An examination of the role of emotional intelligence in work and family conflict *.

Personality traits and the interaction on work-family conflict have been studied, including aggressiveness (Lightdale and Prentice, 1994) and negative affectivity (Carlson, 1999; Bruck and Allen, 2003). In addition, there have been several studies that found a positive relationship between Type A behavior and workfamily conflict (Burke et al., 1979). Neuroticism was also found to have a positive relationship to work-family conflict (Bruck and Allen, 2003). Further research has shown that conscientiousness helps reduce the negative impact that work role ambiguity has on one's well-being (Bruck and Allen, 2003). Moreover, agreeableness was found to have a negative effect on work-family conflict: the more agreeable the individual, the greater reported work-family conflict (Bruck and Allen, 2003). Emotional Intelligence (EI) was also shown to predict persistence under frustrating circumstances (Schutte et al., 2000) and has been found to moderate the effect of work-family conflict on career commitment (Carmeli, 2003). In a study of senior managers, Carmeli found a significant interaction of work-family conflict and Emotional Intelligence in predicting career commitment. Stated differently, the higher a senior manager is on Emotional Intelligence, the weaker the negative effect of work-family conflict on career commitment (2003).

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence is a profile of self-awareness, of managing one's emotions, of motivation, of empathy and social competence. Goleman's (1995) work thrusted the concept into the spotlight, although the term Emotional Intelligence was first used by Salovey and Mayer (1990). They defined Emotional Intelligence as "the ability to monitor one's own feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (1990: 189).

Mayer and Salovey (1997) later identified four components of Emotional Intelligence: perception, assimilation, understanding and management. The first component is described as an ability to be self-aware of emotions and to be able to express one's emotional needs. Assimilation refers to one's ability to distinguish among different emotions they may be feeling and to prioritize those that are influencing their thought processes (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). The third component is the ability to understand complex emotions such as simultaneous feelings of loyalty and betrayal (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). The ability to distinguish the emotions that emerge from perceptions is important in overcoming negative responses to emotions. It is also in this component that Mayer and Salovey include the ability to understand other's emotional expressions and behaviors. Lastly, the management component is the ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion, depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). This component varies from the personality domain because the regulation of emotions can vary to suit specific personality traits (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). Caruso et al. (2002) examined the relation of an ability measure of Emotional Intelligence to personality. This examination found that Emotional Intelligence was a "measure as reliable and independent of traditional defined personality traits, supporting the discriminant validity of the Emotional Intelligence construct" (2002: 306). Similarly, Saklofske et al. (2003) state that Emotional Intelligence self-reports measures account for variance not accounted for by personality. The contribution of Emotional Intelligence to one's attitude toward change was found to be significant, indicating the added value of using an Emotional Intelligence measure above and beyond the effect of personality (Vakola et al., 2004).

Many scholars have theorized that high Emotional Intelligence contributes to success in various aspects of life including work and relationships (e.g., Goleman, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Because Emotional Intelligence theoretically includes the ability to understand and regulate others' as well as one's own emotions, it may be related to both characteristics that build relationships and the quality of those relationships (Schutte et al., 2001).

Furthermore, scholars have theorized that high Emotional Intelligence would lead to greater feelings of emotional well-being (Goleman, 1995; Saarni, 1999; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Salovey et al., 1995; Schutte et al., 2002). Some empirical evidence that Emotional Intelligence is associated with emotional well-being comes from research indicating that higher Emotional Intelligence is associated with less depression, greater optimism (Schutte et al., 1998) and greater self-esteem (Schutte et al., 2002). Moreover, research found that individuals with higher Emotional Intelligence were better able to maintain a positive mood and self-esteem when faced with a negative state induction (Schutte et al., 2002). Thus, both theory and prior research advance a connection between Emotional Intelligence and well-being.

Hypothesis 1: Emotional Intelligence is positively related to well-being.

Work-family conflict has been identified as a source of stress that influences well-being (Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986). For example, it has been shown to be positively related to depression and decreased satisfaction with life and an intensified depressive affect (Marshall and Lang, 1990). Even perceived unfairness between work and family demands leads to psychological distress and depression in both men and women (Voydanoffand Donnelly, 1999). Thus, if one perceives the work-family demands as unfairly monopolizing their time and attention, one experiences more conflict between the two domains. This conflict leads to reduced feelings of well-being.

Hypothesis 2: Work-family conflict is negatively related to well-being.

The ability to perceive, understand and manage emotions is an integral part of Emotional Intelligence; thus, it seems that people with high Emotional Intelligence should experience lower worker family conflict. Carmeli (2003) studied the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and work attitudes and the behavior of senior managers. Among other findings, his results supported a finding that Emotional Intelligence moderated the negative influence of work-family conflict on career commitment. He suggests that this result "indicates that senior managers who have high Emotional Intelligence may better and more carefully handle the inherent work-family conflict than those with low Emotional Intelligence" (2003: 805).

A person with high EI is one that can recognize, and then effectively deal with their own emotions while at the same time recognize and empathize with others' feelings. Inherent in the work-family conflict is a tremendous amount of emotional upheaval. Inevitably one domain will encroach on the other and it results in more than just a time issue or energy constraints; it also invokes one's emotions. The ability to be aware of your emotions, express them and effectively manage them is a key determinant in whether the conflict between the two domains negatively impacts one's well-being.

This study suggests that Emotional Intelligence will have an impact on the relationship between work-family conflict and well-being. Consistent with Jordan et al. who argued that "Emotional Intelligence moderates the links between perceptions of job insecurity and affective reaction, as well as the links between affective reactions and behavior" (2002: 365), we posit that Emotional Intelligence interacts with work-family conflict to predict well-being.

Hypothesis 3: There is an interaction effect between Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict on well-being.

METHODS

Participants

A total of 205 people participated in this study. For the study, 60.0% were female. Most (81.0%) were married and the most common racial/ ethnic group was Caucasian (77.1%), followed by African-American (15.1%). The age of the respondents ranged between 19 and 70, with a mean of 47.48 years, and a standard deviation of 11.14 years. For number of children, 34.6% reported having no children, with the most any respondent had was five children (M = 1.27, SD = 1.19). For education, 50.2% had a high school diploma, and the remainder had a college degree or more education. Years with the organization ranged from 1 to 34 (M = 10.78, SD = 7.32). Hours of work reported ranged from 4 to 82 (M = 38.25, SD = 8.16). For satisfaction and importance of work, the means and standard deviations, are 5.04 (1.36) and 5.87 (1.19), respectively.

The data collected for use in this study were part of a "Quality of Work-Family Study" at a university in the northeast of the U.S. This sample was drawn from a large university representing a large variety of jobs including unionized trade workers to executive managers. The survey sample was obtained from the population of employees at a suburban doctoral-granting university with a budget of over $242 million with approximately 8,000 full-time and part-time employees.

Measures

Gender was coded "0" for Male and "1" for Female. Marital status was coded as "1" for married and "0" for all other categories (i.e., single, widowed or divorced). Information on race, age, number of children and number of children living at home, average number of hours worked/week, number of hours caring for elderly parent were also collected from the respondent.