational functionality and performance and teamwork.
· Finally, discuss the importance of a leader’s diligence in managing conflict. What is the likelihood of a constructive conflict or debate devolving to a destructive one? If this happens, what steps can a leader take to deescalate the situation?
· Offer specific suggestions and support these suggestions with a rationale, research sources, and examples from your experience.
INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 17 (4), 498-530 WINTER 2014
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Jerrell D. Coggburn, R. Paul Battaglio, Jr., and Mark D. Bradbury*
ABSTRACT. Organizational conflict is often thought of as a malady to be
avoided or quickly resolved. Such views neglect the potential value of
conflict—that is, the constructive management of conflict—to organizational
outcomes. Managerial practices resulting in too little conflict may shape and
reflect an organization hypersensitive to discord, dissent, and innovation.
But management practices promoting excessive conflict may overload an
organization with information, rendering it incapable of reaching timely
decisions, generating animosity, or creating other unproductive outcomes.
This paper examines constructive conflict management, which gives
employees voice and encourages authentic participation in decision-making.
We hypothesize that such an approach is positively related to employee job
satisfaction and organizational performance. However, given the potential
for “too much of a good thing” when it encouraging conflict, we also test for
a curvilinear relationships between conflict management and organizational
outcomes.
“To work in an organization is to be in conflict. To take advantage of joint
work requires conflict management” (Tjosvold, 2008, p. 19).
INTRODUCTION
The bureaucratic form of organization is pervasive in the public
sector, so much so that “bureaucracy” and “public organization” are
———————————–
* Jerrell D. Coggburn, Ph.D., is Professor and Chair, Department of Public
Administration, North Carolina State University. His research interests are in
public human resource management and civil service reform. R. Paul
Battaglio, Jr., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University
of Texas at Dallas. His research interests include public human resource
management, and public and nonprofit management. Mark D. Bradbury,
Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Director of the Master of Public
Administration program at Appalachian State University. His research
focuses on public personnel and human resource management.
Copyright © 2014 by Pracademics Press
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 499
often used synonymously. The ideal-type bureaucracy (Weber, 1958)
is characterized by functional specialization, impersonal application
of rational rules, and coordination and control through top-down
hierarchical structure (Fry, 1989). These characteristics represent
intentional effort to provide certainty and reduce conflict (Downs,
1967, as cited in Stazyk & Goerdel, 2011, p. 647), conditions that
help explain the Weber’s contention that bureaucratic organizations
are technically superior to other forms of organization and lead to
organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
Contemporarily, the complexity and interdependent nature of
work makes conflict inevitable and ubiquitous within organizations,
be they public, private, or nonprofit (Jehn, 1995). Given this, an
important managerial function is recognizing and understanding
various forms of conflict and managing it in ways that both promotes
positive and mitigates negative organizational outcomes. In
bureaucracy, doing so means eschewing top-down authority aimed at
reducing or squelching conflict in favor of more participatory
approaches where subordinates are free to air differences, challenge
assumptions, and work to produce better decisions.
Management, organizational behavior, and behavioral psychology
scholars are focusing increasing attention on elucidating conflict’s
positive attributes; that is, its constructive (functional) aspects as well
as its destructive (dysfunctional) ones (e.g., Hempel, Zhang, &
Tjosvold, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). Despite the importance of
this managerial function to organizational performance, conflict
management has received limited coverage in the public
administration literature (Lan, 1997; Rainey, 2014; Yates, 1985).
Indeed, relative to the broader management and organizational
behavior literature, there is a paucity of conflict management
research in public administration.
Consequently, this study seeks to understand how the way
workplace conflict is managed relates to employee job satisfaction
and perceptions of organizational performance. The locus of our
inquiry is the United States federal government. We proceed from
several assumptions. First, we assume that conflict is indeed
present—to varying degrees and intensity—in all federal agencies.
Given its omnipresence, we likewise assume that federal employees
understand different strategies and techniques for managing conflict
within their organizational contexts. Third, we assume that the
500 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
presence of conflict and knowledge of its management should bear
some relation to federal employees’ job satisfaction and perceptions
of their respective agency’s performance. These assumptions lead to
the primary research question: Is conflict management positively
related to job satisfaction and organizational performance?
Thus, we analyze the relationship between employees’
perceptions of their agency’s management of conflict and job
satisfaction and overall organizational performance. Data for our
analysis comes from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board’s
(MSPB) 2005 Merit Principles Survey (MPS), a survey that includes a
number of conflict-related questions that are appropriate for our
purposes. We begin with a brief review of the conflict literature,
including efforts to categorize various types of conflict and
understand conflict’s relationship with organizational outcomes. From
this review, we develop our formal research hypotheses. Next, we
describe the variables derived from the MPS survey that we use to
measure conflict management, job satisfaction, and performance.
Our results support the hypothesized positive linear relationship
between constructive conflict management and our dependent
variables. We also find both expected and unexpected curvilinear
relationships, with constructive conflict management being
associated with diminishing returns in job satisfaction and
performance as expected and, unexpectedly, increasing returns in
performance for employees who have not experienced serious
workplace conflict. We conclude by discussing the implications of our
research, identifying its limitations, and suggesting possibilities for
further inquiry.
CONFLICT AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT LITERATURE
Conflict is a fact of organizational life—it is “inevitable” (Carpenter
& Kennedy, 2001, p. 3) and, potentially, desirable. Indeed, Rainey
(2014) suggests that intense conflicts are expected and even
desired. Organizations and individuals will experience conflict on
myriad subjects and issues, and efforts aimed at preventing or
quieting conflict are rarely successful. Rahim (1992) observes that a
significant amount of resources are wasted when organizations try to
eliminate or suppress conflict. Thus, perhaps it is not whether there is
conflict in the workplace that matters so much as managing the
conflict in such a way as to avoid its destructive potential. In other
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 501
words, conflict per se may be much less problematic than the manner
in which people and organizations work through it (Herrman, 2005, p.
331).
Definition and Types of Conflict
Although definitions of the term and concept of “conflict” abound
(De Dreu & Beersma, 2005), increasingly conflict researchers agree
that conflict is best defined as an interactive process “manifested in
incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social
entities” (Rahim, 1992, p. 16; see also De Dreu & Beersma, 2005).
Conflict has been described as a “core tension” that naturally occurs
wherever there are interdependencies and constraints (e.g.,
structures, systems, norms, obligations) on behavior (Isaksen &
Ekvall, 2010). That conflict occurs in a variety of settings is reflected
in the wide range of uses and applications of the concept in research
from various academic disciplines, including management,
communications, sociology, organizational behavior, philosophy,
biological sciences, psychology, and political science (De Dreu &
Gelfand, 2008; Rahim, 2011). Within public administration, conflict-
related studies focus on such issues as objective responsibilities
(Cooper, 2006), work-family balance (Facer & Wadsworth, 2008),
interpretations of law, policy, and goals (Brown, 1999; Peffer, 2009),
professional roles (Liou, 1994; Vinzant, 1998), political ideologies
and preferences (Daniel, 2001; Lewis, Shannon, & Ferree, 1983),
ethnic and racial identities (Alexander, 1997; Esman, 1991), cultural
and value-based norms (Schachter, 1993), public policy preferences,
conflicts of interest (Emanuel, 1999), and methods of conflict
resolution (Mareschal, 1998; Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010).
Conflict research also differentiates multiple types of conflict
according to its source and organizational level. Rahim (2011), for
example, lists 12 sources or antecedent conditions of conflict (e.g.,
substantive, affective, substantive-affective, process, goal), which can
occur across multiple inter- and intra-organizational levels, resulting
in an almost dizzying array of potential conflict types. In public
administration literature, Herrman (2005) lists five types of conflict
(data-based, structural, relational, interest, and value) and Lan
(1997) lists four. In general, however, most conflict research focuses
on two types, task-related and relationship-related conflict (Isaksen &
Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1997). De Dreu (2008, p. 6) summarizes task-
related conflicts as “conflicts that are about the way the team is doing
502 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
the job, about the pros and cons of certain task-approaches” and the
like, whereas relationship-related conflicts are “conflicts that are
about people, their values, humor, and so on.”
Organizational Effects of Conflict
Moving beyond definitions and classifications, conflict research
also assesses the implications of conflict—both positive and
negative—on individual and group (team) performance. As
characterized by De Dreu and Beersma (2005), this work falls into
two broad streams: a conflict typology framework and an information-
processing perspective. As the label implies, the conflict typology
framework assesses the effects of different types of conflict (namely,
task and relationship) on organizational outcomes. Findings
consistently show relationship-related conflict to be negatively related
to performance and organizational outcomes, while task-related
conflict’s effects are inconsistent—they are positive in some instances
and negative in others (see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Some
evidence exists, too, that task-related conflict is curvilinearly related
to performance, where little to no task-related conflict impedes
performance, moderate levels increase performance, and high levels
decrease performance (De Dreu, 2006; Faerman, 1996; Jehn, 1995;
Rahim, 1992; Rahim & Bonoma, 1974).
The information-processing perspective also proposes a
curvilinear relationship (depicted below) between conflict and
performance, one that takes the form of an inverted U (De Dreu &
Beersma, 2005; Rahim, 2011). This perspective focuses less on the
type of conflict (task v. relationship) and more on the consequences
of conflict, regardless of type, for decision-making, creativity, and
performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). At lower levels, conflict
may stimulate creativity, flexible thinking, and improve performance;
however, that relationship reverses with the occurrence of intense
conflict as individuals experience stress, interpersonal tension, lost
focus, and the inability to collaboratively generate ideas and solutions
(De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
For its part, the public administration literature evidences an
appreciation of both the positive and negative implications of conflict
for organizational productivity and performance (although it is often
unclear whether these assertions are mere conjecture or are derived
from empirical analysis). Commenting on the negative implications,
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 503
Rainey (2014, p. 398) observes that, “excessive conflict can induce
stress, frustration, dissatisfaction, high turnover, absenteeism, and
poor performance among employees.” Further, conflict can be self-
perpetuating if left unattended and unaddressed. And, yet, Schwenk
(1990) concludes that although conflict is unpleasant for nonprofit
and public sector managers, they report that it leads to higher quality
decisions. The critical question for managers, then, is how to reap the
benefits of conflict while minimizing the negative aspects.
FIGURE 1
Inverted-U Theory of Conflict and Performance
Source: Adapted from Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Rahim, 1992).
Managing Conflict
Tjosvold (2008) criticizes the literature for excessive attention
paid to defining and categorizing types of conflict and its
consequences, and attempts to turn attention more squarely on
504 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
managing conflict. The exchange between De Dreu (2008) and
Tjosvold (2008) informs the conceptual challenge that conflict poses
for organizations. Reflecting on previous research on conflict in
interpersonal and small-group contexts, De Dreu (2008, p. 9)
concludes that the negative consequences of conflict outweigh the
positive, such that the positive effects of conflict will only be realized
under “an exceedingly limited set of circumstances”. Tjosvold (2008,
p. 19), on the other hand, is more sanguine about the realities of
conflict: “Why have a team if team members have similar
backgrounds and think alike? The very rationale for an organization is
to combine the energy, ideas, and knowledge of diverse people.”
Such diversity brings inevitable conflict, but effective leaders can
promote open-minded discussion of contracting views (Tjosvold,
2008). Thus, De Dreu and Tjosvold ultimately agree that the key to
realizing any positive effects from conflict stem from deliberate
strategies to manage it (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). As Tjosvold (2008,
p. 25) concludes, “the kind or source of conflict is not the culprit; it is
how people manage it that determines its course and outcomes.”
The foregoing exchange suggests that how managers and
organizations manage conflict determines whether, on balance, the
outcomes produced will be positive or negative. The negative
consequences of conflict that is ignored are well known. Carpenter
and Kennedy (2001, p. 16) describe “the spiral of unmanaged
conflict” wherein the severity of a disagreement is exacerbated, and
the identification of a resolution becomes more elusive, the longer
that a conflict is left unattended. Such an admonition, however, is
well known to practicing managers. In their classic study of
organizational structure and behavior, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)
find that managers regard confrontation as the desired method for
conflict resolution, but rarely employ it due to a latent aversion to
sharp confrontation and a lack of conflict management skills and
knowledge. In other words, managers recognize that conflict is
inevitable, and that managing conflict is an essential responsibility.
This is not to say that confronting and managing conflict is a pleasant
or desirable task; indeed, the opposite seems to be the case.
The realities of managing conflict, then, resemble an informal
decision ‘game’ with two obvious choices. A manager can choose to
leave the conflict unattended and hope that the adverse
consequences are modest. The obvious risk is that the unattended
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 505
conflict spirals out of manageable control, and results in a
conflagration that demands managerial intervention with a less
robust set of decreasingly attractive options that will trigger similarly
increasingly unpredictable consequences. Alternatively, managers
can choose to embrace—or, perhaps, even stimulate (Rahim, 2011)—
conflict and attempt to mitigate its negative and realize its positive
outcomes. The risk here is that the manager’s involvement has the
perverse effect on the parties in conflict, and the situation has
personal and/or professional consequences for the manager. There
is no ‘right’ choice for a manager, but it seems that managers tend
toward the former option. In the words of Tjosvold (2008, p. 19),
“Conflict has great potential but we are far from fully realizing it.”
CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION,
AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
The presence of conflict within organizations is well established
(e.g., Argyris, 1971; Corwin, 1969; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Litwin &
Stringer, 1968; Pondy, 1967; Thomas, 1976; Walton & Dutton, 1969;
Walton, Dutton, & Cafferty, 1969). Certainly, conflict is abundant in
public organizations, which are often rife with competition over policy
decisions (Rainey, 2014; Schwenk, 1990; Yates, 1985). Yet, the
focus of conflict research has primarily been on interpersonal and
small group levels of analysis (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008, p.
139). Missing is an assessment of organizational features that either
constrain or enable how conflict is managed and to what extent this
affects important outcomes like job satisfaction and performance
(Brett & Rognes 1986; Callister et al. 2003; De Dreu & Gelfand,
2008; De Dreu et al., 2004; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Kolb &
Putnam, 1992). The extent to which conflict hinders or improves job
satisfaction, productivity, and performance are subjects frequently
cited in the general management literature (Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967; Rainey, 2014; Schwenk, 1990). Drawing from this literature is
an important organizing point for public managers considering
constructive alternatives for managing conflict in the workplace.
To assess the relationship of conflict management to
organizational outcomes, we focus on a proximate outcome,
employee job satisfaction, and a more distal one, perceived
organizational performance (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn 2012). Employee
job satisfaction has been described as being among the most
506 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
important variables in organizational studies due, in part, to its
linkage with other important outcomes like organizational
commitment, absenteeism, turnover, and work effort (Chen, Zhao,
Liu, & Wu, 2012), even though empirical evidence supporting such
relationships is mixed (Kim, 2002; Wright & Davis, 2003). Meta-
analyses reporting the relationships between conflict and employee
satisfaction suggest that conflict (especially relational, but also task)
is negatively related to employee job satisfaction (De Dreu &
Beersma, 2005; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn,
2012). Owing to the presence of conflict in all organizations, we
expect that how an organization manages conflict should have
bearing on employee job satisfaction. Similarly, for our more distal
outcome, employee perceptions of organizational performance, we
expect that how an organization manages conflict will be directly
related to how it performs (Chen, Zhao, Liu, & Wu, 2012; De Wit,
Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Trudel & Reio, 2011). Specifically, constructively
managing conflict should be associated with better perceptions of
organizational performance.
Given our interest in examining the relationships between conflict
management and employee job satisfaction and perceived
performance, our key variable of interest is constructive conflict
management. Our expectations about the benefits of constructive
conflict management are informed by Tjosvold’s (2008) description of
a “conflict-positive organization,” that is, an organization where
employees feel free to voice their concerns, challenge ideas, and
work collaboratively to develop creative solutions. Successfully
harnessing such dynamism and diversity of views requires a
constructive approach to managing conflict. Moreover, conflict-
positive organizations aid in avoiding premature closure of debate
over policy alternatives, potentially leading to better decisions (Isaken
& Ekvall, 2010). Such an intra-organizational context is defined by
conflict, albeit intentional and strategic; it is not conflict avoidance or
prevention, but the embracing of constructive dialogue and
disagreement. When organizations practice constructive conflict
management, employees should be able to express their opinions in
a climate of openness, even if that means disagreeing with
management. This should lead to greater job satisfaction and ensure
a fuller airing of alternatives, better decisions, and better
performance. For federal agencies, properly managing conflict is
important and has the potential to improve employee satisfaction and
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 507
retention rates—factors crucial to overall performance (MPSB, 2008).
Based on these characterizations and the above-cited research on
the potential benefits of constructive conflict to organizational
outcomes, we first hypothesize positive linear relationships:
Hypothesis 1: the extent of constructive conflict management in an
agency will have a direct, positive relationship with employee job
satisfaction
Hypothesis 2: the extent of constructive conflict management in an
agency will have a direct, positive relationship with employee
perceptions of organizational performance
While we expect environments conducive to constructive conflict
to be associated with better perceived performance, findings from the
conflict literature also give reason to believe that the nature of this
relationship may be curvilinear (see Rahim & Bonoma, 1979).
Hypotheses 1 and 2 reflect our premise that employee perceptions of
a work environment where conflict is constructively managed are
associated with increased levels of job satisfaction and perceptions
of organizational performance. However, as the extent of constructive
conflict management in an organization intensifies, there are
increased costs associated with the time and energy it takes to make
decisions. The costs attributed to exchanges, negotiations, and
transactions have the potential to divert time and resources that
might have been dedicated to implementing decisions or performing
work (De Dreu, 2006, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1995;
Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). This may engender negative
implications for perceived performance. Similarly, too much
discussion or diversity of alternatives, especially over routine or
unimportant matters, may also tend toward information overload
(Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1995), and likewise impede
performance. Thus, we anticipate that lower levels of constructive
conflict management are associated with lower levels of job
satisfaction and perceived organizational performance, with both
pairs of relationships increasing positively to a point, beyond which
higher levels of constructive conflict management are negatively
associated with employee job satisfaction and employee perceptions
of organizational performance:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between constructive conflict
management and job satisfaction is curvilinear; the extent of
508 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
constructive conflict management will have a direct, positive
relationship with employee job satisfaction to a point, beyond
which the relationship becomes negative
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between constructive conflict
management and employee perceptions of organizational
performance is curvilinear; the extent of constructive conflict
management will have a direct, positive relationship with
perceived organizational performance to a point, beyond which
the relationship becomes negative
We also consider the possibility that the relationships between
conflict and organizational outcomes vary according to the intensity of
conflict in the organization. Rahim (2002, p. 207) notes that conflict
has to exceed an “intensity threshold” before the parties involved
recognize it as such. It is likely that those in organizations who have
experienced serious conflict (i.e., crossed an intensity threshold) will
have different assessments about organizational outcomes than
those who have not (Jehn, 1995). This may be an especially
important consideration for conflict research on public (and nonprofit)
organizations, given the oftentimes intense nature of conflict
associated with them and the taxed coping abilities of many public
managers (Rainey, 2014). The 2005 MPS defines a serious conflict
as “one that you felt if not addressed would result in negative
workforce consequences such as low morale, low organizational
productivity or performance, perceived unfairness, absenteeism,
attrition, or even fear” (MPSB, 2005, p. 7). Though our data do not
allow us to assess the type of conflict (task or relational), we expect
that employees who have experienced serious conflict will report
lower levels of both employee job satisfaction and organization
performance:
Hypothesis 5: The occurrence of serious conflict in an employee’s
work unit will have a direct, negative relationship with employee
job satisfaction
Hypothesis 6: The occurrence of serious conflict in an employee’s
work unit will have a direct, negative relationship with employee
perceptions of organizational performance
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 509
DATA AND METHODS
To assess constructive conflict management’s relation to
employee job satisfaction and perceived organizational performance,
we use data from U.S. Merit System Protection Board’s (MSPB) 2005
Merit Principles Survey (MPS). The MSPB conducts this survey
periodically to assess federal employees’ perceptions about the
standing of the merit principle, instances of prohibited personnel
practices, and job satisfaction. The data were collected from the
sampling frame of randomly selected public employees representing
various agencies and departments in the federal workforce. The
2005 MSPB survey queried 74,000 federal employees with a
response rate of 50 percent. Various iterations of the MPS also
contain survey items pertaining to salient substantive foci (e.g.,
reinventing government, training, workplace conflict). The 2005
survey is appropriate for the current analysis because it includes a
number of items specifically related to conflict management, an
emphasis that has not been replicated in more recent iterations of
the survey. We use this data to generate an indicator of constructive
conflict management and to create additive indices (described below)
measuring employee job satisfaction and employee perceptions of
organizational performance (see Appendix).
In our first models, we specify linear relationships for constructive
conflict management, controlling for the occurrence of serious
conflict (and other variables of secondary interest). This allows for
baseline tests of hypotheses 1, 2, 5 and 6. Next, we test hypotheses
3 and 4 by generating curvilinear estimates. This is accomplished by
including a quadratic term (i.e., the square of our constructive conflict
management variable) to our baseline models, again controlling for
the occurrence of serious conflict. Finally, we take our analyses a step
further by dividing our dataset into two groups, one with respondents
who reported the occurrence of serious conflict in their organization,
the other with respondents who did not. This provides a discrete look
at how constructive conflict management relates to job satisfaction
and perceived performance in substantively different contexts and
also offers a more robust test of hypotheses 5 and 6. We estimate all
of our models with OLS, using robust (White-Huber) standard errors to
account for slight heteroscedasticity detected in preliminary analyses.
510 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
Dependent Variables: Employee Job Satisfaction and Perceptions of
Organizational Performance
For our first dependent variable, employee job satisfaction, we
created a straightforward additive index from two MPS items: “I would
recommend my agency as a place to work” and “In general, I am
satisfied with my job.” Responses to both items were recorded using
Likert-type scales, which were reverse coded for our analyses so that
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree/agree, 4 =
agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The estimated Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for the scale (.81) suggests a high degree of internal
reliability for the index (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
For our second dependent variable, employee perceptions of
organizational performance, we created an additive index intended to
capture employees’ overall perceptions of organizational
performance. The index consists of summed responses to three
performance-related items from the 2005 MPS: “My agency produces
high quality products and services,” “My agency is successful in
accomplishing its mission,” and “My work unit produces high quality
products and services.” As with employee job satisfaction, responses
to each item were recorded using Likert-type scales and were reverse
coded for our analyses. The estimated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for the index (.79) suggests a high degree of internal reliability.
Key Variable: Constructive Conflict Management
The 2005 Merit Principles Survey contains items that reflect the
type of conflict management and the conflict-positive organization
Tjosvold (2008) describes.1 Combined into an index, these items
could evidence constructive conflict management, with employees
having voice and a sense of empowerment to challenge ideas, taking
creative risk, and contributing to policy and program decisions.
However, in several instances, these items have been used to
represent other distinct theoretical constructs, including
empowerment (Park & Rainey, 2007), voice (Rubin & Kellough 2011),
and efficacy (Brewer & Selden, 2000). As suggested by an
anonymous reviewer, we opt here to avoid the potential for
conceptual confusion by using a single MPS survey item to measure
constructive conflict management: “My agency responds
constructively to workplace conflicts.”2 We interpret respondents’
agreement with this item to be indicative of the presence of
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 511
constructive conflict management behaviors within their
organizations.
Occurrence of Conflict
Most conflict research assumes that conflict exists in
organizations but, as De Dreu (2008) notes, conclusions about the
effects of constructive conflict on organizational outcomes are limited
by research designs that do not separate out situations where conflict
is experienced and where it is not. We are able to at least partially
address this shortcoming by controlling for the reported presence or
absence of serious conflict. The MPS includes a dichotomous choice
item (yes = 1, no = 0) assessing whether respondents have recently
experienced serious conflict: “In the past 2 years, have you
experienced a serious conflict in your work unit?” First, we include a
dummy variable to control for the presence of absence of serious
conflict (models 1 and 2) and, second, we divide our dataset into two
groups (i.e., those who have experienced serious conflict and those
who have not) and rerun the model (models 3 and 4).
Control Variables
Our analysis also controls for a number of respondent
characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, tenure, education, and
union membership. Although included, these controls are of
secondary interest in our analysis and, as such, will receive much less
attention. Demographic considerations are common in the
assessment of the nature, extent, and impact of conflict within
organizations (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008, pp. 154–155; Jehn,
1995). With respect to gender, research suggests that men are more
likely to display aggressive behavior within the workplace (Baron,
Neuman, & Geddes, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1998), while women
are more likely to pursue less aggressive, collaborative measures to
coping with conflict (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). We include a
dummy variable (1 = females, 0 = males) to control for these
potential gender differences. Ethnicity, tenure, and education speak
to the impact subcultures within organizations have on the system as
a whole (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008; Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold,
2008). Subcultures tend to be present in larger organizations where
diverse professions (Boisnier & Chatman, 2003; Trice & Beyer, 1993)
and physical and/or geographical isolation (Sackmann, 1992) is
likely. Specific characteristics and identification with socioeconomic
512 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
factors (e.g., primary work group, professionalism, union membership,
age, ethnicity, and education) tend to be unifying elements for
subcultures within large organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ouchi,
1980, Schein, 2010). Union membership, in particular, has received
considerable attention in the understanding of conflict management
(Friedman, Hunter, & Chen, 2008; Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008;
Lewin, 2001). Our models include dummy variables for union
membership (1 = yes, 0 = no) and race (1 = whites, 0 = nonwhites), a
categorical variable for educational attainment (1 = high school/GED,
2 = Associate’s degree, 3 = Bachelor’s degree, 4 = Master’s degree,
and 5 = Doctorate or equivalent), and a continuous variable (years
with current agency) for agency tenure. We note, too, that our models
control for agency effects (not reported).3
RESULTS
Tables 1 and 2 presents the regression results for our linear and
curvilinear models. In both tables, the first column lists the variables
included in the models. The second column reports results for the
baseline linear models (labeled “model 1” in both tables) assessing
the relationship between constructive conflict management and
employee job satisfaction (Table 1) and perceived organizational
performance (Table 2), respectively, while controlling for serious
TABLE 1
Constructive Conflict Management and
Employee Job Satisfaction
Independent
Variables
All
Respondents
Linear
(Model 1)
All
Respondents
Curvilinear
(Model 2)
No
Serious
Conflict
Curvilinear
(Model 3)
Serious
Conflict
Curvilinear
(Model 4)
Constructive Conflict
Management
.997***
(.008)
1.48***
(.040)
1.00***
(.053)
1.80***
(.069)
Constructive Conflict
Management2
– -.081***
(.006)
-.015*
(.008)
-.124***
(.012)
Union Membership -.239***
(.027)
-.228***
(.028)
-.194***
(.032)
-.269***
(.050)
Educational
Attainment
.009
(.007)
.007
(.007)
.007
(.008)
.002
(.013)
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 513
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Constructive Conflict Management and
Employee Job Satisfaction
Independent
Variables
All
Respondents
Linear
(Model 1)
All
Respondents
Curvilinear
(Model 2)
No
Serious
Conflict
Curvilinear
(Model 3)
Serious
Conflict
Curvilinear
(Model 4)
Agency Tenure
.004***
(.001)
.004***
(.001)
.002*
(.001)
.007***
(.002)
Gender .130***
(.018)
.132***
(.018)
.101**
(.021)
.180***
(.034)
Race .034***
(.019)
.034***
(.007)
.036**
(.008)
.030*
(.012)
Occurrence of
Serious Conflict
-.384***
(.019)
-.362***
(.019)
– –
Adj. R2 .38 .39 .31 .38
Intercept 4.25 3.61 4.42 2.80
F-ratio 635.24 623.05 290.55 218.61
N 29,961 29,961 19,325 10,733
Note: Dependent variable: two-item index of job satisfaction (“I would
recommend my agency as a place to work” and “In general, I am
satisfied with my job”). Figures are regression coefficients estimated by
ordinary least squares (with robust standard errors in parentheses).
Agency effects (not shown) are controlled for. An F-test for the added
variable (quadratic term) yields an F-statistic that exceeds the critical
value. * p .10, **p .05, *** p .01.
conflict and using the full MPS data set. The third column reports
results for the nonlinear model (model 2); it includes the quadratic
(squared) term of our constructive conflict management variable.4
The fourth and fifth columns report results for nonlinear models
where the data set has been split into two groups, with one set
including respondents who did not report experiencing serious
conflict (model 3) in their organization and the other with those who
did (model 4).
Linear Effects of Constructive Conflict Management
Turning first to the linear models, the results suggest a strong,
statistically significant relationship between constructive conflict
514 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
management and both employee job satisfaction (Table 1) and
perceptions of organizational performance (Table 2). Looking first at
the results for employee job satisfaction, the coefficient for
constructive conflict management (b = .997) shows a direct, positive
relationship with employee job satisfaction: a one unit change in our
TABLE 2
Constructive Conflict Management and
Organizational Performance
Independent
Variables
All
Respondents
Linear
(Model 1)
All
Respondents
Curvilinear
(Model 2)
No Serious
Conflict
Curvilinear
(Model 3)
Serious
Conflict
Curvilinear
(Model 4)
Constructive Conflict
Management
1.01***
(.010)
.787***
(.047)
.268***
(.062)
1.28***
(.083)
Constructive Conflict
Management2
– .038***
(.008)
.113***
(.009)
-.044***
(.015)
Union Membership -.380***
(.033)
-.386***
(.033)
-.334***
(.038)
-.464***
(.060)
Educational
Attainment
.098***
(.009)
.099***
(.009)
.120***
(.010)
.056***
(.017)
Agency Tenure
.011***
(.001)
.011***
(.001)
.011***
(.001)
.012***
(.002)
Gender .216***
(.022)
.215***
(.022)
.188***
(.025)
.260***
(.041)
Race
.059***
(.008)
.059***
(.008)
.061***
(.009)
.054***
(.015)
Occurrence of
Serious Conflict
-.254***
(.023)
-.264***
(.023)
– –
R2 .31 .32 .29 .28
Intercept 7.83 8.12 8.87 7.37
F-ratio 470.35 456.31 268.74 137.28
N 30,028 30,028 19,363 10,761
Note: Dependent variable: three-item index of performance (“My agency
produces high quality products and services,” “My agency is successful
in accomplishing its mission,” and “My work unit produces high quality
products and services”). Figures are regression coefficients estimated
by ordinary least squares (with robust standard errors in parentheses).
Agency effects (not shown) are controlled for. An F-test for the added
variable (quadratic term) yields an F-statistic that exceeds the critical
value. * p .10, **p .05, *** p .01.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 515
constructive conflict management variables is associated with a one
point increase in job satisfaction, supporting hypothesis 1.
Similarly, the results for the perceived organizational performance
model (Table 2) show that the coefficient for the constructive conflict
management (b = 1.01) has a direct, positive relationship with
perceptions of organizational performance. Specifically, a one unit
change in constructive conflict management is associated with an
increase of one point on our dependent variable measuring perceived
organizational performance. In substantive terms, this finding
supports hypothesis 2: organizations exhibiting constructive conflict
management are associated with better organizational performance
as perceived by employees.
Beyond the results for our key variable of interest, the estimated
coefficients for the dummy variable controlling for the occurrence of
serious conflict are also of note. In the employee job satisfaction
model (Table 1), the negative and significant coefficient (b = -.384)
indicates that employee job satisfaction is significantly lower,
statistically, when employees report experiencing serious workplace
conflict. In the perceived organizational performance model (Table
2), the occurrence of serious conflict variable (b = -.254) shows the
same direct, negative relationship. Conflict is generally assumed to
exist to some degree (and form) in all organizations (Gelfland, Leslie,
& Keller, 2008). Research suggests that, at moderate levels, such
conflict can produce positive outcomes when managed appropriately
(Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). But,
consistent with previous research, our result shows that serious
conflict is associated with lower job satisfaction and perceptions of
performance (De Dreu 2006, 2008; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979), albeit
at a very modest level substantively. These results provide support for
hypotheses 5 and 6.
Nonlinear Effects of Constructive Conflict Management
The initial results suggest positive linear relationships between
constructive conflict management and both employee job satisfaction
and their perceptions of organizational performance. But, as
described above, research suggests that constructive conflict
management can yield both positive and negative organizational
outcomes (Chen, Zhao, Liu, & Wu, 2012; De Dreu 2006, 2008;
Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). Reflecting the notion that “too much of a
516 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
good thing” (De, Dreu, 2006; Peterson, 1999) may result in a reversal
of constructive conflict management’s positive organizational
outcomes, we also estimated results for nonlinear relationships.
The final three columns in tables 1 and 2 report results for the
nonlinear models of constructive conflict management’s relationships
with employee job satisfaction (Table 1) and organizational
performance (Table 2). The third column in both tables presents
results for models including all respondents (model 2); the last two
columns in both tables present the results for separate models
estimated for respondents who reported not experiencing serious
conflict (model 3, fourth column) and those who reported
experiencing serious conflict (model 4, last column).
Results for the models with the full set of MPS respondents
suggest a curvilinear relationship between constructive conflict
management and the dependent variables, though not exactly as
hypothesized. In the employee job satisfaction model, the coefficient
for the constructive conflict management variable (b = 1.48) is
positive and significant, while the coefficient for the quadratic term (b
= -0.81) is negative and significant. This finding supports hypothesis
3, that is, that constructive conflict management produces
diminishing returns (i.e., the “inverted U”) for employee job
satisfaction.
In contrast, the results for the perceived organizational
performance model (Table 2) offer an unexpected finding.
Specifically, we anticipated that the effects of constructive conflict
management would be positive and significant for our linear term, but
negative and significant for our quadratic term. In other words, we
anticipated a curvilinear relationship indicative of diminishing returns.
The results for the linear term (b = .787) were as expected but were
the exact opposite—that is, positive and significant—of our
expectations for the quadratic term (b = 0.38). We will discuss the
implications of this below, but note here that the finding represents a
potential (and unusual) case of increasing returns on performance,
where perceived performance increases at a higher rate in
organizations characterized by the highest levels of constructive
conflict management. The coefficient for the linear term suggests a
gradual slope that, as suggested by the quadratic term, steepens.5
Finally, estimated results for the separate sets respondents—that
is, those not experiencing serious conflict (model 3) and those
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 517
experiencing it (model 4) serious conflict—offer some additional
insight. In the employee job satisfaction models, findings for both sets
of respondents corroborate those from the initial curvilinear model
(model 2) that includes all respondents. In models 3 and 4, the
coefficient estimate for constructive conflict management is positive
and significant while the quadratic term is negative and significant,
thus supporting the diminishing returns hypothesis (hypothesis 3). We
note that the strength of the relationship is greater in the model
estimated for those who reported experiencing serious conflict than
for those not experiencing it.
Turning to the separate results for the perceived organizational
performance models, we again see an unexpected finding. For the set
of respondents who reported no serious conflict in their organization
(Table 2, fourth column), the positive and significant coefficient
estimates for constructive conflict management (b = .268) and the
quadratic term (b = .113) corroborate the unexpected increasing
returns findings from the curvilinear model (model 2) including all
respondents. In contrast, the results for respondents who reported
experiencing serious conflict within their organization have a
markedly different view of organizational performance. In support of
hypothesis 4, for this set of respondents, constructive conflict
management (b = 1.80) is directly and positively associated with
perceived organizational performance to a point but then, as
suggested by the negative and significant coefficient for the quadratic
term (b = – .124), evidences diminishing returns. This intriguing
relationship was obscured in model 2, which included all respondents
and controlled for the occurrence of serious conflict with a dummy
variable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
How managers and organizations conceive of and manage
conflict has important implications for organizational outcomes. On
the one hand, when conflict is viewed as inherently negative,
organizations may be inclined to either avoid or quickly resolve it.
Such approaches may be less disquieting in the short run, but at the
potential expense of foregone opportunities to explore new and
creative ideas, better understand others’ positions, and reach better
decisions (Rahim, 2002; Tjosvold, 2008). In short, conflict
management is a managerial function that warrants both increased
518 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
scholarly and practitioner attention in public administration. Our
paper offers insights to the relationship between constructive conflict
management practices and both employee job satisfaction and
employee perceptions of organizational performance in the federal
government. Our results produced a mix of expected and unexpected
findings, both of which have managerial implications.
Controlling for Conflict
When controlling for the occurrence of serious conflict with a
dummy variable, our estimated models show statistically significant
differences: respondents who have experienced such conflict have
significantly lower assessments of employee job satisfaction and
perceptions of organizational performance. Although the magnitude
of the observed differences in these two models is small in
substantive terms, the findings nonetheless support previous
research and the idea that those experiencing serious conflict have
lower employee job satisfaction and hold less favorable views of
organizational performance. Although the findings were expected,
they reveal only part of a more interesting picture that only comes
into focus when running models separately for those who have and
have not experienced serious conflict.
Splitting our dataset into two groups based upon the occurrence
of serious conflict yields interesting results and underscores the
importance of considering the actual occurrence and intensity of
conflict (De Dreu, 2008; Jehn, 1995). We concede that our
dichotomous measure of conflict is lacking in some respects (e.g., it
does not scale the intensity of conflict from low to high, nor does it
indicate the nature—task, relation, or process—of the conflict) but, at
the same time, we do not want to downplay the significance of the
measure or our findings. Conflict is present in all organizations but
may not be recognized as such until it crosses an intensity threshold
(Rahim, 2002). That a group of respondents in our MPS dataset
report the occurrence of serious conflict in their organizations
suggests the crossing of such a threshold and the presence of more
intense workplace conflict. With that, we are able to draw a
meaningful distinction between constructive conflict management’s
relationship to a distal outcome (employee perceptions of
organizational performance) in settings that have and do not have
serious conflict: where serious conflict has occurred, constructive
conflict management is associated with diminishing returns on
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 519
employees’ their perceptions of organizational performance. In
settings with less conflict intensity (i.e., where there is no reported
occurrence of serious conflict), the relationship is the opposite: more
constructive conflict management is associated with increasing
returns on perceived organizational performance. Analytically, our
findings suggest the wisdom of separating out substantively different
organizational contexts when assessing conflict management.
The Janus Face of Constructive Conflict Management
In addition to the analytical implications, our findings also have
practical implications for conflict management. Findings from our
models present two divergent views of constructive conflict
management and its relationship to organizational performance. Our
third and fourth hypotheses predict that constructive conflict
management holds a classic inverted-U relationship with employee
job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational performance.
However, when controlling for the occurrence of conflict (models 1
and 2) and estimating separate results for respondents in low or
conflict-free environments (model 3), our findings for organizational
performance point in the opposite direction, indicating increasing—as
opposed to diminishing—returns for constructive conflict
management. This positive face for constructive conflict management
turns negative, however, when estimating results for respondents
experiencing serious conflict (model 4).
Such a divergence strikes us as an interesting and important
finding, one that speaks to both the promise and pitfalls of engaging
employees in constructive dialog and collaborative decision-making
(i.e., in constructively managing conflict). In organizations free of
serious or intense conflict, the theorized benefits of constructive
conflict management on performance appear to be realized:
employees feel that they have voice, are rewarded for creativity, and
deal constructively with conflict. This, in turn, is associated with not
only the positive performance outcomes theorized for such conditions
(Tjosvold, 2008), but also increasing perceptions of performance
returns. With the occurrence of serious conflict, however, the
potential pitfalls of constructive conflict management practices (e.g.,
information overload, delayed decisions, forgone work) come into play
(De Dreu 2006, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1995; Zaheer,
McEvily, & Perrone, 1998), resulting in diminishing returns. As such,
our analysis lends credence to the inverted-U perspective on the
520 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
effects that conflict management has on perceived organizational
performance in environments that have experienced serious conflict
(De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; Rahim, 2011).
Reconciling these divergent outcomes for conflict management
rests squarely on the shoulders of public managers. Some limited
evidence suggests that public sector organizations are more likely
than private sector ones to adhere to integrative problem-solving
approaches to conflict management, which require information
exchange, looking for alternatives and reaching a solution acceptable
to all (Brewer & Lam, 2009). In the presence of serious conflict,
however, the question facing managers is whether to potentially hold
back the group or organization in attempt to achieve consensus and
adhere to dominant constructive conflict norms or to change decision
rules (e.g., majority rule as opposed to consensus) and/or conflict
management styles (e.g., more dominating and directive and less
collaborative and integrating) in order to end unproductive conflict
and move forward (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Peterson, 1999; Rahim,
2011). Similarly, managers in such situations must also make
decisions about which stakeholders to involve, so that the right
people are considering, constructively, the right issues (Rahim,
2002). As this suggests, knowing how to manage conflict under
different circumstances and contexts is no easy task. From the
constructive conflict management perspective, knowing when to
extend and encourage dialog to improve performance, or to limit and
end it so as to avoid frustration and delay, represents an important
managerial function (Peterson, 1999). Traditional bureaucracy’s
emphasis on controlling conflict may be even more counterproductive
given the recent history of career public servants working against
their political superiors through “guerilla” tactics (O’Leary, 2010).
Constructive conflict management may prove crucial to fostering
dialogue and debate within public organizations stymied by guerilla
government (p. 16). On a practical level, this suggests the
importance of public administration and affairs programs developing
public managers’ conflict management competencies (e.g., see
Herrman [2010] for a list of conflict management knowledge, skills,
and abilities), though the historical record of such instruction is not
encouraging (Lan, 1997).
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 521
Limitations and Future Research
Although our analysis offers some interesting insights, it also
raises a number of important questions for future investigation and
possesses important limitations. A primary limitation of our analysis is
its reliance on cross-sectional perceptual data. This limits our ability
to make causal claims and precludes any effort to see how conflict
management practices affect performance over time and under
different conditions. Due to the design of the 2005 MPS, we are also
not able to directly assess the types of conflict (task or relationship)
and our measure of conflict, though meaningful, is limited. Likewise,
we are unable to assess the relationship of other styles of conflict
management (e.g., dominating/competing, avoiding; see, e.g., Rahim,
1992) as the MPS does not contain items that reflect those styles.
Future research would benefit from more direct measures of conflict
levels and types, including the application of measures developed by
Jehn (1995) and Rahim (1983a, 1983b). Adapting measures such as
these and applying them to public and nonprofit organizations could
yield fruitful information. In-depth interviews and qualitative designs
also hold promise for improving understanding conflict and its
effects—both functional and dysfunctional—in public organizations.
Finally, there are many different ways to measure employee job
satisfaction and organizational performance and assessing conflict
management’s relationship with a broader array of organizational
outcomes—including “softer” outcomes like well-being, health, and
satisfaction (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005)—remains and important goal
for public administration research.
Conflict management is an important yet underexplored area for
public administration research. Although conflict is inherent to all
organizations regardless of sector, the public sector—with its milieu of
partisan and ideological differences layered on top of programmatic
and managerial preferences and set within predominately
bureaucratic/hierarchical structures—offers a particularly attractive
setting for analyzing both conflict and its management.
NOTES
1. Specific examples include: “I am able to openly express concerns
at work,” “My opinions count at work, and “Creativity and
innovation are rewarded.”
522 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
2. In our initial analyses, we used an additive index for constructive
conflict management that produced nearly identical results to the
single-item measure. Given that, and in responding to an
anonymous reviewer’s concern about the face validity of certain
items in the index, we opted to report results estimated using the
single-item measure.
3. Specifically, we used the “xi” function in Stata to generate dummy
variables for each of the 24 federal agencies represented
included in the Merit Principles Survey.
4. Given that quadratic terms are often highly correlated (Berry &
Feldman, 1985), we examined the VIFs for constructive conflict
management and the quadratic term. The VIFs were large (> 10)
so we estimated the models again using a mean-centered version
of the constructive conflict management variable (and its square)
in all of the nonlinear regression models. The statistical and
substance results were the same for the mean-centered models
and those using the non-transformed variables, so we report
results for the latter for interpretive ease.
5. This finding indicates an ascending monotonic curve, something
that may be better represented as a semilog (or, perhaps, log-log)
curve exhibiting exponential growth. However, since the conflict
literature theorizes an inverted-U function, we only estimate and
report results for the second-order polynomial regression.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. (1997). “Avoiding the Issue: Racism and Administrative
Responsibility in Public Administration.” American Review of
Public Administration, 27(4): 343–362.
Anderson, C., and Bushman, B. (2002). “Human Aggression.” Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1): 27-51.
Argyris, C. (1971). Management and Organizational Development.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). “Social Identity Theory and the
Organization.” The Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20-
39.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 523
Baron, R., Neuman, J., & Geddes, D. (1999). “Social and Personal
Determinants of Workplace Aggression: Evidence for the Impact
of Perceived Injustice and the Type A Behavior Pattern.”
Aggressive Behavior, 25(4): 281-296.
Berry. W.D., & Feldman, S. (1985). “Multiple Regression in Practice.”
(Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences, 07-050). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blake, R., and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX:
Gulf.
Boisnier, A.. & Chatman, J. A. (2003). “The Role of Subcultures in
Agile Organizations.” In R. S. Peterson and E. A. Mannix (Eds.),
Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization (pp.
78-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brett, J. M., & Rognes, J. K. (1986). “Intergroup Relations in
Organizations.” In P. Goodman (Ed.), Designing Effective Work
Groups (pp. 202-236). San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, B., and Lam, G. (2009). “Conflict Handling Preferences: A
Public-Private Comparison.” Public Personnel Management,
38(3): 1-14.
Brewer, G.A., and Selden, S.C. (2000). “Why Elephants Gallop:
Assessing And Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal
Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
10(4): 685-712.
Brown, L.D. (1999). “Management by Objection? Public Policies to
Protect Choice in Health Plans.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 56(1): 145–165.
Callister, R. R., Gray, B., Schweitzer, M., Gibson, D., & Tan, .J. S.
(2003). “Organizational Contexts and Outcomes of Anger
Expression in the Workplace.” Paper Presented at the Annual
Conference of the Academy of Management. August 1-6, 2003,
Seattle, WA.
Carpenter, S.L., & Kennedy, W.J.D. (2001). Managing Public Disputes:
A Practical Guide for Government, Business, and Citizens’
Groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, X-H., Zhao, K., Liu, X., & Wu, D.D. (2012). “Improving
Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Innovation Performance Using
524 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
Conflict Management.” International Journal of Conflict
Management, 23(2):151-172.
Cooper, T. L. (2006). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to
Ethics for the Administrative Role (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Corwin, R. G. (1969). “Patterns of Organizational Conflict.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4): 507-52l.
Daniel, C. (2001). “Separating Law and Professional Practice from
Politics: The Uniform Guidelines Then and Now.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 21(3): 175–184.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2008). “The Virtue and Vice of Workplace Conflict:
Food for (Pessimistic) Thought.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29(1): 5-18.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006). “When Too Little or Too Much Hurts:
Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Task Conflict and
Innovation In Teams.” Journal of Management, 32(1):83-107.
De Dreu, C.K.W, & Beersma, B. (2005). “Conflict in Organizations:
Beyond Effectiveness and Performance.” European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2): 105-117.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). “Conflict in the Workplace:
Sources, Functions, and Dynamics Across Multiple Levels of
Analysis.” In C. K. W. De Dreu, and M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The
Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management In Organizations
(pp. 3-54). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). “Task versus Relationship
Conflict, Team Member Satisfaction, and Team Effectiveness: A
meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L., & Jehn, K.A. (2012). “The Paradox of
Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(2):360-390.
Emanuel, E.J. (1999). “Choice and Representation in Health Care.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 56(1): 113–140.
Esman, M.J. (1991). “Public Administration, Ethic Conflict, and
Economic Development.” Public Administration Review, 57(6):
527–535.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 525
Facer, R. L., & Wadsworth, L. (2008). “Alternative Work Schedules
and Work-Family Balance: A Research Note.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 28(2): 166–177.
Faerman, S.R. (1996). “Managing Conflict Creatively.” In J.L. Perry
(Ed)., Handbook of Public Administration (2nd ed., pp. 632-646).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, R., Hunter, L., & Chen, Y. (2008). “Union-Management
Conflict: Historical Trends and New Directions.” In C. De Dreu and
M. Gelfand (Eds.), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict
Management In Organizations (pp. 353-384). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fry, B.R. (1989). Mastering Public Administration. Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House.
Gelfand, M.J., Leslie, L.M., & Keller, K.M. (2008). “On the Etiology of
Conflict Cultures.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 137-
166.
Hempel, P.S., Zhang, Z.X., & Tjosvold, D. (2009). “Conflict
Management Between and Within Teams for Trusting
Relationships and Performance in China.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(1): 41-65.
Herrman, M.S. (2005). “Understanding and Using Conflict in the
Workplace.” In S.E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of Human Resource
Management in Government (2nd ed., pp. 326-350). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Herrman, M.S. (2010). “Conflict in the Workplace: Strategic Choices,
Great Outcomes.” In S.E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of Human
Resource Management In Government (3rd ed., pp. 349-378).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Isaksen, S.G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). “Managing for Innovation: The Two
Faces of Tension in Creative Climates.” Creativity and Innovation
Management, 19(2): 73-88.
Jehn, K.A. (1997). “A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and
Dimensions in Organizational Groups.” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(3): 530-557.
526 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
Jehn, K.A. (1995). “A Multidimensional Examination of the Benefits
and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict.” Administrative Sciences
Quarterly, 40(2): 256-282.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). “Intragroup Conflict in
Organizations: A Contingency Perspective on the Conflict-Outcome
Relationship.” In B. Staw and R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (vol. 25, pp. 187-242). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science Inc.
Katz, D., & Kahn, D. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizing.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Kim, S. (2002). “Participative Management and Job Satisfaction:
Lessons From Management Leadership.” Public Administration
Review, 62(2): 231-241.
Kolb, D. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). “Introduction: The Dialectics of
Disputing.” In D. M. Kolb and J. M. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden
Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind the Scenes Disputes
(pp. 1-31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lan, Z. (1997). “A Conflict Resolution Approach to Public
Administration.” Public Administration Review, 57(1): 27-35.
Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and Environment.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewin, D. (2001). “IR and HR Perspectives on Workplace Conflict:
What Can Each Learn from the Other?” Human Resource
Management Review, 11(4): 453-485.
Lewis, C.W., Shannon, W.W., & Ferree, G.D. (1983). “The Cutback
Issue: Administrators’ Perceptions, Citizen Attitudes, and
Administrative Behavior.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 4(1): 12–26.
Liou, K-T. (1994). “The Effect of Professional Orientation on Job
Stress.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 14(1): 52–
63.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and
Organizational Climate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 527
Mareschal, P.M. (1998). “Insights from the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.” Review of Public Personnel Administration,
18(4): 55–67.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (2005). “Merit Principles
Survey.” [Online]. Available at www.mspb.gov/publicaffairs/
surveys.htm.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (2008). “Effectively
Managing Conflicts: The “X” Factor in Job Satisfaction and
Retention?” Issues of Merit, 13(1): 4.
Nabatchi, T., & Bingham, L.B. (2010). “From Postal to Peaceful:
Dispute Systems Design in the USPS Redress Program.” Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 30(2): 211–234.
Neumen, J.H., & Baron, R.A. (1998). “Workplace Violence and
Workplace Aggression: Evidence Concerning Specific Forms,
Potential Causes, and Preferred Targets.” Journal of
Management, 24(3): 391-419.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.).
NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Leary, R. (2010). “Guerrilla Employees: Should Managers Nurture,
Tolerate, or Terminate Them?” Public Administration Review,
70(1): 8-19.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). “Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1): 129-141.
Park, S.M., & Rainey, H.G. (2007). “Antecedents, Mediators, and
Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance
Commitment.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3):
197-226.
Peffer, S.L. (2009). “Title VII and Disparate-Treatment Discrimination
versus Disparate-Impact Discrimination: The Supreme Court’s
Decision in Ricci v. DeStefano.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 29(4): 402–410.
Peterson, R.S. (1999). “Can You Have Too Much of a Good Thing? The
Limits of Voice for Improving Satisfaction with Leaders.” Personal
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3): 313-324.
528 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
Pondy, L. R. (1967). “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2): 296-321.
Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing Conflict in Organizations (4th ed.).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). “Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational
Conflict.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3):
206-235.
Rahim, M.A. (1992). Managing Conflict in Organizations (2nd ed.).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rahim, M.A., (1983a). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-I. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rahim, M.A., (1983b). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II,
Forms A, B, and C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rahim, M.A., & Bonoma, T.V. (1979). “Managing Organizational
Conflict: A Model for Diagnosis and Intervention.” Psychological
Reports, 44(3): 1323-1344.
Rainey, H.G. (2014). Understanding and Managing Public
Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rubin, E.V., & Kellough, E.J. (2011). “Does Civil Service Reform Affect
Behavior? Linking Alternative Personnel Systems, Perceptions of
Procedural Justice, and Complaints.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 22(1): 121-141.
Sackmann, S. A. (1992). “Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of
Organizational Knowledge.” Administrative Science Quarterly,
37(1): 140-161.
Schachter, H.L. (1993). “A Case for Moving from Tolerance to Valuing
Diversity: The Issue of Religiously Distinctive Dress and
Appearance.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13(2):
29–44.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwenk, C.R. (1990). “Conflict in Organizational Decision Making: An
Exploratory Study of Its Effects in For-Profit and Not-For-Profit
Organizations.” Management Science, 36(4): 436–448.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 529
Stazyk, E.C., & Goerdel, H.T. (2011). “The Benefits of Bureaucracy:
Public Manager’s Perceptions of Political Support, Goal Ambiguity,
and Organizational Effectiveness.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 21(4):645-672.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). “Conflict and Conflict Management.” In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). “The Conflict-Positive Organization: It Depends
Upon Us.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1): 19–28.
Thompson, J. R. (2008). “Personnel Demonstration Projects and
Human Resource Management Innovation.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 28(3): 240-262.
Trudel, J., & Reio, T.G., Jr. (2011). “Managing Workplace Incivility: The
Role of Conflict Management Styles—Antecedent or Antidote?”
Human Resources Development Quarterly, 22(4): 395-423.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Cultures of Work
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vinzant, J.C. (1998). “Where Values Collide: Motivation and Role
Conflict in Child and Adult Protective Services.” American Review
of Public Administration, 28(4): 347–367.
Walton, R. E., & Dutton, J. M. (1969). “The Management of
Interdepartmental Conflict: A Model and Review.” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 14(4): 73-85.
Walton, R. E., Dutton, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (1969). “Organizational
Context and Interdepartmental Conflict.” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 14(4): 522-544.
Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (Translated
by H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills). NY: Oxford University.
Wright, B.E., & Davis, B.S. (2003). “Job satisfaction in the public
sector: The role of the work environment.” American Review of
Public Administration, 33(1):70-90.
Yates, D., Jr. (1985). The Politics of Management: Exploring the Inner
Workings of Public and Private Organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
530 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). “Does Trust Matter?
Exploring the Effects of Inter-organizational And Interpersonal
Trust On Performance.” Organization Science, 9(2): 141-159.
APPENDIX
Measures from the 2005 Merit Principles Survey
Employee Job Satisfaction (5-point scale)
I would recommend my agency as a place to work
In general, I am satisfied with my job
Cronbach’s Alpha = .81
Employee Perceptions of Organizational Performance (5-point scale)
My agency produces high quality products and services
My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission
My work unit produces high quality products and services
Cronbach’s Alpha = .79
Constructive Conflict Management (5-point scale)
My agency responds constructively to workplace conflicts
Serious Conflict (1 = yes, 0 = no)
In the past two years, have you experienced a serious conflict in
your work unit?
Educational Attainment (5-point scale)
What is your current education level?
Union Membership (1 = yes, 0 = no)
Are you a dues-paying member of a union?
Agency Tenure (number of years)
How many years have you been with your current federal agency?
Gender (1 = females, 0 = males)
Are you: male or female
Race (recoded: 1 = whites, 0 = nonwhites)
What race or ethnic category do you consider yourself to be?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
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: j.n.christian@bham.ac.uk
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.
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1368430212439907&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-01-10
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.
