analogies and discrepanciesin internal and external ...€¦ · evaluated emotional intelligence...

Fabian Sax

35191205

2017/2018 Exposé

Emotional Intelligence

in Business Negotiations.

European Master in Business Studies EMBS 10

A Triangulation Study of Self-Other Agreement

on Emotional Intelligence (EI) in Business Negotiations.

– Vincent van Gogh –

Let's not forget that the little emotions

are the great captains of our lives and

we obey them without realizing it.

"

"

2 Preface

1 Preface

The work at hand has been realised in the course of my master thesis and in line with the

EMBS (European Master of Business Studies) master program's third semester at the

University of Kassel, Germany.

Given the immense relevance of this topic, not only in a managerial and professional

context, but also for any kind of social and interpersonal interaction in everyday's life, it was

my utmost concern to elaborate a thesis, that finds its legitimisation and significance in

academic research and business practice. However, most importantly, it should help me to

develop this particular skill, the "[...] capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of

others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our

relationships"(Goleman, 1998, p. 318), further and to be able to use it as a valuable asset for

my future life. Goleman (2011) once said in an interview with the Time Magazine, that "in a

high-IQ job pool, soft skills like discipline, drive, and empathy mark those who emerge as

outstanding". This sounded romantic and idealistic to me in the beginning, but evolved over

time and proved increasingly right and relevant for my daily life.

This work should incentivise its readers to think outside the box and to pay more attention to

the quality rather than the quantity of their social interactions. This does, especially in a

business context, of course not mean to put bare figures aside. They are and will always be

the essential foundation of professional decision-making. The key is to enrich them with

more intangible, abstract and long-term oriented constructs. Contrasting self- and others'

perception of ourselves should make us reconsider our self-evaluation and stimulate our

inner motivation to work towards constant improvement and higher levels of interpersonal

and emotional intelligence.

Eventually, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to those persons who contributed a

lot to the realisation of this thesis and without their unconditional support and committed

involvement, it would not have been accomplished: Prof. Katharina Raab and Prof. Kathrin

Zulauf for their tutoring, ____________ and ____________ for the editing, proofreading and

many good inspirations, my EMBS 10 friends who created a personally and academically

inspiring working environment and last but most importantly, my family who has always

supported me in any undertaking and has been on my side during my entire life – thank you.

Fabian Sax – Kassel, 22 January 2018

3 Abstract

2 Abstract

Purpose This work aims at examining if and how business negotiators' self-

evaluated emotional intelligence diverges from their negotiation partners'

perception of the same as well as from the one obtained by means of an

emotional intelligence test. It uses triangulation in order to identify and

verify analogies and discrepancies in people's internal and external

apperception of their emotional intelligence in business negotiation

situations. Moreover, its purpose is to gain insights into which key elements

trigger the evaluation of a negotiator's emotional intelligence.

Methodology This thesis was realised by applying a three-way triangulation approach

consisting of a questionnaire-based self-evaluation of the participant, a

questionnaire-based evaluation from the negotiator's counterpart and a

third evaluation on the basis of the Schutte Self-report Emotional

Intelligence Test. The __ participants (__ dyads) were made up of __ male

and __ female students, aged between __ and __.

Value This work contributes to the academic discourse by providing deeper

insights into business negotiators' self-other agreement and the main

factors causing the respective evaluations. Consequently, it supplements

existing research on the topic and contributes to a more exhaustive

understanding of emotional intelligence in a business negotiation context.

On a managerial level, it supports the employment of new and

identification of training requirements of existing workforce and provides

information on the fundamental skill-set required by business negotiator's

in the 21st century.

Keywords emotional intelligence – business negotiations

self-other agreement – triangulation – emotion perception

4 Table of Contents

3 Table of Contents

1 PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................. 2

2 ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................ 3

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... 4

4 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 6

5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 7

6 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 8

6.1 MOTIVATION & RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 8

6.2 RESEARCH GAP .......................................................................................................................................... 9

6.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM & HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 10

7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 15

7.1 DEFINITIONS & TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 15

7.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EI ................................................................................................................ 17

7.3 MODELLING EI ........................................................................................................................................ 20

7.3.1 Self-Awareness ................................................................................................................................ 24

7.3.2 Social Awareness ............................................................................................................................ 25

7.3.3 Self Management ............................................................................................................................ 25

7.3.4 Relationship Management.............................................................................................................. 26

7.4 IMPLICATIONS OF EI ON BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS .......................................................................................... 26

7.4.1 Positive Implications & Praise ......................................................................................................... 27

7.4.2 Negative Implications & Criticism ................................................................................................... 30

7.4.3 How to develop EI in Business Negotiations ................................................................................... 34

8 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 38

8.1 SECONDARY RESEARCH – LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 39

8.2 PRIMARY RESEARCH – EXPERIMENT ............................................................................................................. 39

8.2.1 Sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 41

8.2.2 Part 1 – Business Negotiation Simulations ..................................................................................... 41

8.2.3 Part 2 – EI Self-Assessment ............................................................................................................. 43

8.2.4 Part 3 – EI-Test (SSEIT) .................................................................................................................... 43

8.2.5 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 44

9 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 46

9.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 46

5 Table of Contents

10 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 47

10.1 SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................................... 47

10.2 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................................... 47

10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 47

10.4 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 47

10.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................... 47

11 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 48

12 DECLARATION IN LIEU OF OATH ............................................................................................................ 49

13 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 50

14 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................. 60

14.1 TIMELINE ................................................................................................................................................ 60

6 List of Illustrations

4 List of Illustrations

FIGURE 7-1. MAYER AND SALOVEY'S MODEL OF EI (1997)............................................................................................... 21

FIGURE 7-2. SELF-ILLUSTRATION OF THE SSEIT ON THE BASIS OF SCHUTTE ET AL. (2009) ....................................................... 22

FIGURE 7-3. FOUR QUADRANT EI COMPETENCE MODEL (GOLEMAN ET AL., 2002) ................................................................ 24

FIGURE 7-4. EI COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT MODEL (SELF-ELABORATION ON THE BASIS OF MINAROVA ET AL., 2015) ................. 35

FIGURE 8-1. RESEARCH ONION (SAUNDERS, LEWIS, & THORNHILL, 2009, P. 108) ................................................................ 38

FIGURE 8-2. LAYOUT TRIANGULATION STUDY (SELF-ELABORATION) ..................................................................................... 40

7 List of Abbreviations

5 List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

EI emotional intelligence

EQ emotional quotient

IQ intelligence quotient

CQ cognitive quotient

MSCEIT Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

SSEIT/SREIT Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test

SEIS Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale

EQ-i Emotional Quotient Inventory

8 Introduction

6 Introduction

This section intends to give a first well-structured outline and foundational basis of the thesis'

content. It is thereby composed of three core parts: firstly, a description of the research

objective, giving further information on the necessity and importance of the topic; secondly, a

part identifying, describing and analysing this work's underlying research gap; thirdly, a final

part stating the research problem and consecutively developing the hypotheses this work

aspires to answer.

6.1 Motivation & Research Objectives

One of the most renowned and leading experts in the field of emotional intelligence (EI) and

long-standing consultant of multinational giants like Microsoft, Amazon or the United

Nations, Joshua Freedman, once summarised the relevance of EI in the following way:

Emotional intelligence is a way of recognizing, understanding, and choosing

how we think, feel, and act. It shapes our interactions with others and our

understanding of ourselves. It defines how and what we learn; it allows us to

set priorities; it determines the majority of our daily actions. Research

suggests it is responsible for as much as 80 percent of the "success" in our

lives. (Freedman, Jensen, Rideout, & Freedman, 1998, p. 12)

This much cited statement is, of course, only one point of view with respect to the

importance of EI and not exclusively targeted at the business context. Nevertheless, it

succeeds in merging several ideas: it defines the concept of EI, it gives a glimpse of the rich

diversity of facets and notions EI entails and it emphasises its significance for and impact on

people's private and professional lives.

Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) summed up the challenges companies aspiring to grow and

prosper in the 21st century have to face by stating four main aspects: (1) outrivaling

competition in the war for talents and long-term success, (2) managing and balancing the

increasing importance of intangibles with to-date prevailing hard data, (3) conceptualising

and successfully implementing programs aimed at organisational change and eventually, (4)

knowing how to confront multiple stakeholders and their diverse interests. From these four

key elements one can deduce that it requires an organisational paradigm shift in order to

9 Introduction

stay successful in the long-term. As all these aspects are ex- or implicitly related to the EI

embedded within a corporation, EI can be used as a basis for this shift and emphasises

once again the strategic relevance of this concept for business operations. Cooper and

Sawaf (1977) already suggested some 40 years ago that a company needs more than mere

cognitive intelligence in order to prosper in the long-run and Côté and Miners (2006) added

to this that managers, leaders and negotiators can even use their increased level of EI to

compensate for a lower level of CI.

Therefore one might ask at this stage: Are not moods, feelings and emotions invariably

present in any kind of negotiation context and would completely removing them from these

interactions not spare the negotiators with a banal and trivial business transaction of

insignificant inter-personal long-term importance?

Bearing the abovementioned argumentation and question in mind, this work strives to use

this motivation in order to examine and depict the importance EI bears in business

negotiations. It should direct academic attention towards EI in business negotiations and

stimulate further research in the field of perceptual analogies and discrepancies amongst

distinct sources of EI evaluations. Moreover, it aims at providing companies with first

insights on how they can effectively assess, interpret and steer their existing and to-be

workforce's emotional capabilities towards better economic and inter-personal negotiation

outcomes.

6.2 Research Gap

Mayer and Salovey (1993) encouraged scientists in one of their first publications on EI to do

more research in order to identify, analyse and describe the underlying theoretical constructs

and to give validity to a, at that time, new and rather vague concept. Scientists all over the

world followed this recommendation, based EI on a much broader theoretical foundation and

promoted the topic in an academic and managerial context.

Even though EI is nowadays an extensively researched topic in the literature and

researchers already successfully opened the discourse of EI in negotiations, only little work

on perceptual differences of EI in business negotiations has been published to date. Whilst

the identified gaps of improving the conceptual validity of EI and examining the relationship

between CQ and EI have been well-discussed in the last years, empirical experimentation

on the interplay of different sources of EI measurement has not received the same attention

10 Introduction

so far (Fulmer & Barry, 2004). Fineman (2004) emphasised that increasing interest in the

topic itself inevitably triggers the need for supplementary research, in particular on the

measurement of EI. Hebcontinued that EI is prevailingly measured by means of self-

assessment of participants' own emotional setup and therefore lacks a second comparative

opinion in order to prove the validity and accuracy of these evaluations. Sosik and Megerian

(1999) raised a similar issue and the need for research focusing on the differences and

analogies between managers', leaders' or negotiators own and others' EI perception. A

review of available measurement approaches claimed that there is insufficient literature

verifying research data by means of triangulation studies – using two or more different

measurement approaches in order to test and cross-check the results of one single measure

(Matthews, Zeider, & Roberts, 2002).

Pérez, Petrides and Fuhrman (2005) confirmed the research gap by creating and demanding

more and more diverse attempts and concepts to measure EI, Meisler and Vigoda-Gadot

(2014) called for further studies using multiple methods of data collection and Dunning,

Heath and Suls (2004) recommended independent capability and skill testing in the course

of minimising common biases related to the usage of only one measurement technique.

Fulmer and Barry (2004) emphasised the importance of further research on the topic in a

negotiation context. In line with this and to further fortify the argument that the topic itself is

far from being saturated, Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) as well as other researchers stated

that academic and managerial interest in EI will not abate any time soon and will

consequently also play a crucial role in future research.

Although the abovementioned sources imply that the research gap was partially identified

several years ago, more current research confirms that this gap has not been filled yet and

that the claims and calls for research on the topic are still valid. Furthermore, this shows the

multitude of distinct issues that need to be investigated in greater detail in order to get a

clear overview of the many facets this topic entails.

6.3 Research Problem & Hypotheses Development

Bearing the abovementioned research gap and the supporting literature in mind, one can

see that there is an abundance of content on the impact of EI on business negotiation

situations and other notions of this research topic. Nevertheless, there is little literature

looking into the aspect of self-other-agreement of EI perception in business negotiations and

the main aspects triggering these evaluations:

11 Introduction

Atwater and Yammarino (1997) discussed in their extensive work on EI and leadership that

EI bears significant importance in determining the results of self-other rating-agreement.

However, they did not examine the degree to which self-other evaluations correspond to or

deviate from each other. Consequently, the work at hand is targeted at giving a deeper

insight into this matter and placing a particular focus on the following research problems:

"What are the analogies and discrepancies

between internal and external apperception

of a person's level of emotional intelligence

in business negotiations?"

and

"What are the key elements

triggering the evaluation of a negotiator's EI?"

As research on the self-other-agreement in business negotiations is comparatively rare, this

work partially refers to and bases its hypotheses on research conducted in the field of

management and leadership. This assumption rests upon literature that acknowledged the

similarity, interdependence and close correlation between corporate leadership and business

negotiation situations (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007).

Ashford (1989) as well as Atwater and Yammarino (1992) attempted to organise individuals

according to their self-perception and elaborated three basic categories: Firstly,

overestimators who rate themselves substantially better than others do. Secondly,

underestimators who act contrarily, rating themselves comparatively lower. Thirdly and

finally, people who rate themselves in agreement with how others rate them.

With an eye on the abovementioned categories, Atwater and Yammarino (1997) concluded

that underestimators are often not fully aware of their strong and weak points. They rate

themselves modestly in order not to create unrealistic expectations in their counterparts.

Those underestimators are the ones that are rated highest by their subordinates and do not

show an inferior performance (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). Atwater and Yammarino

(1997) emphasised that people with a high self-other agreement perform best. Furthermore,

Conger (1998) claimed that most managers tend to significantly overestimate their own

credibility and consequently their cognitive and emotional setup. This was confirmed by

Dunning et al. (2004) for laboratory as well as real-life situations and they argued that people

12 Introduction

misdiagnose their capabilities and claim to perform better than the comparable average.

Exemplarily, they demonstrated that corporate executives often hold significant over-

confidence in their investment decision-making and judgement of risks in high-stake

projects – areas where this overestimation or over-confidence can have a substantial long-

term impact on the company's financial performance. In the management and leadership

context, Atwater and Yammarino (1997) based these magnified self-evaluations on elevated

self-worth and self-consciousness and an overly positive apperception of their own

capabilities. Additionally, as overestimators are convinced of the excellence of their work and

do not see their internal room for improvement, they tend to neglect feedback from others on

how to ameliorate their performance and develop themselves further (Atwater, Ostroff,

Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998).

With the exception of well-established relationships of people who know each other very well

and who show a significant self-other-agreement in their evaluations (Dobewall, Aavik,

Konstabel, Schwartz, & Realo, 2014), the abovementioned elaborations give rise to the

assumption that the type and source of evaluation have an impact on the person's EI score.

This means that there is no or only little congruency between self- and others' apperception

of one's EI. These considerations trigger the following hypotheses and alternative

hypotheses, marked with a lower-case 'a':

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1a

"Negotiators tend to overestimate

their own level of EI in comparison to

their score in an EI-test."

"Negotiators tend to underestimate


the score in an EI-test."

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2a

"Negotiators tend to overestimate


the score obtained from their

counterpart's evaluation."

"Negotiators tend to underestimate


the score obtained from their

counterpart's evaluation."

13 Introduction

Van Velsor, Taylor and Leslie (2006) remarked that gender-specific discrepancies in self-

other-agreement scores exist and that women do not necessarily underestimate their own

capabilities. On the other hand, women also do not tend to be over-confident about their

negotiation outcomes and follow more cooperative than their male counterparts' competitive

negotiation tactics (Watson & Hoffman, 1996). This implies that women have more realistic

self-evaluations and are more likely to be in agreement with others in this respect.

Consequently, a person's gender is related to how accurate the self-other agreement of

perceived EI is. Women are able to filter and block influences driving them towards over- or

underestimations of their own abilities and can subsequently provide a more realistic and

less biased assessment of themselves and a higher agreement with objective measurement

techniques (Fletcher, 1999). This point of view is shared by a significant amount of related

literature (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991) and drives the following

hypotheses:

Brutus, Fleenor and Tisak (1999) pointed out that it is rather peer- than self-ratings that

explain the outcome effectiveness in business negotiations and subsequently give a more

realistic and profound picture of a negotiator's EI capabilities. While the importance of peer-

over self-evaluation for outcome prediction was questioned and disproved later by arguing

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3a

"The self-other agreement deriving from

a comparison of a person's self-evaluation

with the score in an EI-test is higher

for women than for men."



with the score in an EI test is lower

for women than for men."

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4a



with the score obtained from their counterpart's

evaluation is higher for women than for men."



with the score obtained from their counterpart's

evaluation is lower for women than for men."

14 Introduction

that both play their essential part (Atwater et al., 1998), external ratings still seem to capture

the negotiator's actual capabilities and skills better than mere and unguided self-evaluations

(Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). In their work Dunning et al. (2004) demonstrated that

people's self-evaluations only correlate very slightly with their real conduct or actions and

that others' ratings give a more accurate picture of an individual's performance. External

feedback can aid negotiators to improve their self-perception and make their self-evaluations

more realistic and congruent with others'.

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5a

"The EI evaluations obtained from the

negotiator's counterpart reflect the

negotiator's score in the EI-test more

accurately than their self-evaluations do."

"The EI evaluations obtained from the

negotiator's counterpart reflect the

negotiator's score in the EI-test less

accurately than their self-evaluations do."

15 Theoretical Framework


This section of the thesis is targeted at gathering, condensing, evaluating, contrasting and

presenting the most relevant existing research on the topic of EI in general, and EI in

business negotiations in particular. It therefore aims at:

defining the most relevant concepts and theories in this matter,

providing an overview of the historical development of EI,

analysing the most prominent scientific approaches to model the construct, and

depicting the positive and negative implications of EI in the context of business

negotiations.

This literature review is organised around key themes and should support the reader in

grasping the underlying conceptual framework, understanding the particular context of the

topic and comprehending the experimental part of this study more easily.

7.1 Definitions & Terminology

Emotional Intelligence, abbreviated as EI, or the almost synonymously used wording

emotional quotient, abbreviated as EQ, depict a multifaceted an complex construct,

consisting of a multitude of diverse notions primarily deriving from psychological but also

economic and social sciences and research. This is confirmed by the long list of different

definitions that can be found in the literature.

As a first step on the way to obtain a clear understanding of what EI is about, one has to

define its foundation, emotions. Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981) were the first to systemise

the broad range of different approaches to define emotions:

Emotion is a complex set of interactions among subjective and objective

factors, mediated by neural hormonal systems, which can (a) give rise to

affective experiences such as feelings of arousal, pleasure/displeasure; (b)

generate cognitive processes such as emotionally relevant perceptual effects,

appraisals, labelling processes; (c) activate widespread physiological

adjustments to the arousing conditions; (d) lead to behaviour that is often, but

not always, expressive, goal-directed, and adaptive. (p. 355)


Subsequently, one can dig deeper into the matter of EI and engage in defining it. The

present work focuses its attention on EI as defined by the most renowned authors in this

field, significantly coining and contributing to the remarkable rise in importance of the topic:

Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer as well as Daniel Goleman. The former creating and the

latter popularising the term. Even though they chose slightly diverging approaches in

defining the topic, both emphasised that EI is highly intertwined with and dependent on the

quality of a persons' social relations with their immediate environment (Lopes, Salovey,

Cote, Beers, & Petty, 2005).

Mayer and Salovey (1997) pointed out the diversity of notions in which EI can have an

impact on a person's social interactions, by defining EI as:

the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to

access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to

understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate

emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (p. 10)

Moreover, they proposed a theoretical construct consisting of four phases, being the (1)

identification, the (2) usage, the (3) understanding and eventually the (4) management of

emotions (see figure 7-1).

Goleman (1995) chose a similar approach, highlighting what can be called the five main sub-

constructs of EI and defined EI as having the capability to be aware of one's own and others'

emotions, being able to actively manage them and how they are shown and articulated,

showing passion for one's occupation, demonstrating empathy for others and having the

social skills required in order to manage relationships and create professional and private

networks. Given their eminent relevance in a managerial and negotiation context (Ogilvie &

Carsky, 2002a), Mayer and Salovey's as well as Goleman's components are examined in

greater detail at a later point of this work.

As EI is particularly important from an interpersonal perspective (Mueller & Curhan, 2006),

the professional discussion of the underlying thesis topic requires the definition of what is

prevalently branded as a negotiation situation. Even though especially business negotiation

situations are relevant for this work, negotiations are of fundamental importance in many

different areas of life, be it in a legal context, with respect to international political relations or

in private relationships (Kong, Bottom, & Konczak, 2016). Consequently, researchers from

different scientific backgrounds tried to improve the outcome of (Bazerman & Carroll, 1987;


Gelfand & Brett, 2004) and provide guidance for negotiators in their respective field

(Bazerman & Neale, 1992).

Pruitt and Carnevale (1993) specified the main characteristics of a negotiation situation as

being (1) composed of a minimum of two persons or parties with individual and potentially

diverging preferences, (2) providing for the possibility and a mutual willingness for an

agreement and (3) being based on an interactive process of argumentation exchange.

Thompson (2001, p. 2) therefore condensed these theoretical guidelines and defined the

term as an "interpersonal decision-making process by which two or more people agree to

allocate scarce resources". In a later work, which attracted significant scientific attention and

is still labelled as a revolutionary negotiation management approach, Fisher, Ury and Patton

(1981) coined what is nowadays known as the Harvard Method – a principle-based

negotiation project aimed at improving the theory and practice of conflict resolution and

negotiation. In their book they argue that efficient negotiations require negotiators to follow

four basic principle:

to create opportunities for mutual gain and satisfaction,

to unlink the people involved from the underlying issue,

to demand fair practices in using objective measurement standards and

to negotiate on the parties' interests rather than on their positions.

7.2 Historical Development of EI

Even though the concept of and theories about EI gained significant academic and non-

academic popularity in recent years, it is far from being a new phenomenon: Literature

suggests that first considerations of the topic date back to the 1930s, when the psychologist

Thorndike and the author Stein (1937) conceptualised what they called "social intelligence"

(p. 275). At that time, their work was referring to a manager's capability of capturing,

understanding and guiding people in order to achieve a superordinate common goal and to

react appropriately in response to a counterpart's motivations, behaviours and interests.

Several years later renowned scholars and psychologists like Sternberg (1988) picked their

ideas up again and further promoted the concept of "social intelligence", referring to a

person's ability to effectively manage and negotiate intricate interpersonal relationships in

different environments. Therefore, Thorndike and Stein's (1937) theoretical foundation

brought the topic to light and was followed by decades of more or less related research,

particularly in the field of social psychology. The at that time identified and analysed


constructs can in today's ex post point of view be seen as the theoretical predecessors and

a preliminary step towards the development of what is nowadays known as EI (Mueller &

Curhan, 2006).

After Thorndike and Stein's initial ideas, research spread towards different directions: Davis

(1983) focused on the importance of empathy in social and business environments, Folkman

and Lazarus (1985) as well as Gross (1998) dedicated their research on efficient ways to

control one's own and the counterparts' emotions and Isen and her research colleagues

(Isen, Shalker, Clark, & Karp, 1978; Isen, Johson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985) focused on the

impact of mood on a person's cognitive performance. In 1990 Salovey and Mayer then finally

constructed what they called EI and described it as a particular notion of social intelligence.

Only a few years later, Harvard University professor Gardner (1993), said to be the founding

father of the modern construct of multiple intelligences, approached the fundamentals of this

topic by trying to challenge the till then prevailing hegemony of cognitive intelligence (IQ) as

the sole determinant of an individual's long-term business success. This step proved to be of

significant value for future research. In succession, other orientations towards analytic,

creative and practical intelligence emerged (Sternberg, The theory of successful intelligence,

1999). Even though this work will not further examine the interplay and interdependence

between all these different notions and their impact on business negotiations, it shows the

historic importance of striving for alternative notions of intelligence, others than EQ,

impacting long-term business prosperity and negotiation outcomes (Fulmer & Barry, 2004).

After first mentioning EI and his initial idea, Gardner then claimed that there are multiple

other factors constituting for example what he called "(intra)personal intelligence" (p. 239), a

construct of fundamental importance for improving top-level management performance. In

the defining context of this concept Gardner(1993) said:

The core capacity at work here is access to one's own feeling life – one's

range of affects and emotions: the capacity instantly to effect discriminations

among these feelings and, eventually, to label them, to enmesh them in

symbolic codes, to draw upon them as a means of understanding and guiding

one's behaviour. (p. 239)

This turned out to be the long-required impulse to start a broad and open discussion about

EI in academic literature and management practice. This revolutionary approach and the

new ideas were then adopted, adapted and popularised by Daniel Goleman as well as again

by Salovey and Mayer (1990), who were the first to intellectually empower emotions and


coin the expression of EI. Goleman (1996) even went as far as attributing a significantly

higher importance to EQ than to ordinary IQ in determining successful corporate

management and business leadership. In line with this, Fulmer and Barry (2004) showed

that efficient negotiation management requires more than an isolated view on one of the

contemporary conceptualisations of intelligence. This standpoint that was subject to highly

controversial argumentation in the following years and will be examined at a later point of

this work.

Over the course of time and thanks to the pioneering work of the abovementioned authors,

their initial ideas were developed further, structure was added and generalisation and

application of the theories in business practice were facilitated (Mueller & Curhan, 2006).

Research started picturing managers, leaders and negotiators in a more irrational and less

analytic context, giving rise to the growing relevance of emotions and EI. Research on

negotiation management did originally not consider EI as a decisive but more as a hindering

factor towards reaching an optimal outcome in business negotiations (Rubin & Brown, 1975;

Thompson, 1990). This point of view was consequently proven to be fundamentally wrong

and is analysed in a later part of this work.

Researchers' interest in the topic kick-started again at the beginning of the 21st century and

emotions were increasingly accepted as a crucial trigger of negotiation success (Fulmer &

Barry, 2004). As in a self-amplifying process, this concept has consequently been adopted

by many management and business consultants and lauded by influential scholarly and

popular magazines and gazettes, making this initially complex construct of EI more easily

understandable for the general public and bringing it to the attention of a significantly

broader audience (Fineman, 2004).

In conclusion, while the conventional wisdom of business negotiations had been one of

eradicating or curtailing emotions, one of romanticising cognitive over emotional elements

and one of underlining rational decision-making factors at the expense of irrational ones

(Katz & Sosa, 2015), current literature sheds a more realistic light on the elementary

significance of emotions for the success of business negotiations (Lewicki, Bruce, &

Sounders, 2015). In their work, Zeidner, Matthews and Roberts (2004) even claim that the

primary determinant of intelligence in the 20th century was cognitive, whereas it will be

emotional intelligence in the 21st century.


7.3 Modelling EI

Many researchers dedicated their work to modelling EI, primarily approaching it by trying to

identify, understand, define and frame the different key elements constituting EI. They tried

to identify the one single vade mecum of strategy, technique or capability required to

become a successful and efficient negotiator (Thompson, Neale, & Sinaceur, 2004).

However, as EI and success in making use of one's EI depends on a multitude of different

and highly complex influence factors, this maxim is unrealistic in business practice and soon

proved to be outdated (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000).

Before having a closer look at the more realistic models elaborated in order to evaluate and

model a person's EI, one has to differentiate between three different modelling approaches

(Caruso, 2008):

Typical/trait EI approaches are based on a person's self-perception and self-

evaluation. They are of particular relevance when it comes to personal reflection and

the attempt to identify areas for improvement. Humans in general and aspiring

managers, businessmen and negotiators in particular are sometimes influenced by

personal preferences and previous emotional experiences. This consequently

questions their ability to objectively reflect on themselves(Shafir & LeBoeuf, 2002).

Nevertheless, when combined with other assessment channels, as it is in this study,

trait EI models can provide a valid foundation for research matters concerned with

welfare, self-management, emotionality and sociability and subsequently be of high

value in the context of business negotiations (Pérez et al., 2005).

In comparison to the emotion-based trait EI, the ability EI approaches refer to

emotional and cognitive aspects of EI – they therefore use a different methodological

approach (Petrides, 2011). These tools (e.g. the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test – MSCEIT) are based on a comparison between an individual's

subjective and an expert's objective answers and are therefore of particular

importance in cases when no other source of assessment is available. As there are

many different tools on the market (e.g. for leadership, workplace performance, etc.),

it is essential to define context in which it is applied beforehand and then choose the

most appropriate tool accordingly (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000).


Mixed EI tools merge the concepts of trait and ability EI. However, as many of the

tools under this patronage have significant methodological shortcomings and

inaccuracies, literature, with exception of the Bar-On model, does not very often

consider them as highly relevant in the course of measuring EI (Pérez et al., 2005).

After examining the different categories EI measurement approaches can be classified into,

the following section analyses the most prominent and scientifically proven EI models and

tests: In one of their first attempts to facilitate the complex structure and manifold

orientations of EI, Mayer and Salovey (1990; 1993) defined their model of four branches of

EI, namely the perception/appraisal, usage/utilisation, understanding/expression and

management/regulation of emotions (see figure 7-1). The authors ordered these branches

hierarchically, constituting that the identification of one's own and others' emotions is the

most elementary and that the management of these emotions is the most advanced stage.

This was confirmed by a study executed by Ogilvie and Carsky (2002b), who found that their

experiment's participants' scores declined in correspondence with an increasing degree of

intricacy. They (2002a) also claimed that all four stages of the construct show a remarkable

significance in the context of business negotiations. As a continuation of their work, Mayer,

Salovey and Caruso (2002) then created what is now known as the world's most used

performance test for assessing a person's EI for recruitment and personnel selection matters

– the MSCEIT. They based it on a multi-dimensional model including the aspects of

perceiving, facilitating, understanding and managing emotions and placed particular

attention to the analysis of EI's social utility and the quality of people's social interactions.

Figure 7-1. Mayer and Salovey's Model of EI (1997)


On the groundwork of Mayer and Salovey's first model, Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty,

Cooper and Golden (1998) developed and validated a new measure of EI: the Assessing

Emotions Scale, in literature sometimes referred to as the Emotional Intelligence Scale, the

Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT or SSEIT) or the Schutte Emotional

Intelligence Scale (SEIS) – in succession abbreviated with SSEIT. This test intends to

measure trait emotional intelligence on the basis of a 33-item questionnaire and self- and

other-evaluations of EI in a quotidian context (Schutte, Malouff, & Bhullar, 2009). As a result,

this test provides its user with an overall score as well as scores in four sub-categories which

are closely related to Mayer and Salovey's model of EI. However, as can be seen by

comparing the two models, the SSEIT focuses on only three of the four initially developed

categories, replacing the phase of understanding one's own and the other's emotions by

splitting the phase of managing emotions into self-management and relationship

management (Schutte et al., 1998).

The first category or stage, called perception of emotions, consists of the identification,

evaluation and communication of one's own and the counterpart's emotions. Secondly,

managing one's own emotions depicts the process of examining, regulating and directing

emotions towards cognitive and emotional prosperity and progress. Thirdly, managing

others' emotions entails the efficient handling of others' emotions in the course of

maintaining a responsible and efficient relationship and navigating it towards mutual

satisfaction and common goals. The fourth and last stage of this model, the utilisation of

emotions, refers to the transformation and application of one's emotional capacity into

actions. This work will focus on the most relevant of the respective competencies in a

professional business negotiation context, but can similarly be applied to non-professional

personal relationships. The interplay of the different stages of the SSEIT is illustrated in

figure 7-2.

Figure 7-2. Self-illustration of the SSEIT on the basis of Schutte et al. (2009)


Contrarily to the previous models, Higgs and Dulewicz (2002) focused in their work on seven

core aspects of EI: Self-awareness, emotional resilience, motivation, interpersonal

sensitivity, influence, intuitiveness and conscientiousness. The more recent Bar-On (2006)

model has been pioneering in elaborating the so called Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i),

aiming at measuring social and emotional behaviour and subsequently taking a broader

picture at the construct of social and emotional intelligence.

All the abovementioned authors share the point of splitting up an emotionally intelligent

person's set of skills into a certain number of key aspects and giving them a clear sequential

order. However, business practice in negotiation management showed, that these

capabilities are not rigid but rather characterised by flexibility and a permanent interplay with

each other (Katz & Sosa, 2015). They condition and influence one another and make it

therefore difficult to define clear-cut borders and transition zones.

Goleman (1995) identified and analysed the earlier contributions on modelling EI from for

instance Greenspan (1989) as well as the numerous elaborations from Mayer, Salovey and

colleagues, adopted and further developed their most essential findings and eventually

created his own theoretical model of what can be called the sub-constructs of EI: self-

awareness, emotion management, self-motivation, empathy and relationship management.

In 2002, he and his colleagues then re-defined and condensed his work and came up with a

theoretical model of four different domains of EI which were then sub-divided into several EI

competencies. This four quadrant emotional intelligence competence model has been given

particular attention in the context of business negotiation management and conflict resolution

(Katz & Sosa, 2015).

Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) elaborated a framework for assessing and

subsequently efficiently managing one's own and others' emotions as well as a person's

interactions with peers. The model therefore intends to analyse an individual's capability to

(1) recognize emotions, to (2) access and stimulate them in others, to (3) be aware of

intricate emotional states and eventually to (4) manage these emotions. Therefore,

Goleman's model, as depicted in figure 7-3, profiles four key competence domains from

distinct parts of personal ability. In their decade-spanning research Goleman and his

colleagues did not constitute an absolute, exhaustive and rigid framework for sub-dividing

the different competencies in the four categories, they rather claimed that it is an ever-

evolving process, giving research a certain room to manoeuvre and improve this contribution

in line with new insights. As an example, Goleman (1998) stated more than 25 different

abilities and their respective importance for a variety of different negotiation situations.


Figure 7-3. Four quadrant EI competence model (Goleman et al., 2002)

As most of the abovementioned concepts and measurement approaches come back to or

entail these four factors, they are listed as individual sub-headings in this work and

described more thoroughly.

7.3.1 Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness entails a person's aptitude to reflect on him- or herself and therefore

represents the core capability of EI as well as the starting point for more thorough and

deeper evaluations (Goleman, 2004). Not having a clear idea of one's own emotional

landscape, not winning this first negotiation on clarity and self-awareness with oneself might

imply unfavourable outcomes with respect to the overall satisfaction of all the negotiation

partners (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Ury (2014) even claimed that a negotiator

him-/herself is the biggest hurdle to overcome in order to reach the aspired result.

This notion can be sub-divided into three competencies (Goleman et al., 2002): Emotional

self-awareness refers to the ability to identify and grasp one's own emotions and

understand their influence on the negotiators own performance in a negotiation situation.

Accurate self-assessment depicts the negotiators' ability to realistically evaluate their own

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities an threats. Self-confidence reflects a negotiator's

positive but realistic self-evaluation, an aspect which will be at significant importance during

the section analysing the experiment's outcomes.


7.3.2 Social Awareness

This construct, seen as the self-awareness' counterpart, extends the negotiator's awareness

of his/her own sphere towards balancing all parties' needs in order to obtain mutual gains

(Katz & Sosa, 2015). Negotiators who know themselves but are not aware of the implications

derived from their counterpart's emotional setup are unlikely to end-up in a satisfying win-win

situation (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009).

Social Awareness entails empathy, an active approach of sensing and holding interest in

the counterpart's situation, organisational awareness, which can be attributed to the

capability of understanding implicit organisational structures and work flows and adjusting

one's decision-making accordingly and finally service orientation, the anticipation,

identification and if possible satisfaction of the vis-à-vis needs (Goleman et al., 2002).

7.3.3 Self Management

Self-Management comprises a total of five sub-competencies and corresponds to the task of

directing one's own mental resources, impulses and behaviours towards aligning oneself

with a changing environment and maximising joint outcome of a negotiation (Katz & Sosa,

2015). It is therefore crucial to build mechanisms that help to mitigate or cope with the

unfavourable implications stemming from negative emotions and deriving advantage from

the positive ones (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009).

Firstly, self-control depicts a negotiator's mental capacity to keep calm and maintain control

over his/her own feelings. Secondly, transparency ties in with self-control and is defined as

keeping certain personally and internally set minimum requirements of honesty and integrity,

irrespective of the development of a negotiation situation. Thirdly, adaptability refers to an

individual's flexibility and capability to tailor appropriate responses in accordance with

changes in situational circumstances. Fourthly, achievement orientation describes that

each and every negotiator should continuously strive for an improvement of his/her own

situation and assure that certain benchmarks are met. Fifthly and lastly, initiative entails the

preparedness and proactivity to make efficient use of and act on the possibilities and

chances arising from the course of for example a business negotiation (Goleman et al.,

2002).


7.3.4 Relationship Management

Relationship Management, as illustrated by figure 7-1 is a logical deduction from efficient

self-management and social awareness and represents the final and decisive factor in

determining the positive impact on the negotiation partner(s). In case negotiations take place

in an international environment and with negotiation partners from different cultural

backgrounds, this gains additional complexity (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009).

In essence, it is made up of seven competencies (Goleman et al., 2002): inspirational

leadership in the sense of being able to manage and guide other negotiators in a

stimulating and positive manner; developing others by giving constructive feedback and

providing orientation to those in need; influence in the context of using persuasion tactics in

an ethically unproblematic way and knowing about the basic principles of unambiguous and

open-minded personal communication; change catalyst as a construct for initiating positive

change and stimulating creativity amongst the negotiation partners in order to increase

mutual satisfaction with a deal; conflict management referring to an efficient and joint

resolution of dissent and controversial views; teamwork and collaboration.

7.4 Implications of EI on Business Negotiations

The relevance and decisiveness of EI in business negotiations is best illustrated by narrating

a story about two of the world's most important IT-companies and their iconic spearheads

(Wheeler, 2015): The relationship between Steve Jobs (Apple) and Bill Gates (Microsoft)

was characterised by cooperation, respect, but primarily tough competition. When Microsoft

was close to launching its break-through idea Windows, Jobs claimed that they had copied it

from Apple (even though they themselves had taken it from Xerox). At a meeting of the two

heads of the companies, Jobs started shouting and blasted Gates for what he said was an

infringement of Apple's ideas. Instead of shouting back at Jobs, Gates re-defined and

wrapped up the situation in an emotionally and rhetorically very intelligent way, by saying: "I

think it's more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox, and I broke into his house

to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it." Gates' dignity and

deportment, his capability of being able to identify, understand, use and control his own and

the counterpart's emotions under circumstances of extreme pressure portray a perfect

example of what EI is about.


Taking this real-life example as a starting point, this section will examine the positive and

negative effects implied by the usage of one's EI in business negotiation situations and

contrast the advantages and disadvantages of being an emotionally intelligent negotiator.

Moreover, it will give a short guideline on how to build EI within an organisation.

7.4.1 Positive Implications & Praise

Individuals often end up in strategic management positions and see themselves confronted

with tough negotiation tasks, without having ever thought about their own, non-professional

and non-technical capabilities. Research shows, that a large proportion of the aspects

directly attributable to successful business negotiations are rather emotional than rational

(Chamorro-Premuzic, 2017). It is therefore crucial for negotiators to be aware of their own EI

skill set and to know about the positive implications EI can have on their organisation in

general and on corporate negotiations in particular.

In a study conducted my Minarova, Mala and Sedliacikova (2015) more than 50% of the

participating managers named empathy and the ability to guide and persuade others as

fundamental skills for future managers. This shows the significant relevance this topic bears

for future generations of managers, businessmen and negotiators. They further concluded

that EI assists a company in efficiently managing its cognitive resources, in setting up a

learning organisation, in defining and fortifying its corporate culture and in supporting a good

financial performance. Moreover, it encourages the usage of emotions for problem-solving,

facilitates a company's internal communication flow and strengthens workgroup cohesion.

Beyond that, a wide array of studies validated the importance of emotions and EI have for

business negotiations (Barry, Fulmer, & Goates, 2006). They specified that those negotiators

who are well-aware of their counterpart's emotional expressions are much better equipped to

strategically steer and manage negotiation situations. EI is particularly important in situations

where a negotiator's principal task is to stimulate positive feelings and a sense of comfort

amongst the negotiation partners. This then in turn might lead them to be more efficient and

overall more successful in the long-term (Goleman et al., 2002).

Mueller and Curhan (2006) showed, that negotiators with a high EI stimulate and guide

positive emotions and moods in their vis-à-vis and consequently increase mutual satisfaction

with a negotiation outcome – even if it does not represent the theoretically optimal result.

This is equally valid for the outcome of team negotiations consisting of individuals with a high


EI. In those cases, the relatively high EI of the team members fuels more integrative

negotiation approaches (Jordan & Troth, 2004), higher process efficiency and a clearer

focus on pre-defined objectives (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002). A higher EI

also stimulates self-control and likability by others (van der Linden, Pekaar, Bakker,

Schermer, Vernon, Dunkel & Petrides, 2017) and therefore improves the efficiency and

quality of teamwork (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and supports the building of rapport (Goleman,

1998).

Other significant advantages EI entails, refer to the positive impact it has on short-term

compliance as well as on the long-term relationship with counterparts and peers (Mueller &

Curhan, 2006; Schutte, Schuettpelz & Malouff, 2001). EI in the form of positive emotions

supports the building and preserving of high-quality social interactions and a supportive

working environment (Isen & Baron, 1991) and therefore increases mutual contentment with

the negotiated outcomes (Mueller & Curhan, 2006). What is more, Mueller and Curhan

(2006) found out, that negotiators with better EI-scores provoke a more positive attitude and

opinion towards them in their counterparts, who are then more willing to negotiate repeatedly

with the same partner in the future. They continue by claiming that this is especially based

on the emotionally intelligent negotiators' ability to use the correct verbal and non-verbal

expressions to create a state of positive feelings, trust and liking in their counterpart. This

implies that negotiators with a high level of EI are in a stronger position when it comes to

building up and maintaining long-term relationships with business partners. These

relationships then in turn stimulate a cooperative working environment, are eventually also

reflected in the companies' financials and make it a self-amplifying process of positive

implications on business practice (Curhan, Eisenkraft, & Elfenbein, 2007). Negotiators gifted

with a high EI are shown to have a more positive perception of negotiation situations than

those with low EI, providing evidence for a, on one hand higher personal satisfaction, and on

the other hand, positive influence on the counterpart's contentment with the negotiation

environment (Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, & Aik, 2004).

With respect to an individual's internal state of emotions, high perceived EI can shape and

increase life satisfaction (Palmer, Donaldson, & Stough, 2002; Wing, Schutte & Byrne,

2006), a crucial factor for performing well in tough negotiation situations and life in general.

Emotionally intelligent negotiators recognise and label their own and others' emotions more

instantly and they are aware of their own capabilities in managing and communicating them

(Mayer & Salovey, 1993). What is more, EI aids negotiators in increasing their understanding

of emotional signals, it reduces negative side effects on decision-making and it supports the

negotiators in establishing emotion-based negotiation techniques (Fulmer & Barry, 2004).


Fulmer and Barry (2004) also suggest that a negotiator's high level of EI enables him/her to

obtain relevant information more instantly, to take a more impartial stance on decision-

making processes and manage his/her own and the counterpart's emotions more

professionally. Emotionally intelligent negotiators are thereby less easily disrupted in their

thinking process, especially when confronted with uncertainty, and more open-minded with

respect to implementing change (Goleman, 1995).

Being able to interpret one's feelings correctly facilitates the final decision-making process in

comparison to rational negotiators with low EI (Goleman, 1995). This is reflected in the facts

that positive emotions can facilitate negotiation situations in as far as they direct the attention

towards the most significant and relevant aspects of a topic (George & Brief, 1996), they

sometimes provide a legitimate foundation for deciding amongst multiple alternatives

(Damasio, 1994), they spur e.g. creative thinking or problem-solving and they enable the

negotiator to be more flexible in analysing and trying to solve an issue from different

perspectives (Mayer J. D., 1986). This flexibility enables the negotiator to identify hidden

associations and correlations in cases of multiple issues and puts them in a better position to

take corrective measures or capitalise on them during the course of the negotiation (George,

2000).

In the context of business negotiations, three of the abovementioned aspects deserve

particular attention as they facilitate negotiation situations and nourish prosperous long-term

business relations: (1) trust, (2) the desire to collaborate again and (3) joint gain. The first is

built on previous emotional experiences and ties between the negotiators and makes the

trusting person vulnerable to influential conduct of the counterpart and therefore transfers a

significant amount of responsibilities and power to the negotiator (Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman, 1995) – which he/she ideally confirms and fosters rather than exploits and uses

for his/her own advantage. Positive emotions and EI thereby form the basis for developing

trust amongst individuals (Jones & George, 1998). The second is based on the positive

emotions emotionally intelligent negotiators can create within themselves and their

counterparts (Ogilvie & Carsky, 2002a) and which then elevate mutual satisfaction.

Furthermore, negotiators with a high EI are able to administer and create relationships and

professional networks more easily (Goleman, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The third point,

joint gains for all the negotiating parties, is based on the finding that emotionally intelligent

negotiators are more proficient and precise in their risk analyses and therefore make better

decisions (Fulmer & Barry, 2004). What is more, negotiations become more collaborative

and less competitive in the strive for mutually favourable outcomes (Forgas, 1998).


In their work, Goleman et al. (2002) emphasised that EI increases in importance and impact

the higher one climbs up the career ladder. This can be explained by the increasing number

and relevance of business negotiations entailed in higher positions in a company.

Nevertheless, business, just as life in general, is always about negotiating. Being aware of

one' own strengths and weaknesses and able to leverage on the positive effects EI can have

on a negotiation outcome are fundamental building blocks for a successful negotiation.

7.4.2 Negative Implications & Criticism

As an unwritten rule in life, no pro comes without a con and so there is also a flipside of the

coin – negative implications deriving from EI in business negotiations, or rather criticism on

the concept. Even though, as one can see in succession, the abovementioned advantages

outweigh the disadvantages, they are worth being mentioned and relevant in order to get the

full picture of EI.

As one of EI's firmest critics, Locke (2005, p. 430) summed up the main criticism in a list of

four points: (1) a multitude of imperfect definitions, (2) a vague differentiation from similar

other concepts, (3) contradictions with the conceptual approaches to explain EI and (4) the

invalidity of the counter-intuitive idea to merge emotions with intelligence. Antonakis,

Ashkanasy and Dasborough (2009) shared this opinion by more drastically arguing that 20

years of research on EI have not came up with the results they expected, so that either

researchers make methodological mistakes in looking into the topic or EI itself is irrelevant

for the discourse. All these and several more aspects are explicated in succession.

When Goleman first popularised the construct of EI (Goleman, 1995; 1996), he defined it in

a very broad context. He mainly focused on parenting and relationship matters and skipped

the topic's relevance for the business world. That is why he then published his book on

"Working with emotional intelligence" in 1998. Antonakis et al. (2009) criticised that the

theoretical construct of EI is conceptualised too broadly and that models and definitions

partially contradict each other. They branding it as pseudoscientific and said that it is not

defined clearly enough and represents a collecting pool for multiple concepts ranging from

motivation and emotion to others far off the topic (Antonakis et al., 2009). Additionally,

scientists (Damasio, 1994) claimed, that EI is, given its complex neuroscientific background,

facilitated too much and therefore loses its validity. Furthermore, research on EI was

confronted with a significant amount of criticism for connecting two previously strictly

separated concepts: Emotions and intelligence. In line with this, researchers argued that EI


is nothing more than a mere revivification and renaming of social intelligence, that there are

no significant and distinctive skills directly connected with emotions and that merging the

well-accepted and researched topic of emotions with the rather ambiguous one of

intelligence was highly questionable (Mayer & Salovey, 1993).

From a different point of view, Fineman(2004) argued that quantitatively measuring EI still

represents a significant hurdle to scientific research. In particular, capturing and categorising

highly subjective emotional states of mind or context-dependent feelings and moods is a

complex task, for which simple scale-evaluations cannot provide a fully satisfactory result.

Therefore, more complex approaches tackling the measurement issue from distinct angles

and combining different measurement tools – such as the concept used in the work at hand

– are required. Related to this issue, it was also observed that alexithymia, the neurological

phenomenon of not being able to find appropriate words to express one's emotions,

represents a barrier to a reliable measurement and analysis of the data (Mayer & Salovey,

1993).

Salovey and Mayer (1990) noted that EI can be used for the good (see the section on

positive implications), but also for the bad. This refers to the misuse of this powerful tool

with antisocial or unethical intentions: manipulating or intriguing their counterparts, faking or

overacting feelings, puffing or lying (Fulmer & Barry, 2004). It is therefore essential for good

negotiators to be able to spot and counter these tactics.

Another common criticism is that one should not only separate the people from the problem,

as it was also proposed by the Harvard Method (Fisher, et al., 1981), but also separate the

people from their emotions and consequently base decision-making and negotiating only on

objective, reliable, logical, and rational facts. However, this proofs to be difficult in business

practice: Emotions, feelings and moods are at least subconsciously always present and

constantly exert substantial influence on every human's actions. The key is therefore to

accept the being of emotions, to analyse their impact and to try to use them in a positive

way, or as Oscar Wilde (1998) once wrote: "I do not want to be at the mercy of my emotions,

I want to use them, to enjoy them, and to dominate them." (p. 143).

Negotiators with low EI can, in the worst case, create a fearful or even anxious ambience for

their counterpart. Although frightening workers might trigger good results in the short run, it

will most probably provoke a less efficient outcome and higher dissatisfaction in the long run

(Goleman et al., 2002). In a similar vein, inexperienced negotiators with a low EI themselves

might be frightened by negotiation situations they are not able to manage and therefore


accept a lower than the optimum result in order to end the situation and the negative

emotions brought along by it (Leary, Pillemer, & Wheeler, 2013). The most prevalent fears

were related to the unpredictability of the negotiation situation itself and its course of action,

the counterpart's negotiation approach and objectives and a significant degree of post-

negotiation self-doubt (Wheeler, 2015). As all of these issues get at least to a certain extent

back to the role of emotions and EI in business negotiations, Leary et al. (2013) suggested

some steps in order to combat this issue and be more instantly able to master one's

emotional setup in these situations:

being clear about one's own emotions and the factors triggering them

elaborating a plan to put oneself in the aspired emotions

using pauses during the negotiations

attempting to control emotions, instead of only recognising them

One fundamental drawback, regularly mentioned in the literature (Fineman, 2004), is that

increasing scientific interest in EI sometimes leads to its glorification as the panacea for all

sort of corporate issues. This especially refers to the significant criticism on the economic

rationality and efficiency of EI. Nevertheless, this criticism almost exclusively focused on the

short-term financial, rather than also on the long-term non-financial implications. Foo et al.

(2004) demonstrated, that higher levels of EI are positively correlated with better negotiation

outcomes and research in the narrower context of emotion perception, a subset of EI, has

evidentially proven to have a positive impact on corporate negotiation outcomes (Elfenbein &

Ambady, 2002) and personal wealth and success (Momm, Blickle, Liu, Wihler, Kholin &

Menges, 2015). However, Foo et al. (2004) also claimed, that EI is essential to create

additional value, but emotionally intelligent negotiators are often unable to claim the value

they created for themselves.

Even though scientific literature has not come up with very clear and unambiguous solutions

in order to minimise the negative implications entailed in EI in business negotiations, one

can still see from the abovementioned elaborations, that EI can be a game-changing and

influential tool in every negotiator's repertoire of skills and tactics. In their concluding

remarks at a conference on this topic, Weber and Westmeyer (1997) once encountered the

criticism on EI by expressing less scientifically but rather illustratively:

Emotional intelligence is for sure not the answer to a natural need for such a

construct, just as the twelfth variant of a fruit yoghurt is not produced to satisfy


the need for it. Fruit yoghurts and emotional intelligence have been created to

capture a new market, to create needs in people.(p. 7)

In order to calm down the critics and guide further research towards common and more

profound theories on EI, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008, p. 516) even published a list of

recommendations:

future studies should use already existing definitions instead of creating new ones

EI should exclusively be used in the context of well-established models

the concepts of traits, skills and EI should be researched separately instead of jointly

further research should focus on emotional knowledge, facial recognition of

emotions, emotional awareness and emotional self-regulation

the quality of new research as well as the how well it uses existing research decide

over the success or failure of the construct of EI

If applied proficiently and professionally, EI can have a positive impact on establishing and

maintaining a prosperous business relationship on one, and on successfully dissolving short-

term disputes and negotiation situations on the other hand. Moreover, Cherniss (2010)

acknowledged that there has been an abundance of research on EQ over the last 100 years

and there is still criticism on it, so how should only 20 years of professional research on EI

clarify all the ambiguity and shortcomings the concept entails.


7.4.3 How to develop EI in Business Negotiations

This section deals with potential sources of EI and examines ways to develop and leverage

on them in the context of business negotiations. Literature, in essence, differentiates

between two sources of EI: being born with a relatively high EI and taking self-administered

or even unconscious steps to develop it further or consulting professional help and training.

The former option thereby refers to the finding that some individuals are naturally gifted in as

far as that they were seemingly born with a disproportionally high degree of EI or acquired it

during their early childhood (Huxley, 1990). With respect to the latter, Goleman (1998)

pointed out that EI does not primarily depend on an individual's genetic make-up, but rather

on one's academic and professional career and interactions with one's social environment.

In this vein, Fulmer and Barry (2004) acknowledged that even though it is impossible to copy

and paste the physical or intellectual preconditions and capabilities of specialists in their

respective fields one-to-one, their skills, performance and approaches can be observed,

analysed and eventually communicated and taught to others. EI can therefore be learnt,

trained, acquired and strengthened (Goleman, 1998). In general, professional training is

seen as an appropriate measure in order to improve an individual's EI and fortify what can

be seen as a toolbox of skills, techniques and capabilities, good and efficient negotiators

should ideally have at their disposal (Cherniss & Caplan, 2001; Thompson et al., 2004).

Minarova et al. (2015) were more explicit and developed an interesting approach that gives

instructions on how to categorise and develop EI. They merged Goleman's domains of EI

with Covey's (1989) theory about the seven traits many of the most effective individuals

have. The following self-elaboration on the basis of the abovementioned work should

stimulate scientific interest towards giving a guideline on how to initiate an internal process

of creating and improving the EI portfolio in order to be able to use it efficiently in business

negotiations. It adds Schutte et al.'s (1998) SSEIT as well as the four quadrant EI

competence model developed by Goleman et al. (2002) to the existing and therefore

provides a more comprehensive overview. Furthermore, it is adapted to the context of

business negotiations and made in order to facilitate the understanding of the implications of

the experiment described later in this work. This table does not claim to be exhaustive and

scientifically proven but rather intends to illustrate the interplay of the different modelling

approaches and their practical applications in the course of developing EI within an

organisation.


Figure 7-4. EI competence development model (self-elaboration on the basis of Minarova et al., 2015)

The activities suggested by Covey (1989) reflect seven of the most critical determinants of

personal and professional prosperity and can directly be attributed to the context of EI in

business negotiations:

1. be proactive:

Take conscious and self-determined decisions or actions and be aware of the short-

and long-term implications they entail.

2. begin with the end in mind:

Think through, evaluate and create a mental plan of the motivations, priorities, goals

and values involved in the negotiation before acting in order to attain them.

3. first things first:

Identify the parties' positions', interests' and matters', prioritise them in accordance

with their relative importance and urgency and then complete them step by step.


4. think win-win:

Aim and work towards mutual gains for both parties and create a situation of joint

satisfaction. Negotiating is not about winning alone, but winning together.

5. seek first to understand, then to be understood:

Ask, listen and understand yourself and your counterpart before judging, evaluating

or commenting your own or others' points of view.

6. synergise:

Interact and collaborate with your counterparts in order to jointly create something

bigger than what would have been possible when working separately.

7. sharpen the saw:

Take a break, look after yourself and pay close attention to the areas defining who

and how you are (physical, spiritual, mental and emotional aspects).

Since the beginning of the more intense discussion of the EI-discourse a wide range of

sources has claimed that self-awareness represents the fundamental basis upon which more

complex domains of EI are built (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). However, in

order to be able to make full use of the impact EI can have, it is essential to go beyond the

mere awareness of one' own cognitive and emotional strengths and weaknesses and

develop skills in all the model's competence domains. Only a well-balanced mix of them can

unleash the full potential and guarantee that they are not interfering with each other. This

case was once shown by Salovey (2010, 7:20 min.) during a conference speech at Yale

University, when he exemplified that the former US president Bill Clinton is a highly

emotionally intelligent person in terms of for example empathy and social awareness, but

scores very low with respect to impulse control and self-regulation – obviously referring to

Clinton's affective attitude towards women.

In line with the abovementioned example, George (2000) argued that emotions form an

implicit but integral part of a human's daily routine, influencing how people think, act and

interact with others. Therefore, the question is not whether one should accept that emotions

have an impact on people's daily lives or not, but to which extent (Damasio, 1994): A lack of

emotions and feelings for example might imply a better rational thinking and subsequently

help to come up with a higher number of potential solutions for a problem, but hinders

effective decision-making. On the other hand, extraordinarily strong emotions can also have

a negative impact on negotiation situations and the joint solution-finding approach.

Identifying the right degree to which emotions can exert influence on a person's thinking and

behaviour is therefore of essential importance in order to fully leverage on EI-skills in

business negotiation situations (Shapiro & Fisher, 2005).


Anderson and Michaelson (2011) took a similar stance on EI by emphasising, just as some

of their predecessors did, that neither IQ nor EI is enough in today's complex business

world. They defined what was labelled as "smart skills" (p. 7): This concept follows the idea

that managers, leaders and negotiators in the 21st century require more than their bare

intellectual, technical or emotional skills to be successful in the long-term – they need a well-

balanced blend of it. Consequently, the authors summed up six key areas, that have already

been examined by previous literature, constituting smart skills: Firstly, they mentioned and

stressed the relevance of EI. Secondly, the ability to persuade and influence others (Cialdini,

2001). Thirdly, as already suggested by Fisher et al. (1981), negotiating on interests rather

than positions, consequently enlarging the negotiation pie before distributing it and creating

win-win situations for all parties. Fourthly, a negotiator's skill of communicating efficiently and

clearly in difficult and ambiguous situations (Brashers, 2001). Fifthly, soundly managing

one's stress and finding a personal work-life balance (Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003).

Sixthly and lastly, smart skills include "appreciative inquiry", a model primarily coined by

Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987, p. 129). It refers to a value-oriented approach of creating a

positive and appreciative environment within a team or organisation by recognising,

analysing, expanding and focusing on internal strengths. This theory gives a handy idea of

what it needs to be an efficient manager, leader or negotiator and it provides a guideline on

how to develop not only EQ, but also other characteristics – all of which are needed to be

successful in the long-run (Mayer & Salovey, 1993).

38 Methodology

8 Methodology

The methodological elaboration of this work can be split into two conceptually different

sections: Firstly, desk research in the form of a literature review identifying, analysing,

condensing and summing up the most relevant terms, theories, concepts and aspects of EI

in business negotiations. Secondly, quantitative and qualitative research in the sense of a

questionnaire- and simulation-based experiment.

The first part is therefore intended to provide the reader with a first overview of the topic,

before the second part goes deeper into the matter, analyses the more specific outcomes of

the study and tries to test the hypotheses. This work is based on deductive reasoning and

consequently takes on and expands the theory from the first part, tests the hypotheses

developed and triggers their confirmation or rejection.

The following research onion (figure 8-1) gives an overview of this work's methodology

before the respective components and the layout of this study are described in more detail in

the upcoming section.

Figure 8-1. Research onion (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 108)

39 Methodology

8.1 Secondary Research – Literature Review

The first part of the work at hand specifies the underlying theoretical terms and theories

more extensively. The literature review, which is based on intensive secondary research, is

organised around key themes in this matter and should help to understand the underlying

conceptual framework, clarify the particular context of the topic and give advice on how to

apply the theory in business practice. It recalls the sources examined during the research

process, condenses the literature available and provides the reader with a solid basic

knowledge of the most essential matters. This information is then used in order to portray the

study's findings in a more transparent manner and to enable the readers to follow the work

despite increasing complexity more easily.

The information gathered during the desk research uncovered the scientific demand for

research on the topic of self-other agreement in evaluations of EI in business negotiations

and helped to narrow the topic down to its key essence. Consequently, the insights gained

were then used as a starting point to specify the methodology for and create the research

design of the experiment described in succession.

8.2 Primary Research – Experiment

Negotiation research in general is a very fundamental but barely accessible topic (Zulauf,

2014, p. 84): On one hand there is only very little empirical negotiation data that can be used

in order to make comparative analyses. On the other hand it is, given the strategic corporate

importance of these events and the information involved, very difficult to participate in high-

stake business negotiations and deduce assumptions or insights from them. Validity and

relevance of studies' results are therefore often at stake and congruency of evaluations is

questioned. As a consequence, Goleman and Boyatzis (2017) recommended to blend self-

with others' assessments of a negotiator's EI in order to get a more complete picture and be

able to identify key areas for improvement.

This thesis and the elaboration of the abovementioned research questions are therefore

based on a triangulation study, consisting of (1) a business negotiation simulation with a

counterpart evaluation, (2) an EI self-assessment questionnaire and (3) a scientifically and

empirically proven EI-test. This methodology allows direct comparisons between the internal

(self-evaluation) and external (EI-test and counterpart evaluation) apperception of EI and

supports the identification and analysis of analogies and discrepancies. Moreover,

40 Methodology

triangulation helps to verify the research data by using three different sources of evaluations

on the same subject and to elaborate on their interrelations. The layout of the respective

study elements is depicted in figure 8.2.

Figure 8-2. Layout triangulation study (self-elaboration)

This work is primarily based on standardised and proven testing mechanisms, which have

been adapted in order to fit the peculiarities of this experiment. After the composition of the

questionnaires and the selection of the EI-test, a pre-test amongst four persons was run in

order to improve and guarantee high quality of the experiment.

The negotiation simulation task itself was executed in a controlled environment at the

University of Kassel and subdivided into seven clear-cut and consecutive steps, based on

supporting documents in the paper format:

a. welcoming and introduction

b. use info-sheet one (IS1) to introduce the topic and work schedule to the participants

c. use info-sheet two (IS2) to introduce the negotiation simulation and specify the task

d. use worksheet one (WS1) to obtain the assessment by the negotiation partner

e. use worksheet two (WS2) for the participants' self-assessment

f. use worksheet three (WS3) for the objective EI-test

g. de-briefing

41 Methodology

As the proper execution of the experiment required some basic guidance (Ogilvie & Carsky,

2002a), the participants were provided with two introductory information leaflets: one general

(IS1) to clarify the terms and concepts used in the course of the entire experiment and

another one more specific (IS2), detailing the business negotiation simulation task. By this

means, the participants were provided with all the necessary explanations in order to actively

and successfully participate in the experiment. In succession, the worksheets one to three

detailed the respective assessment tasks.

In order not to influence their evaluations in the successive evaluation tasks, communication

and discussion with the participants were reduced to a necessary minimum during the

experiment process.

8.2.1 Sampling

The sample of the study at hand consisted of __ people, grouped into __ negotiation dyads.

It was composed of __ female and __ male participants, aged between __ and __ years and

with an average age of __ years. The experiment was executed at the University of Kassel

and all of the participants were students, primarily studying in the field of ______________,

but also ______________, ______________ and ______________. Out of the total number,

__% were in their master, whilst __% were in their bachelor studies. When asked about their

experience with the topic, __% of the participants indicated that they had already heard

about EI before, whilst __% were not familiar with it at all. Furthermore, __% already

participated in a real-life business negotiation in the course of their previous work experience

or an internship and __% did not have any practice beforehand. In total, __% of the

participants showed increased interest in the results. __% wanted to be informed about their

personal results and __% wanted to be provided with the final outcomes of the study.

8.2.2 Part 1 – Business Negotiation Simulations

As the first part of the experiment, the participants executed a two-party negotiation role-

play, based on a supplier-customer-relationship in the telecommunications industry. They

were randomly grouped into negotiation dyads, allotted to either of the two roles and granted

a preparation time of ten minutes. The grouping into dyads was mainly due to facilitation

reasons with respect to the execution of the experiment within a limited time frame (Ogilvie &

Carsky, 2002a). The random grouping and formation of negotiation pairs of people who did

not know each other very well and the execution of the experiment in a neutral and

42 Methodology

controlled environment contributed to the internal validity and minimised the effects of

extraneous variables (e.g. testing effects). Moreover, the artificial environment of the

laboratory provided the advantages of high control, low costs, lower time requirements and

increased ease of implementation. On the other hand, the external validity and

generalisability of the outcomes are, given that it was a laboratory experiment, limited.

After grouping the participants, they had 15 minutes to negotiate on the task and to record

their agreements and observations on the task form. The participants had to negotiate on the

subject given, bearing two main objectives in mind: firstly, to maximise their company's

outcome with respect to their confidential utility function and secondly, to improve or at least

not hamper their company's long-term business relationship with the counterpart's

corporation. In order to increase the pressure on finding a mutually satisfying agreement

within a short time frame, the negotiation situation primarily entailed distributive issues, in

which the utility of one party could only be increased by reducing the other party's.

In general, role play simulations were proven to be an appropriate and reliable means to

conduct research on business negotiations, especially when executed with well-educated

participants (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; Geiger, 2007). Furthermore, the decisive

advantage of laboratory in comparison to field experiments is that they can be manipulated

and controlled more easily (Goodwin, 2002, p. 167). Therefore, they provide a bigger line-up

of different options for scenario testing and make sure that all participants find themselves in

the same environment and under as little influence from external factors as possible.

Especially in the context of business negotiations, field studies of real-life situations are said

to be less relevant, as these are often held under different circumstances and can

consequently not be compared with one another (Geiger, 2007).

Even though student samples are sporadically questioned in the literature, because of their

motivation to participate in experiments, the present study stimulated the interest and

commitment by providing the chance to gain insights into an often disregarded but important

aspect of their future professional career, by learning about the topic in a more interactive

context and by being offered their personal evaluations as well as the overall outcome of the

study after finishing it. Participants were consequently not acquired by offering monetary

incentives. What is more, Neale and Northcraft (1986) and other researchers demonstrated

in their respective works that there are no relevant systematic differences between

negotiation simulations executed with professional negotiators and students. This shows the

eligibility of negotiation research with students in this context.

43 Methodology

In business practice supplier-customer negotiations on prices and other conditions of a deal

form an integral part of a company's activities in order to minimise costs and maximise their

own financial results. In this context, it is essential to mention the different utility functions

that were ascribed to the potential negotiation outcomes ex ante. These have been included

in the participants' negotiation task leaflet in order to stimulate their ambition and motivation.

To safeguard reliable and methodologically sound outcomes, the business negotiation

simulation followed the principle of allowing interaction amongst the participants with respect

to their preferences but not with respect to their individual utility functions (Gupta, 1989).

As the concluding step of the business negotiation simulation, the participants had to fill in

an evaluation sheet about their perception of the negotiation counterpart's performance

during the simulation. The evaluation sheet grounded on the basis of a 5-level Likert-scale in

accordance with Malouff's (2014) findings on the test's value distribution and average

standard deviation. It asked the participants to evaluate their vis-à-vis' EI as an overall score

and with respect to the four sub-constructs of EI also used in the SSEIT (perception of

emotions, management of own emotions, management of others' emotions and utilisation of

emotions). Moreover, it tried to identify the main reasons triggering the respective

evaluations.

8.2.3 Part 2 – EI Self-Assessment

The second part of the experiment, being the participant's self-assessment, was based on

the same short questionnaire already used and described in the previous section. It uses the

major categories also examined in the SSEIT and required the participants to assess their

perception of themselves in these categories. Furthermore, the questionnaire asked the

respondents again for the main factors triggering their evaluations.

Having completed the business negotiation simulation beforehand should have helped the

participants to have a more realistic picture of their own EI-capabilities and to be more self-

reflective in their assessment. Moreover, it worked as an ice-breaker in order to become

more familiar with the topic and fully immerse themselves in the negotiation situation.

8.2.4 Part 3 – EI-Test (SSEIT)

The third and last part of the experiment consisted of the completion of an EI-test. In this

matter, trait EI measurement in the form of self-assessment tests are the primarily used

44 Methodology

means (Fineman, 2004). Many websites and organisations make use of this tendency and

offer free web-based EI quick-tests in combination with professional consulting and training.

However, these tests lack a scientific foundation as well as validity and are therefore mainly

intended to support personal self-reflection and to be used for private purposes only. In

contrast, the SSEIT developed by Schutte et al. (1998) is well-grounded in scientific theory

and empirically proven (Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004; Brackett & Mayer,

2003; Kong et al., 2016; etc.).

The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT) consists of 33 items and was

designed in 1998 as a measurement tool for emotional intelligence. It is based on the

Salovey and Mayer model of EI and intends to measure the (1) perception, (2) management

and (3) utilisation of emotions, helping to understand an individual's awareness as well as

the clearness and repair of emotions (Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005).

As Schutte et al. (2009) proved, the internal consistency and reliability of the test itself and

its respective subscales are given. Moreover, SSEIT scores correlate closely with the results

obtained from another well-researched EI-test, the EQ-i, and to a certain extent also with the

MSCEIT (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). Even though the SSEIT is a trait EI-test and could

therefore be considered as too similar to the evaluation obtained from part two of this

experiment, the theoretical foundation in the literature and the methodological background of

the test qualify it for direct comparisons in line with the triangulation study and safeguard

more objective and reliable evaluation outcomes (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001). In the

course of the years, the SSEIT has also been translated into several other languages and

applied to samples from different cultural backgrounds: for example, Ciarrochi, Chan and

Bajgar (2001) applied it in Australia, Charbonneau and Nicol (2002) in Canada and Liau,

Liau, Teoh and Liau (2003) in Malaysia.

8.2.5 Data Analysis

With the negotiators' demographic characteristics (e.g. sex) and the different types of EI-

measurement being the independent and their EI-score being the dependent variable, this

study tried to identify and measure analogies and discrepancies in internal and external

apperception of EI in business negotiations. The hypotheses underlying this work were

primarily tested by applying quantitative research, as this allowed a clear comparison of the

different values obtained from the triangulation study's components. Furthermore, it was

partially supplemented by qualitative research in order to obtain more information on the key

aspects driving the participants' evaluations.

45 Methodology

The study includes different types of collected data: firstly nominal values (e.g. the

participants' sex, nationality or studies), secondly ordinal/rank values (e.g. the scores

obtained from the participants' assessment), thirdly interval/ratio values (e.g. the participants'

age or their EI-test scores). These allowed different ways of data analysis, being

frequencies, proportions or percentages for the first, frequencies, proportions, percentages

and to some extent means for the second, and means medians and standard deviations for

the third. Additionally, these again triggered which statistical test to be used and how it was

graphically represented.

The data gathered from the self-assessment and the negotiation counterpart's evaluation

was digitalised and plotted by means of Microsoft Excel and Sphinx IQ. The SSEIT-answers

were digitalised as well, the respective scores then calculated in accordance with the scoring

instructions proposed by Schutte et al. (2009) and finally converted into the same scale used

by the two other evaluation methods. This conversion was executed on the basis of

Malouff's (2014) calculations of the mean scores and standard deviations found in previous

studies of the SSEIT in Western countries. This intermediary step facilitated the subsequent

data analysis, for which the three sources of evaluations were consolidated and analysed by

means of Microsoft Excel, smartPLS and Adanco.

46 Results

9 Results

This part of the thesis elaborates on objectively presenting the main outcomes of the study.

It aims at answering and either accepting or rejecting the work's hypotheses and gives

further background information on the main aspects triggering the results. Therefore, it is

organised around illustrations, graphs and figures in order to keep it as clear and depict the

statistical analyses as easily understandable as possible.

9.1 Comparative Analysis

47 Discussion

10 Discussion

This part takes and expands on the results presented in the previous section, by interpreting

the findings in the context of existing literature on the topic. It tries to reflect on how this

study has brought the literature forward and on how it changed the understanding of the

topic. It aims at providing deeper insights and explanations for what was missing in the

literature to date and states the most fundamental scientific and managerial implications

coming along with this work's findings. Moreover, it deals with potential limitations of the

study's research design and gives recommendations for future research.

10.1 Scientific Contribution

10.2 Practical Contribution

10.3 Recommendations

10.4 Limitations

10.5 Future Research

48 Conclusion

11 Conclusion

49 Declaration in Lieu of Oath

12 Declaration in Lieu of Oath

I hereby confirm that this master thesis was independently authored by myself, using solely the

referred sources and support. I additionally assert that this thesis has not been part of any other

examination process and that it has not yet been published in any kind.

Kassel, 22.01.2018

__________________

Fabian Sax, BSc (WU)

50 List of References


Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1993). Women in management: organisational socialisation and

assessment practices that prevent career advancement. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 1, pp. 68-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.1993.tb00091.x.

Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, O. L. (2014). Self–other agreement in empowering leadership:

Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates' job satisfaction and

turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), pp. 784-800. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.007.

Anderson, J., & Michaelson, M. (2011). Smart skills. Leadership Excellence Essentials,

28(8), p. 7.

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need

emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), pp. 247-261. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006.

Ashford, S. (1989). Self-assessment in organizations: a literature review and integrative

model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11(1), pp. 33-174.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in

organizational behaviour are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 26(1), pp. 441-452. doi: 10.1002/job.320.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership

perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?

Personnel Psychology, 45(1), pp. 141-164. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00848.x.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and a

model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15(1), pp. 121-

174.

Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement:

Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(1), pp. 577-598. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00252.x.

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of trait

emotional intelligence: testing and cross-validating a modified version of Schutte et

al.'s (1998) measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), pp. 555-562.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00114-4.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional social intelligence. Psicothema, 18(1),

pp. 13-25.


Barry, B., Fulmer, I. S., & Goates, N. (2006). Bargaining with feeling: Emotionality in and

around negotiation. In L. L. Thompson, Negotiation theory and research (pp. 99-128).

Hove, NY: Psychology Press.

Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts life

skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual

Differences, 39(1), pp. 1135-1145. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.006.

Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. (1987). Negotiator cognition. Research in Organisational

Behaviour, 9(1), pp. 247-288.

Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York, NY: Free Press.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, an incremental validity of

competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29(9), pp. 1147-1158. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254596.

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA: Talentsmart.

Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and Uncertainty Management. Journal of

Communication, 51(3), S. 477-197. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x.

Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & Tisak, J. (1999). Exploring the link between rating congruence

and managerial effectiveness. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 16(4),

pp. 308-322. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-4490.1999.tb00691.x.

Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotions and the ability model of emotional intelligence. In R. J.

Emmerling, V. K. Shanwal, & M. K. Mandal, Emotional intelligence in theoretical and

cultural perspectives. New York, NY: Nova Science.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2017, August 7). The personality traits of good negotiators. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/08/the-personality-traits-of-

good-negotiators.

Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. (2002). Emotional intelligence and prosocial behaviours in

adolescents. Psychological Reports, 90(1), pp. 361-370. doi:

10.2466/pr0.2002.90.2.361.

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional inteeligence: new insights and further clarifications. Industrial

& Organizational Psychology, 3(2), pp. 183-191. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2010.01222.x.

Cherniss, C., & Caplan, R. D. (2001). Implementing emotional intelligence programs in

organizations. In C. Cherniss, & D. Goleman, The emotionally intelligent workplace.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review,

79(9), pp. 72-81.


Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional

intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), pp. 539-561. doi:

10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00119-1.

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in

adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(1), pp. 1105-1119. doi:

10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00207-5.

Conger, J. A. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion. Harvard Business Review (May-

June), pp. 84-95.

Cooper, R. A., & Sawaf, A. (1977). Executive EQ. London, England: Orion Business.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). A contemporary commentary on appreciative

inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman, & W. Pasmore, Research in

organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Stamford, CT: JAI

Press.

Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional Intelligence, Cognitive Intelligence, and Job

Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), pp. 1-28. doi:

10.2189/asqu.51.1.1.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Free Press.

Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Subjective value pays off: Economic

consequences of social psychological outcomes realized in a subsequent

negotiation. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York,

NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), pp. 113-126. doi: 10.1037//0022-

3514.44.1.113.

De Dreu, C., & Van Lange, P. (1995). The impact of social value orientations on negotiator

cognition an behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), pp. 1178-

1188. doi: 10.1177/01461672952111006.

Dobewall, H., Aavik, T., Konstabel, K., Schwartz, S. H., & Realo, A. (2014). A comparison of

self-other agreement in personal values versus the Big Five personality traits. Journal

of Research in Personality, 50(1), pp. 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.01.004.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership at the top: The need for emotional intelligence

in organizations. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), pp. 193-

210. doi: 10.1108/eb028971.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for

health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,

5(3), pp. 69-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x.


Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). Predicting workplace outcomes from the ability to

eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), pp. 963-971. doi:

10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.963.

Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion – and the cautionary tale of emotional

intelligence. Human Relations, 76(6), pp. 719-740. doi: 10.1177/0018726704044953.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without

giving in. New York, NY: Penguin.

Fletcher, C. (1999). The implications of research on gender differences in self-assessment

and 360 degree appraisal. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1), pp. 39-46.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.1999.tb00187.x.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion

and. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), pp. 150-170. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150.

Foo, M. D., Elfenbein, H. A., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2004). Emotional intelligence and

negotiation: The tension between creating and claiming value. The International

Journal of Conflict Management, 15(4), pp. 411-429. doi: 10.1108/eb022920.

Forgas, J. P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator,

cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74(3), pp. 565-577. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.565.

Freedman, J. M., Jensen, A. L., Rideout, M. C., & Freedman, P. E. (1998). Handle with care:

the emotional intelligence activity book. Freedom, CA: 6 Seconds.

Fulmer, I. S., & Barry, B. (2004). The smart negotiator: Cognitive ability and emotional

intelligence in negotiation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1),

pp. 245-272. doi: 10.1108/eb022914.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Geiger, I. (2007). Industrielle Verhandlungen - Empirische Untersuchungen von

Verhandlungsmacht und -interaktion in Einzeltransaktion und Geschäftsbeziehung.

Wiesbaden, Germany: DUV.

Gelfand, M. J., & Brett, J. M. (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human

Relations, 53(8), pp. 1027-1055. doi: 10.1177/0018726700538001.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of

feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings,

Research in organisational behaviour (18 ed., pp. 75-109). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.


Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London,

England: Bloomsbury.

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

Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1), pp. 82-91.

Goleman, D. (2011, November 1). They’ve taken emotional intelligence too far. Time

Magazine. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/01/theyve-taken-emotional-

intelligence-too-far/

Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2017, February 6). Emotional intelligence Has 12 elements.

Which do you need to work on? Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/02/emotional-

intelligence-has-12-elements-which-do-you-need-to-work-on. Harvard Business

Review.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of

emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Goodwin, C. (2002). Research in psychology: methods and design. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family

balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), pp. 510-531. doi:

10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8.

Greenspan, S. I. (1989). Emotional intelligence. In K. Field, B. J. Cohler, & G. Wool,

Learning and education: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 209-243). Masison, CT:

International University Press.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent

consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), pp. 224-237.

doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.224.

Gupta, S. (1989). Modeling integrative multiple issue bargaining. Management Science,

35(7), pp. 788-806. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.7.788.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and

peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), pp. 43-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1988.tb00631.x.

Higgs, M. J., & Dulewicz, V. (2002). Making sense of emotional intelligence (2 ed.). Windsor,

England: NFER-Nelson.

Huxley, A. (1990). The doors of perception. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behaviour.

Research in Organizational Behaviour, 13(1), S. 1-53.

Isen, A. M., Johson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive

affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 36(1), pp. 1413-1426. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.6.1413.


Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in

memory, and behaviour: a cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 36(1), pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.36.1.1.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for

cooperation and team work. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp. 361-372.

doi: 10.2307/259293.

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem-solving:

Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(1), pp. 195-

2018. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1702_4.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional

intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and

goal focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), pp. 195-214. doi:

10.1016S1053-4822(2)00046-3.

Katz, N. H., & Sosa, A. (2015). The emotional advantage: The added value of the

emotionally intelligent negotiator. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33(1), pp. 57-74. doi:

10.1002/crq.21127.

Kleinginna, J. P., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions with

suggestions for a useful definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), pp. 345-379. doi:

10.1007/bf00993889 .

Kong, D. T., Bottom, W. P., & Konczak, L. J. (2016). Negotiators’ emotion perception and

value-claiming under different incentives. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 27(2), pp. 146-171. doi: 10.1108/ijcma-08-2015-0056 .

Leary, K., Pillemer, J., & Wheeler, M. (2013). Negotiating with emotion. Harvard Business

Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/01/negotiating-with-emotion.

Lewicki, R. J., Bruce, B., & Sounders, D. (2015). Negotiation: Readings, exercises and

cases (7 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Liau, A. K., Liau, A. W., Teoh, G. B., & Liau, M. T. (2003). The case for emotional literacy:

The influence of emotional intelligence on problem behaviours in Malaysian

secondary school students. Journal of Moral Education, 32(1), pp. 51-66. doi:

10.1080/0305724022000073338.

Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 26(4), pp. 425-431. doi: 10.1002/job.318.

London, M., & Wohlers, A. J. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in

upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), pp. 375-390.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation

abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1), pp. 113-118. doi:

10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113.


Malouff, J. (2014, April 27). The University of New England (AU). Retrieved October 20,

2017, from https://blog.une.edu.au/usingpsychology/2014/04/27/how-can-we-

measure-emotional-intelligence/

Matthews, G., Zeider, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D. (1986). How mood influences cognition. In N. E. Sharky, Advances in cognitive

science (1 ed., pp. 290-314). Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence,

17(1), pp. 433-442. doi: 10.1016/0160-2896(93)90010-3.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. J.

Sluyter, Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications

(pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D.

Sluyter, Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for

educators (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional

intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. Parker, The handbook

of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at

home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 320-342). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet. Toronto, Canada: MHS.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or

eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), pp. 503-517. doi: 10.1037/0003-

066x.63.6.503.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of

organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 709-734.

Meisler, G., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2014). Perceived organizational politics, emotional

intelligence and work outcomes: Empirical exploration of direct and indirect effects.

Personnel Review, 43(1), pp. 116-135. doi: 10.1108/PR-02-2012-0040.

Minarova, M., Mala, D., & Sedliacikova, M. (2015). Emotional intelligence of managers.

Procedia Economics and Finance, 26(1), pp. 1119-1123. doi: 10.1016/S2212-

5671(15)00939-9.

Momm, T., Blickle, G., Liu, Y., Wihler, A., Kholin, M., & Menges, J. I. (2015). It pays to have

an eye for emotions: emotion recognition ability indirectly predicts annual income.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), pp. 147-163. doi: 10.1002/job.1975.


Mueller, J. S., & Curhan, J. R. (2006). Emotional intelligence and counterpart mood induction

in a negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(2), pp. 110-128.

doi: 10.1108/10444060610736602.

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex:

Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly,

18(2), pp. 154-166. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.005.

Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1986). Experts, amateurs and refrigerators: Comparing

expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task. Organizational Behavior & Human

Decision Processes, 38(3), pp. 305-317. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90003-8.

Ogilvie, J. R., & Carsky, M. L. (2002a). Building emotional intelligence in negotiations.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), pp. 381-400. doi:

10.1108/eb022883.

Ogilvie, J. R., & Carsky, M. L. (2002b). An Exploratory study of emotional intelligence among

business students: Where do we go from here? In P. Singh, Creating enlightened

organisations. New Haven, CT: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the

Eastern Academy of Management.

Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction.

Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), pp. 1091-1100. doi: 10.1016/S0191-

8869(01)00215-X.

Pérez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait emotional intelligence. In

R. Schulze, & R. D. Roberts, Emotional intelligence: An international handbook (pp.

181-201). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S.

von Stumm, & A. Furnham, The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences

(1 ed.). Chichester, England: Blackwell.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA:

Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Rey, L., Extremera, N., & Pena, M. (2011). Perceived emotional intelligence, self-esteem

and life satisfaction in adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 20(2), pp. 27-234. doi:

10.5093/in2011v20n2a10.

Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Salovey, P. (2010, June 21). Emotional intelligence and leadership. Global Health

Leadership Institute Conference. Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and

Personality, 9(1), pp. 185-211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG.


Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence:

Education implications. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5

ed.). Essex, England: Pearson.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., & Bhullar, N. (2009). The assessing emotions scale. In C.

Stough, D. Sakofske, & J. Parker, The assessment of emotional intelligence (pp.

119-135). New York, NY: Springer.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., & Golden, C. J.

(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), pp. 167-177. doi: 10.1016/S0191-

8869(98)00001-4.

Schutte, N. S., Schuettpelz, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2001). Emotional intelligence and task

performance. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20(1), pp. 347-354. doi:

10.2190/J0X6-BHTG-KPV6-2UXX.

Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), pp.

491-517. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213.

Shapiro, D., & Fisher, R. (2005). Beyond reason: using emotions as you negotiate. New

York, NY: Penguin Books.

Sharma, S., Bottom, W. P., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive

ability and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: a meta-analysis.

Organizational Psychology Review, 3(1), pp. 293-336. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2282251.

Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and

performance. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), pp. 367-390. doi:

doi.org/10.1177/1059601199243006.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York,

NY: Penguin Books.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General

Psychology, 3(4), pp. 292-316. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292.

Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and

theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(1), pp. 515-532. doi: 10.1037//0033-

2909.108.3.515.

Thompson, L. (2001). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Thompson, L., Neale, M., & Sinaceur, M. (2004). The evolution of cognition and biases in

negotiation research: An examination of cognition, social perception, motivation and

emotion. In M. J. Gelfand, & J. M. Brett, The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp.

7-44). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social

intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34(5), pp. 275-284. doi: 10.1037/h0053850.

Ury, W. (2014). Getting to yes with yourself: And other worthy opponents. New York, NY:

Harper Collins.

van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C.

S., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). Overlap between the general factor of personality and

emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), pp. 36-52.

doi: 10.1037/bul0000078.

Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. B. (2006). An examination of the relationships among

self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human

Resource Management, 32(2-3), pp. 249-263. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930320205.

Watson, C., & Hoffman, L. R. (1996). Managers as negotiators: A test of power versus

gender as predictors of feelings, behavior, and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,

7(1), pp. 63-85. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90035-1.

Weber, H., & Westmeyer, H. (1997). Emotionale Intelligenz: Kritische Analyse eines

populären Konstrukts. Vortrag auf der 4. Arbeitstagung der Fachgruppe Differentielle

Psychologie, Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische Diagnostik der

Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, (pp. 1-9). Bamberg, Germany.

Wheeler, M. (2015, May 5). Get in the right state of mind for any negotiation. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/05/get-in-the-right-state-of-

mind-for-any-negotiation.

Wilde, O. (1998). The picture of Dorian Gray. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

Wing, J. F., Schutte, N. S., & Byrne, B. (2006). The effect of positive writing on emotional

intelligence and life satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), pp. 1291-

1302. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20292.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace:

A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53(3), pp. 371-399. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-

0597.2004.00176.x.

Zulauf, K. (2014). Einfluss persönlichkeitsbezogener und kultureller Konstrukte auf

Verhandlungen. Kassel, Germany: kassel university press.

60 Appendix

14 Appendix

14.1 Timeline

time period task status

04.09. – 04.10.2017 literature review – reading DONE

05.10. – 20.10.2017 literature review – writing DONE

21.10. – 23.10.2017 literature review – buffer DONE

23.10.2017 master thesis exposé – hand-over DONE

24.10. – 05.11.2017 experiment – conceptualisation and pre-test part. DONE

06.11. – 06.12.2017 experiment execution

07.12. – 10.12.2017 experiment – buffer

11.12. – 20.12.2017 experiment – analysis elaboration

21.12. – 08.01.2018 experiment – analysis writing

09.01. – 15.01.2018 finalisation – proof-reading, printing, buffer

15.01. – 22.01.2018 master thesis defence – preparation presentation

22.01.2018 master thesis – hand-over

23.01.2018 master thesis – defence

analogies and discrepanciesin internal and external ...€¦ · evaluated emotional intelligence...

Documents