An Exploratory Study of the Impact of Cultural Intelligence on Conflict Management Styles: Evidence from Jordan





Khaled Tuguz
Rawan Abu Samra
Ibrahem Almallah

Department of Business Administration,
King Talal Faculty of Business and Technology,
Princess Sumaya University for Technology,
Amman, Jordan

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of Cultural Intelligence on conflict management styles in Jordan. To address this topic, previous literature was reviewed on Cultural Intelligence and conflict-management styles to find a possible link. Using this information, a survey was constructed and distributed among individuals of the Jordanian society. Data obtained from the survey was then analyzed using the SPSS software. Results helped in determining which Cultural Intelligence components possess the greatest influence on conflict-management styles among Jordanians. The study concludes with a clearer picture of the relationship between Cultural Intelligence and conflict management. This research contributes to the existing literature studying both culture and conflict by emphasizing the impact of understanding culture on the effectiveness of cross-cultural interactions.

Key words: Cultural Intelligence, Conflict, Conflict Management, Conflict-Management Styles, Jordan.

Introduction
Since the beginning of globalization, the world has experienced disruptive changes. People from different cultures are now more interconnected due to the advancements in telecommunication and technology. Globalization has expanded cultural borders and connected the world in terms of time, space, economies, organizations, and industries (Earley et al., 2006). As a result, there is an increasing need for developing a better cross-cultural understanding of different groups and for continually improving intercultural-communication skills to adapt to the requirements of today's world (Earley et al., 2004).

Globalization is one of the main reasons that prompt organizations to ask their employees to work in multinational environments and to travel from country to country to accomplish organizational goals (Earley & Peterson, 2004), thereby making the workforce in most countries more diverse and heterogeneous. To obtain a clearer idea of how globalization has affected cross-culture interactions and increased conflict issues, the most suitable definition of globalization for this paper is as follows: globalization is "a large scale interactive social process in which people increasingly interrelates, communicates, and works in an increasingly culturally diverse workplace both within and outside the organization" (Earley et al., 2006, p. 1). According to research by previous scholars, this ease of communication and its increased availability, which is a result of globalization, can generate more tension between people from diverse cultures, producing uncertainty and confusion among co-workers (Akbulut, 2014; Kumar & Rajasekar, 2014).

Due to the different attitudes and beliefs adopted by diverse cultures, conflicts and disagreements are definite results. Conflict is here defined as the process in which people disagree over significant issues, thereby creating friction between parties (Rahim, 1997), and this friction is often due to differences that exist among individuals. Managing conflict effectively among different individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds is one of the main challenges faced by people, organizations, and society. Consequently, managing conflict is an imperative for ensuring a healthy workplace that enhances personal and organizational growth (Forté, 1996).

It became crucial for organizations and individuals to understand how different cultures can influence and affect the negotiations carried out in conflict situations. While negotiating conflict situations effectively across different cultures has become a critical skill for individuals, it has also become an essential aspect of many inter-organizational relationships in the following areas: strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, licensing and distribution agreements, and sales of products and services (Adler, 2002). As a result, people who understand how culture influences conflict situations will have a competitive advantage in today's global marketplace (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999).

According to Imai in 2007, the culture and conflict literature reveals little about the characteristics that are needed by the negotiators to achieve optimal agreements in intercultural situations. To remedy this deficit, this research investigates the topic of Cultural Intelligence (CQ), which is defined as the individual's capability to adapt effectively to situations of cultural diversity (Earley and Ang, 2003) and also examines its effect on the conflict-management styles used in Jordan while handling conflict situations.

The reason for focusing on Cultural Intelligence rather than other forms of intelligence such as Social Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence is because Cultural Intelligence deals with individual's skill levels in the face of cultural barriers. This research seeks to examine the impact of Cultural Intelligence on conflict-management styles and to ascertain whether it is a useful predictor for choosing a particular conflict-management style.

This research is designed to assess quantitatively the Cultural Intelligence variables and link them to the conflict-management styles using Jordan as a context for analysis. Hence, the data is based on 133 participants' responses to basic demographic questions (age, nationality, and level of education) and on the results of a five-point Likert scale instruments for CQ and conflict-management styles.

Literature Review

This section addresses the previous literature about cultural intelligence and conflict management, then the next section will present a theoretical framework developed by bridging the two body of literatures.

Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
Since globalization took over the modern business world, organizations began focusing on the cultural side of their environments. To ensure worldwide competency, the workplace turned from having a predominantly local or domestic culture into one with a high diversity of cultures in one place. Thomas Larsson (2001) defined globalization as: "the process of world shrinkage, of distance getting shorter, things moving closer. It pertains to increasing ease with which somebody on one side of the world can interact, to mutual benefit, with somebody on the other side of the world" (p. 8).

The effects of globalization have spread through communities and cultures. This context highlights the variety of modern viewpoints in which conflict may occur (Al-Rodhan & Stoudmann, 2006). Consequently, globalization significantly impacts culture; for example, Japanese culture is well known for being strict with respect to time, whereas Arabic culture commonly regards timeliness as fairly flexible. It will not be acceptable to a Japanese manager if an Arabic employee arrives 10 minutes late, but this is perfectly acceptable in the Arabic culture. Globalization seeks to identify these differences in various cultures to increase familiarity between cultures. These issues have resulted in a new concept of generalizing one commonly known culture between employees in the same organization-a phenomenon called Organizational Culture. This culture gives the organization its identity as cross-cultural organization.

According to research on cross-cultural competency, the construct of cultural intelligence has been described by Gelfand, Imai, and Fehr (2008) as the "new kid on the scientific block" (p. 376). The term Cultural Intelligence was defined for the first time in 2003 as a multidimensional construct that encompasses an individual's capability to function and manage effectively in cultural diverse settings (Earley & Ang, 2003). This is consistent with Schmidt's and Hunter's (2000) definition of general intelligence (IQ) as "the ability to grasp and reason correctly with abstractions (concepts) and solve problems," (p. 3) which has yielded several types of intelligence that focus on specific content domains, such as Social Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence (EQ), and Practical Intelligence (NG, Van Dyne, and Ang, 2012).

After 2003, Earley revised his prior definition of general intelligence to the following: an outsider's seemingly natural ability to interpret someone's unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures the way that person's compatriots would (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). Also in 2004, Thomas and Inkson defined CQ as "the multifaceted competency consisting of cultural knowledge, the practice of mindfulness, and the repertoire of behavioral skills" (pp. 182-183). Peterson (2004), in contrast, focused on the values and attitudes side exposed to others with the following definition of general intelligence: "the ability to engage in a set of behaviors that uses skills (i.e. language or interpersonal skills) and quantities (e.g. tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility) that are tuned appropriately to the culture-based values and attitudes of the people with whom one interacts" (p. 106). On the other hand, Thomas (2006) defined general intelligence as the capability that allows individuals to understand and act appropriately across a wide range of cultures.

According to Earley and Ang (2003), the level of interpersonal skills that employees possess within a culture is independent from the level of interpersonal skills that those employees possess across cultures. That is, even though concepts such as Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Ability may assist individuals in understanding certain types of information, this does not mean that this information will help them in social interactions, especially in other cultures. In the end, just because an individual has a high level of interpersonal skills in his or her own culture, he or she will not necessarily adapt to people in the same way and with ease if he or she were exposed to a new culture. At the same time, an individual with a low level of interpersonal skills may have no problem adjusting easily and quickly to new cultural contexts.

In response to this need for understanding individual differences in cultural adaptation, Earley and Ang (2003) conceptualized CQ as a multifaceted characteristic consisting of the following elements: Metacognitive CQ, Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ. Metacognitive CQ refers to the conscious awareness which an individual has regarding cultural interactions, as well as the ability to strategize when crossing cultures and to carefully ascertain personal thoughts and the thoughts of others. Cognitive CQ reflects the knowledge of a group's values, beliefs, and norms; cognitive CQ also addresses the knowledge dimension of CQ, referring to the level of understanding of culture and its role in determining the style of doing business and interacting with others across different cultures. Motivational CQ reflects the capability to direct energy toward learning about cultural differences. It also refers to the level of interest, drive, and energy invested in cross-cultural adaptations. Motivational CQ involves intrinsic motivation, which is the degree to which a person derives enjoyment from culturally diverse situations; extrinsic motivation, which prioritizes the tangible benefits gained from culturally diverse experiences; and self-efficacy, which is the confidence that one will be effective in cross-cultural encounters. Finally, Behavioral CQ reflects the ability to choose appropriate verbal and physical actions when interacting with people of different cultures. In essence, behavioral CQ refers to the ability to act appropriately in the midst of cross-cultural issues, indicating whether a person can accomplish goals effectively in these issues. These concepts were conceived by Earley and Ang (2003) and were further developed by Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh 2008 and Van Dyne, Ang, and Livermore in 2010.

Conflict Management
Conflict is a common facet in the daily lives of people, and it is generally considered inevitable in organizations. Studies indicate that managers spend more than twenty percent of their time dealing with conflict (Pondy, 1992; Pulhamus, 1991; Thomas & Schmidt, 1976). Conflict can be the result of strong divergent needs between two or more parties (individuals, groups, organizations, etc.), or it may occur from misunderstandings and misperceptions.

Conflict arises in various situations either when both parties are working toward achieving the same goal, or when working toward different outcomes. Conflict is often dynamic, escalating and de-escalating according to the situation.

The current literature does not include a single or absolute definition of conflict. According to general consensus, conflict may be defined as an "interactive process manifested in compatibility, disagreement or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e., individuals, group, organization, etc.) which create organizational change" (Rahim, 2002, p. 207). Conflict may also be defined as "sharp disagreement or opposition, as of interests, ideas, etc.," and it may include the "perceived divergence of interest or a belief that the parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously" (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986, p. 4).

Researchers generally categorize and contextualize the broad concept of conflict by classifying it in four different levels. This is considered a commonly accepted categorization and was introduced by Lewicki, Saunders, Barry, and Minton in 2003. The levels of conflict classification are as follows: intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup.

Intrapersonal conflict occurs within an individual, taking place in his or her mind. This is more a form of psychological conflict, as the main source of conflict is emotions, thoughts, values, perceptions, and drives that are in disagreement with each other. An example of such conflict is when a person is experiencing anxiety or pressure from choosing between two alternatives.
The second type of conflict is interpersonal, which can be defined as "a form of intense interpersonal dissonance (that is, tension or antagonism) between two or more interdependent parties based on their incompatible goals, needs, desires, values, beliefs, and/or attitudes" (Ting-Toomey, 1985, p.72). According to this definition, this particular form of conflict involves two or more parties.

Intragroup conflict is the third type of conflict, arising between members of the same group. An example of intragroup conflict is one which occurs between family members. This type of conflict will have an evident effect on the group's ability to be efficient and effective in decision making, productivity, resolution, and achieving group goals.

The fourth and final classification is intergroup conflict, occurring between different groups. An example of this form of conflict is a feud between organizations. This type of conflict is often complicated, as there are a large number of people involved and countless ways of interacting with each other.

Multiple scholars suggest that conflict, and specifically organizational conflict, has both functional and dysfunctional outcomes (Jehn, 1995; Mirtoff, 1998; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin 1999). In the past, scholars and individuals believed that conflict is a negative and destructive force that should be avoided at all costs (Nicotera, 1993). Deutsch and others (1973) elaborated that this negative image of the conflict situation is based on many elements; for example, conflicts are usually emotionally charged, and this can overwhelm clear thinking. In addition, misperception and biases are often formed because people view a situation according to their own perspectives, interpreting the situation in stereotypical and biased ways. Furthermore, individuals can become competitive and only perceive situations as "win-lose" scenarios. When individuals become more committed to their own position, they are often less interested in productive communication, which can make issues more blurred and less defined. All of these will cause an escalation of conflict, since differences are magnified and similarities are neglected (Deutsch, 1973).

However, conflict cannot only be perceived as dysfunctional, but it should also be perceived as an opportunity for growth that possesses many productive aspects (Coser, 1956; Deutsch, 1973). Consequently, conflict itself is not simply productive or destructive: it is actually both. Once conflict was no longer perceived as dysfunctional, but instead as a healthy process that needs to be contained and managed properly through negotiations, structural adaptation, and other forms of intervention (Kolb & Putnam, 1992), the concept of conflict management emerged.

Conflict management involves "designing effective macro level strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an organization" (Rahim, 2002, p. 208). This definition illustrates that the main objective of conflict management is not to eliminate conflict, but to find different ways to manage it properly through controlling the dysfunctional elements of the conflict while facilitating its productive aspects (Rahim, 2002). Conflict management also refers to the styles used by either or both parties to cope with a conflict (Keenan et al., 1998). As a result, an individual's response to a conflict situation with different styles and strategies may limit or enable the success of dealing with the situation (Rahim, 2011).

A number of frameworks for handling conflict have been suggested and constructed by previous scholars to measure the tendency of using these approaches by each party (Filley, 1975; Hall, 1969; Rahim, 1992; Thomas, 1992; Thomas & Kilmann 1974). In this paper, the framework used to discuss conflict-management styles is one proposed by Dean Pruitt, Jeffery Rubin, and S.H. Kim (1994), based on research by Rahim and Bonoma (1979). This framework differentiates the styles of handling conflict into two distinct dimensions: concern for self and concern for others.

The concept of concern for self explains the degree to which a person tries to fulfill and satisfy his or her goals. The stronger the individual's concern for self, the more likely he or she will be to pursue strategies that focus on personal concern for outcomes; the weaker a person's concern for self, the more likely he or she will be to pursue strategies that will overlook personal interest (Rahim, 2002). Concern for others explains the degree to which individuals try to satisfy the goals and needs of the other party. Therefore, the stronger a person's concern for others, the more likely he or she is to engage in encouraging and helping the other party to achieve his or her outcome; the weaker the concern for others, the more likely an individual is to overlook consequences related to the other party (Rahim, 2002).

Combining these two dimensions is represented in the five different styles of handling conflict: contending, yielding, inaction, problem solving, and compromising. The first style, contending, is also called dominating or competing. This perspective involves high concern for self and low concern for others. This style follows a win-lose approach where high levels of competition are found. There is no cooperation between parties, and the main aim is to win at any cost to satisfy personal concern, regardless of the concerns of others (Rahim, 2002). Contending may also include standing up for one's rights and/or defending a position which the party believes to be correct (Rahim, 2011). Individuals who follow this approach try to persuade the other party to yield (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). This strategy is appropriate when there is a need for a speedy decision and can be helpful in overcoming assertive subordinates. It is also beneficial when an issue is generally trivial and only important to the party, or when subordinates lack the expertise needed to make appropriate technical decisions (Rahim, 2011). Situations in which contending is inappropriate occur when the issue is complex and not important to the individual, when both parties are equally powerful, when speedy decisions are not needed, or when subordinates possess a high degree of competence (Rahim, 2011).

The second style of handling conflict is yielding, which is also known as accommodating or obliging. This style occurs when there is low concern for self and high concern for others (Rahim, 2002). In some cases conflict resolution may be at the individual's own expense in the hope of obtaining future benefits from the other party (that is, self-sacrifice to gain something in the future). This style mainly attempts to play down the differences and emphasize the commonalities between the parties to satisfy their concerns (Rahim, 2011). This is considered an advantage in situations where the individual believes he or she may be wrong, when an issue is more important to the other party, when the individual is acting from a position of weakness, or when the individual thinks that preserving the relationship is more important (Rahim, 2011). However, yielding is inappropriate in cases where the issue is highly important to the individual, when the individual thinks he or she is right, or when the other party acting unethically or wrongly (Rahim, 2011).

The third style of handling conflict is "inaction," also called avoiding. This style involves low concern for self and low concern for others (Rahim, 2002). Avoiding generally occurs when the individual shows little interest in attaining both personal concerns and concerns for others, and subsequently decides to withdraw from the situation either by being silent or by doing nothing (Rahim, 2011). This style is appropriate when an issue is trivial, when a "cooling off" period is needed, or when potentially negative consequences of confronting the other party outweighs the advantages of resolution (Rahim, 2011).

The fourth style of handling conflict situations is problem solving, also known as collaborating or integrating. Individuals who pursue this style show high concern for self and high concern for others. As a result, cooperation and collaboration is needed to reach acceptable solutions that will satisfy both parties (otherwise known as a "win-win" approach) (Rahim, 2002). Openness and sharing of information are needed to ensure an effective result. Problem solving is useful in complex situations, when there is adequate time for problem solving, or when one party cannot solve the problem alone. To ensure successful implementation, commitment is needed from both parties (Rahim, 2011). Problem solving is considered inappropriate when the problem is simple, when immediate decisions are required, when other parties are unconcerned about the outcome, or when parties do not possess problem solving skills.

Compromising is the fifth conflict-management style and is the intersection between the two dimensions. It represents a moderate effort in pursuing one's personal interests and a moderate effort in helping the other party achieve his or her outcomes (Rahim, 2002). That is, both parties give up something in order to obtain an acceptable decision. Compromising is needed when the goals of both parties are mutually exclusive, when both parties are powerful, when agreements cannot be reached, when dominating or integrating styles are not successful, or when a temporary solution is needed for a complex problem (Rahim, 2011). However, compromising is inappropriate when one party is more powerful than the other, or when the problem is so complex that it needs a problem solving approach (Rahim, 2011).

Some behavioral researchers suggest that the problem-solving style is the most appropriate for managing conflict (e.g. Blake & Mouton, 1964; Burke, 1970; Likert & Likert, 1976). However, other researchers maintain that for conflict to be managed properly and functionally, one style may be more appropriate than another, depending on the situation (Hart, 1991; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1977). Consequently, understanding these different styles of conflict-managing behavior will enable the individual to select the most appropriate style when facing conflict by giving the individual the opportunity to enhance the communication process between the different parties involved (Rahim, 2002).

Theoretical framework

Research by Rahim suggests that Emotional Intelligence is closely related to conflict-management strategies (2002), suggesting that the five dimensions of EQ (Self-Awareness, Self-Regulation, Motivation, Empathy, and Social Skills) are positively correlated. These dimensions also involve personal motivation, dividing the conflict-management strategies into two dimensions: problem-solving strategy and bargaining strategy. Finally, research also suggests that motivation is positively related to a problem-solving strategy (integrating-avoiding) and is negatively associated with a bargaining strategy (dominating-obliging), according to Rahim (2002). Consequently, motivation serves as the main dimension of EQ used to measure the relationship. Motivation functions as an EQ dimension, and it is therefore also a component of CQ. When motivation is compared in terms of CQ and as a dimension of EQ, they are demonstrably similar. Although CQ is more specific in terms of defining the goal, a link exists between Cultural Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence in which CQ continues where EQ concludes (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004).

Several studies have related culture to conflict-style preference (Kim-Jo et al., 2010). A first stream of research examines how individuals exposed to more than one culture (e.g., bicultural persons) handle interpersonal conflict. Other studies investigate one culture and probe its conflict-management style preference. Also common in these studies is the a priori categorization of cultures as individualist or collectivist based on Hofstede's study in 1980. For example, individuals from the U.S. and Australia represent individualist cultures, while cultures from China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong are collectivist. However, these studies examine the conflict-style preference of each culture, but do not address the conflict-style preference of an individual and his or her ability to adapt culturally.

Cultural intelligence is an important predictor of affective as well as performance-related outcomes in culturally diverse situations. In addition, empirical research is an important predictor of affective as well as performance-related outcomes in culturally diverse situations, based on what empirical research shows. For example, research by Ang and colleagues (2007) found that the ability to make accurate cultural judgments and to report greater interactional adjustments describes individuals with higher CQ than those with lower CQ. This aptitude extends beyond cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, personality, and international experience. The same authors found in organizational contexts that international managers who performed better on an intercultural business task, controlling for cognitive ability and international experience, are those with higher CQ.

Furthermore, in a sample of foreign professionals, Ang and colleagues (2007) also found that CQ is a better predictor of higher job performance than international experience, as rated by supervisors. Another study by Templer, Tay, and Chandrasekar (2006) concluded that greater cross-cultural adjustment was experienced by expatriates with higher CQ than those with lower CQ, taking into account the realistic previews of the job and living conditions expatriates received, as well as time spent in the host country and prior international experience. More recent research has found that that CQ is negatively related to burnout among business travelers working in multinational corporations (Tay, Westman, & Chia, 2008) and is positively related to how quickly employees are integrated into multicultural work teams (Flaherty, 2008).

Most recent empirical research studying CQ in the domain of negotiation (Imai & Gelfand, 2010) maintains that individuals with higher CQ have greater cooperative motives as well as higher epistemic motivation than individuals with lower CQ. The researchers stated that dyads consisting of negotiators with higher CQ will engage in more effective sequences of integrative-information behaviors than dyads of negotiators with lower CQ. Being more cooperative and maintaining higher CQ will allow negotiators to adopt more-integrative negotiation strategies. Negotiation is a form of conflict management. However, the literature has not covered the study of CQ robustly in relation to conflict management.

Although CQ has been studied in a wide variety of contexts, a gap still exists in the literature with regards to studying its relation to conflict management, even after the study by Imai and Gelfand (2010). According to Rahim (2011), each conflict-management style has some characteristics implied in each individual's mindset: if a person has a selfish side, a high concern for self and a low concern for others, and ignores what others want, then he or she will tend to use the Dominating style over other CM styles. On the other hand, if a person is primarily focused on the needs of others over self, has a mentality of self-sacrificing for common good, and prioritizes maintaining current relationships (knowing that some of these relationships will be lost if the conflict continues), then the person will tend to use the Obliging CM style. When there is a lack of interest in self, others, or even in the whole issue, then the person withdraws from the situation, resulting in the Avoiding CM style. If an individual is willing to help others, to share information with them, and to maintain a high concern for both self and others, he or she is using the Integrating CM style. Finally, the Compromising CM style involves a moderate level of effort to reach outcomes, moderate concern, moderate interest, and a moderate willingness to help others. This style is used in the case where someone is selfless to obtain something else. According to Earley and Mosakowski (2004), there are three main facets of cultural intelligence (Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional/Motivational CQ). Each facet possesses distinctive traits and characteristics that will affect an individual's level of CQ, which in turn will impact the decisions made in conflict situations.

Based on these concepts, the main purpose of this section is to develop a theoretical framework that traces the relationship between facets of cultural intelligence facets and conflict-management styles. Based on this objective, a set of 15 suggested hypotheses have been developed. These hypotheses are divided into three groups according to each CQ facet (five hypotheses for each CQ facet).

The first CQ facet is Cognitive CQ, which involves having knowledge of other cultures. This requires knowing what culture is, how it varies, and how it affects behavior. Consequently, Cognitive CQ allows an individual to make predictable and more-accurate decisions during an intercultural interaction (Adler, 2002). An individual with high cognitive CQ is more aware of others' values and norms because he or she is wants to invest time and effort in forming an understanding of the cultural surrounding to adapt effectively in intercultural situations and conflicts (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Because of this, an individual with a higher Cognitive CQ will have a higher concern for others when dealing with an intercultural conflict situation to maintain social affiliation. With this in mind, five different hypotheses regarding high Cognitive CQ are established:

Hypothesis 1a: Individuals with high Cognitive CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing integrating style.

Hypothesis 1b: Individuals with high Cognitive CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing compromising style.

Hypothesis 1c: Individuals with high Cognitive CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing obliging style.

Hypothesis 1d: Individuals with high Cognitive CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing dominating style.

Hypothesis 1e: Individuals with high Cognitive CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing avoiding style.

Turning next to Physical CQ, an individual with higher Physical CQ tend to control his or her external factors that are perceived by others. These factors-such as body language, facial expressions, and tone-are controlled in a way that reflects a person's ability to adapt to different intercultural situations. It may therefore be further elaborated that this facet occupies the body category laid out by Earley and Mosakowski (2004). An individual with high Physical CQ must mirror the other party through convincible actions and behavior. This is done by showing others that he or she has adopted their key habits, mannerisms, and cultural gestures. With this in mind, five different hypotheses regarding high Physical CQ are developed:

Hypothesis 2a: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing integrating style.

Hypothesis 2b: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing compromising style.

Hypothesis 2c: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing obliging style.

Hypothesis 2d: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing dominating style.

Hypothesis 2e: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing avoiding style.

Last but not least is the Emotional/Motivational CQ facet. This is a critical component of CQ because it drives an individual's decisions and behaviors. Because emotions and motives are intrinsic, an individual with high Emotional/Motivational CQ must be confident in his or her own efficacy to understand people from different cultures and to overcome cultural obstacles. Those with high levels of Emotional/Motivational CQ can direct their attention toward intercultural situations based on their intrinsic interest in cultures (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and their confidence in intercultural effectiveness (Bandura, 2002). High Emotional/Motivational CQ can combine a rich understanding of self and others and can allow the individual to adapt to specific conflict-management styles in cross-cultural situations. Individuals who have high Emotional/Motivational CQ can develop positive attitudes and perceptions, which allow them to engage in the constructive exchange of information. They will listen and will try to understand the perspective of others. As a result, motivated negotiators are more likely to uncover possibilities for resolution and to find integrative potential (Deutsch, 1973; Tjosvold, 1998). Based on this understanding, five different hypotheses regarding high Emotional/Motivational CQ are developed:

Hypothesis 3a: Individuals with high Emotional/Motivational CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing integrating style.

Hypothesis 3b: Individuals with high Emotional/Motivational CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing compromising style.

Hypothesis 3c: Individuals with high Emotional/Motivational CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing obliging style.

Hypothesis 3d: Individuals with high Emotional/Motivational CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing dominating style.

Hypothesis 3e: Individuals with high Emotional/Motivational CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing avoiding style.

Figure 1: Hypothesized relationships between Cultural Intelligence and Conflict Management Styles

In the next section of the paper, the methods used will be presented.

Method

Subject Selection and Description
This research includes a total of 133 participants ranging in age from 18 to 64 years old. The sample mainly consists of employees of NGOs and UN Agencies dealing with different cultural backgrounds in Jordan. The sample consisted of 57 (42.9%) males and 76 (57.1%) females. The majority of the participants' nationalities were Jordanian (83.4%); others were part of nationalities from other Arab countries (13.5%), and a few participants had North American as well as Asian nationalities. Regarding the participants' levels of education, 94 (70.7%) participants held a Bachelor's Degree, 21 (15.8%) had finished college, 12 (9%) held a Master's Degree, and the rest either held a Ph.D. or only had completed a high-school level of education.

Research Design and Instrumentation
This study was designed to assess quantitatively the variables of Cultural Intelligence and to relate them to conflict-management styles in Jordan. Consequently, data collection is based on participants' responses to basic demographic questions (age, nationality, and level of education) and their results on a 5-point Likert scale for Cultural Intelligence and for conflict-management styles.

Dependent Variables: Conflict-Management Instrument
The conflict-management-styles instrument was developed by Oetzel (1998) in his study "The Effects of Self-Construals and Ethnicity on Self-Reported Conflict Styles," after it was originated by Rahim's work in conflict management. The instrument was made up of 28 questions developed by Rahim's (1983) inventory (ROCI-II) of measuring conflict styles, followed by 10 more questions developed by Ting-Toomey, Yee-Jung, Shapiro, Garcia, Wright, and Oetzel to appraise the ethnic and cultural background effect. Its reliability in the original article for each conflict-management style ranged from 0.69 to 0.91 (Oetzel, 1998) (See Appendix 1). Each statement in this instrument is also measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Each statement corresponds with one style of conflict management, allowing each style to have a specific number of statements that measure it.

To control situational constraints, two scenarios were developed. Participants were asked to envision the scenario and then to evaluate the statements in the instrument accordingly. The scenarios involved a CEO requesting a task from a group of company employees that included the participant; the participant was then voted into a group to accomplish this task, whether his or her department group or an unfamiliar group. The responsibilities and rewards in each scenario were either shared or individual. This was designed to include two different situational features in which the participant would either be in a competitive situation (out-group) or in a cooperative situation (in-group). Each participant randomly received either a competitive or a cooperative scenario.

Independent Variables: Cultural Intelligence Instrument
The Cultural Intelligence instrument was proposed by Earley and Mosakowski (2004) in their study on Cultural Intelligence. This instrument consists of twelve statements, divided into three sets: Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional/Motivational CQ. Each set reflects a different facet of CQ and is measured using a 5-point Likert scale. These facets are calculated by adding the scores of the statements in the set and then dividing the sum by the number of statements in the set, resulting in an average of the participant's CQ in that specific facet. An average less than three indicates the need for improvement, while an average greater than 4.5 reflects CQ strength.

The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the items measuring Cognitive CQ was 0.384. Items measuring Physical CQ had a Cronbach alpha of 0.562, and items measuring Emotional/Motivational CQ had a Cronbach alpha of 0.537. These low values suggest that the instrument is not reliable, which is likely due to the low number of items measuring each variable as well as the low number of participants. A higher number of participants would likely make this study more reliable. Furthermore, participants may have misunderstood the survey questions and provided incorrect answers, as the instrument was originally designed for western cultures.

Data-Collection Procedure
Online surveys were conducted in both Arabic and English language. Data collection occurred over nine days. The surveys were distributed through emails and participation was voluntary. The responses were mainly collected through snowball-sampling technique: that is, participants who received the survey passed it on to other respondents.

Data-Analysis Procedures
SPSS software was used to analyze the collected data. The software package SPSS Statistics was used for statistical analysis. Reliability statistics were conducted for each set of questions to test each variable and to check the reliability of the instrument. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each variable or construct to test the inter-correlations of items to measure a single variable or construct. When the items measuring the same construct are highly correlated, the questionnaire is considered reliable.

To analyze and to understand the sample, an initial descriptive analysis is conducted on the data. Afterwards, multiple linear regressions are constructed to test the relationships between the variables being studied.

Results

This section discusses the results obtained with data analysis. The collected data was analyzed to understand its implications on the research hypotheses. The descriptive analysis was investigated thoroughly to examine the sample population and its characteristics. Further analysis was performed through regression and Pearson's correlation to assess the hypothesis and to understand the relationships between variables.

Sample Description and Frequencies
In this section, frequencies of the sample's demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, nationality, level of education, and organization are explained. As mentioned previously, the number of participants was 133: 76 were females, and 57 were males. The majority of the participants were between 18 and 24 years old. This age range is congruent with modern Jordanian society which is comprised mostly of youth.

Table 1: The Frequencies and Percentages of the Participants Gender


Table 2: The Frequencies and Percentages of the Participants Age Groups


Because the study was conducted in Jordan, most participants were of Jordanian nationality (111 out of 133); the remaining 22 were of different nationalities.

Table 3: The Frequencies and Percentages of the Participants Nationalities

Regarding participants' level of education, most participants (71%) either had a bachelor's degree or were enrolled in bachelor's-degree programs; 16% of the population was enrolled in college. The rest of the participants had either attained higher level of education or were in high-school. These individuals mostly comprise current and future employees. Ergo, their involvement in the study was important.

Table 4: The Frequencies and Percentages of Participants Level of Education

Multiple Linear Regressions
To confirm the relationship between the dependent and independent variables, five multiple linear-regression analyses were performed. In each regression the conflict-management style served as the dependent variable, and the three facets of cultural intelligence served as the independent variables. The demographic variables were also included as independent variables in each regression to isolate other variables and to obtain the best results while testing the relationship. As a result, in each regression each variable showed a different p-value and correlation to the dependent variable. These relationships are illustrated in detail in the following sub sections and tables.

Integrating Style

Table 5: Integrating Conflict-Management Style Model Summary

As shown in Table 5, for the integrating style, R represents the variation in the model, and the R square value indicates that 17.5% of the variation in integrating-style models can be explained by the variability of CQ facets and demographic factors.

Table 6: Coefficients of the Independent Variables in the Integrating Style Model

According to the results showed in Table 6, there is a relationship between the independent variables (focusing only on Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional CQ) and the integrating style. Cognitive CQ has a coefficient of 0.166, which indicates a positive relationship, and a significance value of 0.029, which means that this relationship is significant because it is below 0.05. On the other hand, Physical CQ has a coefficient of 0.136 and significance value of 0.071, which may be considered slightly significant because the sample size was small and the questions were minimal. Emotional CQ has a coefficient of 0.118 and significance value of 0.161 which means that the relationship is not significant.

Compromising Style

Table 7: The Compromising Conflict-Management Style Model Summary


As shown in Table 7, for the compromising style, the R-square value indicates that 28.7% of the variation in the compromising-style model can be explained by the variability of CQ facets and demographic variables.

Table 8: Coefficients of the Independent Variables in the Compromising Style Model

According to Table 8, there is a relationship between the independent variables (focusing only on Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional CQ) and the compromising style. Physical CQ has a coefficient of 0.283, which indicates a positive relationship, and a significance value of 0.000, which means this relationship is very significant (<0.05). On the other hand, Cognitive CQ has a coefficient of 0.085 and Emotional CQ has a coefficient of 0.094, but both have significance values that are greater than 0.05 (0.291 and 0.288, respectively), meaning that their relationships with this style are not significant.

Obliging Style

Table 9: Obliging Conflict-Management Style Model Summary


As shown in Table 9, for the obliging style, the R-square value indicates that 14.4% of the variation in the obliging-style model can be explained by the variability of CQ facets and by demographic variables.

Table 10: Coefficients of the Independent Variables in the Obliging Style Model

According to Table 10, there is a relationship between the independent variables (focusing only on Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional CQ) and the obliging style. Cognitive CQ has a coefficient of 0.166, which indicates a positive relationship, and a significance value of 0.029, which means that this relationship is significant (<0.05). Physical CQ has a coefficient of 0.136 and Emotional CQ has a coefficient of 0.118, but the significance values for both Physical and Emotional CQ are greater than 0.05 (0.495 and 0.179, respectively), indicating that their relationships with the obliging style are not significant.

Dominating style

Table 11: Dominating Conflict-Management Style Model Summary

As shown in Table 11, for the dominating style, the R-square value indicates that 12.9% of the variation in dominating-style model can be explained by the variability of CQ facets and by demographic variables.

Table 12: Coefficients of the Independent Variables in the Dominating Style Model

According to Table 12, there is a relationship between the independent variables (focusing only on Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional CQ) and the dominating style. Physical CQ has a coefficient of 0.308, which indicates a positive relationship, and a significance value of 0.020, which suggests this relationship is very significant (<0.05). Cognitive CQ has a coefficient of 0.172 and significance value of 0.196, which is not considered significant. Emotional CQ has a coefficient of 0.056 and a significance value of 0.701, which is also considered not significant in the case of the dominating style.

Avoiding Style

Table 13: Avoiding Conflict-Management Style Model Summary

As shown in Table 13, for the avoiding style, the R-square value indicates that 21.4% of the variation in the avoiding-style model can be explained by the variability of CQ facets and by demographic variables.

Table 14: Coefficients of the Independent Variables in the Avoiding Style Model

According to Table 14, there is a relationship between the independent variables (focusing only on Cognitive CQ, Physical CQ, and Emotional CQ) and the avoiding style. Cognitive CQ has a coefficient of 0.442, which indicates a positive relationship; its significance value of 0.000 means this relationship is very significant, since it is below 0.05. Physical CQ has a coefficient of 0.270 and significance value of 0.021, which is also considered significant. On the other hand, Emotional CQ has a coefficient of -0.137, which represents a negative relationship, and a significance value of 0.292, which is greater than 0.05 and therefore not significant.

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to examine whether a relationship between Cultural Intelligence and Conflict Management Styles exist or not. To do so the Jordanian context was taken into consideration. This was designed to contribute to society by improving the effectiveness of intercultural interactions in the daily lives of the individuals. This section will compare and elaborate the hypotheses developed in the theoretical framework with the results obtained from the data collection, as shown in following Table.

Table 15: Summary of the Hypothesis and Actual Results Obtained

H1a: Individual with high Cognitive CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing integrating style.

Results indicate a significant positive relationship between Cognitive CQ and choosing integrating conflict-management style, which supports the hypothesis above. Cognitive CQ reflects the desire to learn and absorb the norms, values, and methods of other cultures when approaching intercultural interactions (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). These individuals are willing to know more about the other party and develop some kind of concern towards them, comprehending and decoding the behavior of others and of self (Thomas et al., 2008). This idea relates to the integrating conflict-management style, which involves a high sense of concern for self and for others: the individual is keen on sharing information and knowledge about himself or herself and others (Rahim 2011).

H1c: Individuals with high Cognitive CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing obliging style.

When an individual is willing to understand the other party's culture and how he or she thinks and behaves, this person is showing concern for others and is not concerned for self. This supports Rahim's explanation of the obliging style which involves low concern for self and high concern for others.

H2a: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing integrating style.
H2b: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a positive relationship in choosing compromising style.

Results show that the significance value of Physical CQ is 0.071, which is slightly higher than 0.05. However, this is likely due to the few questions involved in the study and the low number of participants. Therefore, this hypothesis can be taken into consideration.

Physical CQ represents the individual's ability to tailor verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting cross-culturally. An individual with high Physical CQ will know exactly when to use needed words, phrases, and actions when facing intercultural conflict (Thomas et al., 2008). Therefore, when an individual modifies his or her actions according to cultural contexts, it may result in different outcomes: for example, an individual will try to achieve optimal solutions by adapting to the other party's culture and by showing concern for others, while simultaneously showing concern for self to satisfy both parties. Consequently, high Physical CQ is linked with Rahim's integrating style of handling conflict (concern for self and others).

H2d: Individuals with high Physical CQ will have a negative relationship in choosing dominating style.

Results suggest there is a significant positive relationship between having high Physical CQ and choosing dominating conflict-management style, which opposes the stated hypothesis. To elaborate this point, Thomas and others (2008) stated in their study entitled "Cultural Intelligence Domain and Assessment" that Physical CQ-also known as behavioral CQ-is the nonverbal and verbal actions that are taken by individuals in cross-cultural interactions. This type of individual will know when to adapt to another culture and when not to do so (Thomas et al., 2008), thereby indicating that an individual with high physical CQ can tailor his or her actions according to certain cultural contexts with varied outcomes. According to the results obtained from the analyzed data, individuals in Jordanian society chose to adapt their actions by preferring the dominant style of handling conflict, which is associated with low concern for others and high concern for self (Rahim, 2011).

Figure 2: Significant Relationships between Cultural Intelligence and Conflict Management Styles

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to find the impact of Cultural Intelligence on choosing conflict-management styles by using existing literature as well as by analyzing primary data collected through an online survey. As explained in the discussion, the study found that there is a relationship between Cultural Intelligence and a person's choice of conflict-management style. Although, there was no relationship found between Emotional/Motivational CQ and conflict management styles. This may prompt further researchers to study peoples' behavior in cross-cultural interactions. Additionally, this study adds to the existing literature in areas of Cultural Intelligence and conflict management.

Globalization and the increase in cross-cultural interactions has led to the rise of conflict situations. As a result, individuals should understand how to handle these scenarios effectively. Sadly, conflict management is a relatively understudied field in Jordan and other Arab countries. Ergo, further recommendations and greater emphasis on this topic is needed to develop better understandings about conflict and how to handle it in an appropriate manner.

References

Akbulut, A. 2014. "Conflict in the global age: The case of Danish cartoon crisis." European Scientific Journal, 10(14).
Al-Rodhan, N. R., & Stoudmann, G. 2006. "Definitions of globalization: a comprehensive overview and a proposed definition." Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. L. 2011. "Cultural intelligence." Cambridge handbook on intelligence, 582-602.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C. K. S., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. 2007. "The measurement of cultural intelligence: effects on cultural judgment and decision-making, cultural adaptation, and task performance." Management and Organization Review, 3: 335-371.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. 2008. "The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes." Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 170.
Christopher, P. B., & Reddy, B. D. 2014. "Influence of culture in handling conflict situation-with special reference to Indian sub cultural diversity." Asian Social Science, 10(4): 31.
Crowne, K. A. 2008. "What leads to cultural intelligence?." Business Horizons, 51(5).
De Dreu, C. K. 2004. "Motivation in negotiation: A social psychological analysis." The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, 114-135.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. 2004. "Cultural intelligence." Harvard Business Review, 82(10).
Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. 2004. "The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager." Academy of Management Learning & Education, 100-115.
Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J. S. 2006. CQ: developing cultural intelligence at work. Stanford University Press.
Earley, P., & Ang, S. 2003, Cultural intelligence: individual interactions across cultures, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Engle, R. L., Elahee, M. N., & Tatglu, E. 2013. "Antecedents of problem-solving cross-cultural negotiation style: some preliminary evidence." Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18(2): 83-103.
Flaherty, J. E. 2008. "The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and integration in multinational teams." In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: theory, measurement, and applications (192-205). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Flynn, S. I. 2014. Managing conflict within organizations through negotiations (1): Great Neck Publishing.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. 2010. "The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2): 83-98.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. 2010. "The culturally intelligent negotiator: the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2): 83-98.
Joo Kim, E., Yamaguchi, A., Kim, M. S., & Miyahara, A. 2015. "Effects of taking conflict personally on conflict management styles across cultures." Personality and Individual Differences, 72: 143-149.
Kaushal, R., & Kwantes, C. T. 2006. "The role of culture and personality in choice of conflict management strategy." International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(5): 579-603.
Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martínez, V., & Ozer, D. J. 2010. "Culture and interpersonal conflict resolution styles: role of acculturation." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2): 264-269.
Kumar, G. A., & Rajasekar, D. 2014. "A study on "cross cultural conflict at workplace" with reference to Chennai City." International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 9(13): 2055-2062.
Ng, K.Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S., 2012. "Cultural intelligence: a review, reflection, and recommendations for future research." In A.M. Ryan, F.T.L. Leong, & F.L. Oswald (Eds.), Conducting multinational research: applying organization psychology in the workplace. 29-58.
Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. 2003. "Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory." Communication research, 30(6): 599-624.
Peterson, B. 2004. Cultural intelligence: a guide to working with people from other cultures. Boston, Ma: Intercultural Press.
Rahim, M. A. 2002. "Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict." International journal of conflict management, 13(3): 206-235.
Rahim, M. A. 2011. Managing conflict in organizations. Transaction Publishers.
Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J. H., Yu, C. S., Chan, K. A., & Van Wyk, R. 2002. "A model of emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies: a study in seven countries." International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4): 302-326
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. 2011. "Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): the role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world." Journal of Social Issues, 67(4): 825-840.
Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. 2006. "Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment." Group & Organization Management, 31: 154-173.
Thomas, D. C. (2006). "Domain and development of cultural intelligence: the importance of mindfulness." Group & Organization Management, 31(1).
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: people skills for global business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., & Lazarova, M. B. 2008. "Cultural intelligence domain and assessment." International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2): 123-143.
Thomas, K. W. 1992. Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3): 265-274.
Van Dyne, L. Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008), "Development and validation of the CQS", in Ang & Van Dyne (Eds.) Handbook of cultural intelligence: theory, measurements, and applications, London: M.E. Sharpe.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Livermore, D. (2010). "Cultural intelligence: a pathway for leading in a rapidly globalizing world." Leading Across Differences, 131-138.