The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0262-1711.htm

The influence of emotional Impact of

emotional
intelligence on team performance intelligence

through knowledge sharing, team

conflict, and the 269
structure mechanism Received 7 December 2018
Revised 26 April 2019
Accepted 28 May 2019
Zulfadil, Susi Hendriani and Machasin
Department of Management, Riau University, Kota Pekanbaru, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – To analyze the influence of emotional intelligence on team performance, knowledge sharing, team
conflict, and the structure mechanism, the influence of knowledge sharing, team conflict, the structure
mechanism, and emotional intelligence on team performance, and the influence of emotional intelligence on
team performance through knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the structure mechanism.
Design/methodology/approach – This research uses the quantitative research method and is included in
explanatory research. Data collection was done cross-sectionally. This research was conducted at provincial
hospitals in South Sulawesi and in Central Sulawesi.
Findings – Emotional intelligence directly influences knowledge sharing, conflict in teams, the structure
mechanism, and team performance. There is a direct influence of knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the
structure mechanism on team performance. Then, there is an indirect influence of emotional intelligence on
team performance through the mediation of knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the structure mechanism.
Originality/value – The novelty of this research is in its effort to observe the mediation of knowledge sharing,
team conflict and the structure mechanism with other variables developed in the research model. No previous
studies have found a relationship between emotional intelligence and team performance, knowledge sharing,
team conflict, and the structure mechanism, or the influence of knowledge sharing, team conflict, the structure
mechanism, and emotional intelligence on team performance.
Keywords Emotional intelligence, Team performance, Knowledge sharing, Team conflict, The structure
mechanism
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In this era of a knowledge-based economy, it has become increasingly important for higher
educational institutions to create broad educational resources and strengthen their
mechanisms for sharing a better quality of education (Pausits and Pellert, 2009).
Organizational development requires human resources. Organizations that are
professional about managing systems and organizational mechanisms concerning existing
resources can support flexible responses to certain change. To that end, organizations must
change from hierarchical forms to networks in which horizontal coordination and
communication are prioritized above vertical authorities (Desanctis and Jackson, 1994). In
the business environment, uncertainty, complexity, and change are also increasing (Lewicki
et al., 1998). So, companies face very tough business competition, and many refer to this as
“hypercompetition.”
A highly dynamic environmental change has led to the creation of a new, more adaptive
Journal of Management
work environment in respect of both environmental and customer demand (Daft, 2003). In Development
addition, every company or organization must be able to compete globally and meet very Vol. 39 No. 3, 2020
pp. 269-292
high standards. Changes in the economic system towards a market-oriented model have not © Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
excluded hospital management systems or professionals in hospitals (specialists, general DOI 10.1108/JMD-12-2018-0354
JMD practitioners, nurses, midwives, and managers). Professional lifestyles have tended to
39,3 become materially oriented as part of the global culture. Hospitals, viewable as one service
industry with a very complex business process, certainly have the potential for optimization
and making relatively huge efficiencies. The public demand for better health services
indirectly requires hospitals to develop themselves continuously. In order to improve the
quality of health services to customers, there are steps that must be passed for them to work
effectively and efficiently, and these require continuous improvement with the least
270 resistance possible.
In the last decade, some hospitals and technical services at the health care level in
Indonesia have expanded rapidly. In 2012, the number of public hospitals was 1,608 and by
2013 the number of hospitals had become 1,725 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2015). The level
of knowledge can reduce the quality of health services. A series of hospital operational
policies and standards have been introduced that require the existence of inter-hospital
collaboration so that parts of hospitals can create health service performance teams in using
limited resources. Team performance also reflects the cooperation, competence, and culture of
each institution with respect to patients and team members.
For the achievement of team performance goals, an organization needs to assess the
impact of individuals, groups, and structures on behavior within the organization with the
intention of applying knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness. From this
viewpoint, knowledge management is the formalization of access to experience and
knowledge that can create new capabilities and superior performance and increase
innovation and customer value (Beckman, 1997; Liebowitz, 1999). A major concern of
knowledge management is often to connect staff to systems used in the transfer and
distribution of knowledge by means of technology. Based on their theoretical knowledge and
combined with previous practical observations about knowledge management and team
performance, health work can be analyzed and evaluated.
Knowledge is said to be a valuable intangible asset for creating and sustaining benefits for
individuals and organizations (Baardsen, 2011). Knowledge sharing within organizations is
critical for improving organizational performance and innovation (Noor and Salim, 2012). The
role of emotional intelligence in knowledge sharing has implications for performance.
Knowledge-sharing behavior (KSB) is very important for an organization to operate
functionally. KSB can be defined as the process of giving and receiving knowledge (Hooff and
Ridder, 2004), exchanging ideas through deliberations to create new knowledge (Hislop,
2002), and workers’ contributions to improve performance and utilize innovation (Chen
et al., 2012).
Based on theoretical knowledge and combined with previous practical observations about
knowledge management and health workers’ performance by teams that have analyzed and
evaluated the performance of healthcare services, a model analysis was offered known as the
“Knowledge Management Study on health workers’ performance in teams.” Cooperation in
teams is more effective than individual work. According to West et al. (2006), research has
shown that group collaboration leads to greater efficiency and effectiveness. This is very
different from the work done by individuals.
In addition to those advantages of cooperation, it can also stimulate a person to contribute
to his group, as Davis has stated. For Davis, cooperation is the mental and emotional
involvement of people in a group situation that encourages them to contribute and take
responsibility for achieving group goals. A number of sources in the extant literature indicate
that knowledge has become the focus of competitive advantage. In the classical economy, the
source of wealth was land, labor, and capital; now, another source is knowledge (Badaracco,
1991). The most valuable assets at companies in the 20th and 21st centuries, whether for
business or non-business organizations, are production equipment, knowledge workers, and
productivity respectively.
 The role played by emotional intelligence in knowledge sharing has implications for Impact of
performance. KSB is very important for an organization to operate functionally. This is one of emotional
the knowledge management initiatives that is necessary if you want to maintain KSB as a
culture within an organization. KSB can be defined as individuals distributing their acquired
intelligence
knowledge throughout society (Ryu et al., 2003) – a deliberate act that makes knowledge
reusable by others through the transfer of knowledge (Lee and Al-Hawamdeh, 2002). This is
the process of giving and receiving knowledge (Hooff and Ridder, 2004), exchanging ideas
through deliberation to create new knowledge (Hislop, 2002), and workers’ contributions to 271
improve performance and leverage innovation (Chen, 2012). It is also a process whereby
individuals exchange their knowledge and ideas through discussion to create new knowledge
or ideas (Alam et al., 2009).
According to Salovey and Mayer (1990), emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to monitor
feelings and emotions, to differentiate them and use this information to guide one’s thoughts
and actions. It reflects a person’s ability to interact with others in a positive way and usually
appears to be the ultimate determinant of business success. Emotional intelligence about
structural mechanisms have been defined as “emotional self-perceptions constellations
residing in lower levels of hierarchy of personality” (Petrides et al., 2007).
The positive relationship between EI and academic success in school students has also
been found (Downey et al., 2008; Hogan et al., 1994; Petrides et al., 2004). EI has also been found
to be positively correlated with adaptive and negatively correlated with maladaptive
treatment (e.g. Austin et al., 2010; Petrides et al., 2007; Saklofske et al., 2007). Several recent
works (Austin et al, 2010; Saklofske et al., 2007) have built on these empirical associations and
on the theoretical relationships that have been debated to underlie them (Matthews et al.,
2002; Mayer et al., 2000). EI facilitates “successful and efficient self-regulation of desired
goals” (Salovey et al., 2000, p. 511), with high EI individuals having a superior ability to
manage their emotions in stressful situations, avoid making changes to negative events and
setting goals for the future effectively. From this perspective, the EI component of the
emotional rule is in line with the (non-use) emotional emphasis, while emotional rules support
the application of a focused approach to tasks, for example, by anticipating the emotions
about to be experienced, while working to achieve desired goals.
The various phenomena addressed by this study were the exploration of the relationship
between knowledge-sharing factors, emotional intelligence, and team conflict as well as
structural mechanisms regarding team performance during the inter-institutionalized
process of collaboration within a hospital institution that has a conflict management
system between a section with another part that is part of the competence of each section that
requires a high level of emotional intelligence in performance management. Such
performance management requires a reliable level of cooperation to produce performance
that has implications on the performance of hospital institutions.
Based on the description of this study it aims to analyze the influence of emotional
intelligence on team performance, knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the structure
mechanism, and the influence of knowledge sharing, team conflict, the structure mechanism,
and emotional intelligence on team performance, as well as the influence of emotional
intelligence on team performance through knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the
structure mechanism. The novelty of this research is in its the effort to see the mediation
between knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the structure mechanism with other variables
developed in the research model.
Several previous studies have found a partial relationship between variables as follows: (1)
EI and knowledge sharing by Dartey-Baah et al. (2017), Polese et al. (2017), Sanda, M. A.
(2017), Tommasetti et al. (2017), Khalili, A. (2017), Efthimiou, O. (2017), and Bendell et al.
(2017); (2) knowledge sharing and team performance by Benoliel et al. (2017), Gonçalves
et al. (2017), Smith et al. (2017), Ukko et al. (2017), Somech, et al. (2017), Lu et al. (2017), Xu et al.
JMD (2017), and Davidson et al. (2017); (3) EI and team conflict by Dartey-Baah et al. (2017), Turner
39,3 et al. (2017), Choudhary et al. (2017), Bamel et al. (2017), Lu et al. (2017), and Chakravarty and
Bhatnagar; (4) team conflict and team performance by Benoliel et al. (2017), Smith et al. (2017),
Lu et al. (2017), Xu et al. (2017), and Mason et al. (2017); (5) EI and team performance by
Dartey-Baah et al. (2017), Gupta et al. (2017), Choudhary et al. (2017), Atwijuka et al. (2017), Lu
et al. (2017), Khalili, A. (2017), and Wright et al. (2017). No previous studies have found a
comprehensive relationship between EI and team performance, knowledge sharing, team
272 conflict, and the structure mechanism, or the influence of knowledge sharing, team conflict,
the structure mechanism, and EI on team performance.

2. Literature review
2.1 Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a skill, or ability, or self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and
control the emotions of oneself, others, and groups. Salovey and Mayer (1990) also declared EI
to be the ability to feel emotion, integrate emotions into the thinking process, understand
emotions, and regulate emotions to promote personal growth. To be more specific, EI
encompasses two important components of emotional regulation (ROE), which relate to the
ability of individuals to manage their emotions, thus enabling faster recovery from emotional
climax or depression; and use of emotion (UOE), which relates to the individual’s ability to use
their emotions by directing them toward constructive activities and personal performance
(Davies et al., 1998). In other words, EI is the ability to handle personal emotions for
intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships. EI is part of the social intelligence necessary to
monitor oneself and the feelings and emotions of others, to adapt emotions to profitable
interpretations, and to express personal EI with acceptable and even respected social
behavior.
EI is recognized as an inherent trait to identify and control the personal emotions present
when an individual experiences external stimuli. EI reflects the individual’s personality and
affects interpersonal relationships. Several studies have claimed that superior EI includes
some concrete abilities, as follows: (1) to identify, evaluate, and provide personal emotions
precisely (Salovey and Mayer, 1990); (2) to integrate and manage personal emotions in order
to facilitate better thinking-quality skills (Jordan and Troth, 2011); (3) to be aware of other
people’s emotions for better management of personal relationships (Zhang and Wang, 2011);
and (4) to exploit various emotional forces to facilitate problem-solving efficiency (Wu
et al., 2003).

2.2 Knowledge management sharing

According to Dimttia and Oder (2001), knowledge management is about extracting and
organizing knowledge to develop a profitable and more efficient organization. In detail
Dimttia and Oder described that knowledge management is a process of capturing
organizational collective skills, wherever the knowledge lies, either in databases, in papers, or
in the heads of people, and then that knowledge cn be distributed wherever it can produce the
greatest achievement. Knowledge sharing is achieved through regular discussions,
workshops, internships, and meetings. The focus of knowledge management is to find new
ways to channel raw data into useful information forms, for the purpose of sharing
knowledge.
Knowledge management is very useful for companies or organizations, by reducing cycle
times of processing, improving the quality of decision-making with better information,
improving human resource innovation and productivity, reducing recurrences of the same
errors, improving customer responses, increasing flexibility and the capability to adapt, and
improving the ability of companies or organizations to share and learn. Therefore, if Impact of
knowledge management is applied, then the company or organization will become a learning emotional
organization, which is one of the competencies that is needed in the uncertainty of today’s
market environment for anticipating change by giving priority to flexibility, responsiveness,
intelligence
quality, dependability, service, and cost.

2.3 Team conflict 273

The team conflict discussed in this study is focused on the hindrance of team cohesion and
performance. The opposing team members could not trust each other and would tend to limit
communication to self-protection. Members only make efforts to correct self-performance but
not in the context of team goals; small-scale discussions about initiatives will start among
team members. Obviously, constructive team conflict will limit knowledge sharing and
inspirational innovation for meaningful self-protection, which will certainly reduce team
performance.
Based on the preliminary work of De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001), I adopted the concept
that task conflict has a curved (inverted U-shaped) relationship with performance. Task
conflicts can increase constructive criticism, careful alternative evaluations, realistic
questions about members’ ideas, and creative problem solving.

2.4 Structure mechanism

Referred to by Max Weber in the book The Theory of Protestant Ethic and Economic
Organization, the term “bureaucracy” comes from the word “legal-rasional.” “Legal” is due to
the authority of a clearly defined set of procedural rules and roles, while “rational” is there
because of the goal setting to be achieved. The characteristics of bureaucracy according to
Max Weber are: a division of labor, a hierarchy of authority, a rational program, system
procedures, a system of rules for obligation rights, and interpersonal relationships remain
impersonal. Seen from a Weberian perspective, if the bureaucracy is unbalanced by its
“acquisition,” then the bureaucracy is irrational. So, if the hierarchy is seen to be too long and
wide, many officials will not be balanced in their roles.

2.5 Team performance

Team performance is usually defined as the extent to which teams can achieve predictable
goals or achieve the expected task to the desired standard. The study reveals several factors
regarding team performance, which include the role and commitment identities of each
member, team cohesiveness, communication mechanisms and the quality of information
sharing (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009), member homogeneity for team goals, and
consensus among team members about the approaches to goal achievement (Plowman and
McDonough, 2010). Therefore, team performance is often improved. In short, team
performance based on the effects of teamwork strongly supports the idea that the effective
sharing of information between team members improves performance and productivity
through interaction (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2009). Another influencer of team performance is
the team members’ emotional intelligence (Rapisarda, 2002); in Davies, Stankov, and
Roberts’s (1998) research, it was revealed that individuals with a consistent and fun style of EI
would benefit the team’s cohesion and performance.

2.6 Previous studies

Research that has become reference work for this research includes:
(1) A Review on Self-Determination Factors and Knowledge Sharing Behavior with
Perceived Organizational Support as Moderating Effect, the results of which show EI
JMD provides insight into the moderate effects of sharing knowledge from organizational
39,3 support. Further research in New Zealand shows that EI will give an overview of the
framework of how BBs’ SDF can contribute to the KSB.
(2) The Influence of Emotional Intelligence on Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Service
Organizations, the results of which showed that correlation and regression analysis
showed that knowledge sharing is part of the behavior of pro-social organizations
274 (Lin, 2007), which captures the general trend of people anticipating good
consequences not only for themselves but also for their colleagues and
organizations (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986). Because knowledge sharing is a
voluntary behavior and above and beyond that defined by the job description,
employees are required to have extraordinary virtues that encourage them to engage
in satisfactory voluntary behavior in this regard, manpower.
(3) The Role and Importance of Emotional Intelligence In Knowledge Management
(Lazovic, 2012), the results of which showed that there is a relationship between EI
with knowledge management, and that simultaneously there is no relationship
between EI and performance.
(4) Self-Monitoring as a Moderator of The Relationships Between Personality Traits And
Performance (Barrick and Mount, 2005), in which the results of the study showed that
EI has a strong relationship with knowledge sharing.
(5) The Relation Between Personality and Contextual Performance in Strong Versus Weak
Situations (Walker. et al., 2001), the results of which showed that EI of contextual
performance has a correlation that varies between knowledge sharing and team
conflict with team work.

3. Hypothesis building
The knowledge management approaches above have been tested using a concept approach
by applying them to the form of teamwork that measures the performance of health care
teams at the general hospitals in South Sulawesi Province and Central Sulawesi Province.
The quality of collaboration and inter-institutional team performance relies heavily on shared
knowledge functions within collaboration teams. Team performance also reflects the attitude
of cooperation, competence, and culture behind each of the participating institutions and
team members. Team conflicts, such as competitions and varieties, usually have a damaging
effect on the quality of interaction and the achievement of collaboration (Jehn and Chatman,
2000). In addition, the participants’ EI is the team’s dominating performance factor, and is
important during the growth process (Birx et al., 2011).
Based on theoretical reviews, previous studies, and the conceptual framework of the team
performance study of hospital personnel (Study at Provincial Hospital of South Sulawesi and
Central Sulawesi) with knowledge sharing, team conflict, and the structure mechanism as
intervening variables, the following hypotheses were devised: (1) allegedly, EI directly affects
team performance in every part of the hospital; (2) allegedly, EI directly affects knowledge
sharing in each part of the hospital; (3) allegedly, EI directly affects team conflicts in every
part of the hospital; (4) allegedly, EI directly influences the structure mechanism of each
section in the hospital; (5) allegedly, knowledge sharing directly influences team performance
in each part of the hospital; (6) allegedly, team conflict directly affects team performance in
each section of the hospital; (7) allegedly, the structure mechanism directly affects team
performance in every section of the hospital; (8) allegedly, EI influences team performance
indirectly to through knowledge sharing; (9) allegedly, EI influences team performance
indirectly through team conflict variables; and (10) allegedly, EI indirectly affects team Impact of
performance through variable structure mechanisms. emotional
intelligence
4. Methodology
This research uses the quantitative research method included in the explanatory research.
Data collection was done cross-sectionally. This research was conducted at the South
Sulawesi provincial hospital (the Central General Hospital of Dr. Wahidin Sudirohusodo and
275
Hasanuddin University Hospital) and in Central Sulawesi (the general hospital of the Undata
Region and the Anuta Pura General Hospital of Palu City), and it lasted for six months. The
population studied for this research were patients at the head units of South Sulawesi and
Central Sulawesi provincial hospitals, which amounts to 40 hospitals. The sample for this
research were the Director, Deputy Director, Heads of Division / Section Heads, and
Subdivision Heads / Subsection Heads, amounting to 136 people. The sampling technique for
this research was the cluster technique and stratified random sampling. The analytical tool
used to answer the research objectives was generalized structure component analysis (GSCA)
(Solimun, 2012) with the hypothesis illustrated in the following conceptual images (see
Figure 1):
Hypotheses on the research conceptual framework:
(1) Emotional intelligence (X1) influences knowledge sharing (Y1)
(2) Emotional intelligence (X1) affects the team conflict (Y2)
(3) Emotional intelligence (X1) has an effect on the structure mechanism (Y3)
(4) Emotional intelligence (X1) influences team performance (Y4)
(5) Knowledge sharing (Y1) affects team performance (Y4)
(6) Team conflict (Y2) affects team performance (Y4)
(7) The structure mechanism (Y3) influences team performance (Y4)
The population, which is the unit of analysis in this research, was made up of patients at the
head units of the hospitals of South Sulawesi Province and Central Sulawesi. This study uses
knowledge sharing, team conflict and the structure mechanism as intervening variables, thus
the samples used were the President Director, Deputy Director, Heads of Section/Section

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
JMD Heads, and Subdivision Heads/Subsection Heads. There are 28 government hospitals in
39,3 South Sulawesi Province and 12 in Central Sulawesi. The total number of government
hospitals in the two provinces is 40.
For sampling, we used cluster and stratified random sampling techniques. The use of
clusters ensured that certain groups were adequately represented in the study. In general, the
cluster specified for each subgroup was based on the total number of groups in the
population, that is, by grouping the existing hospitals in the two provinces as Type A or Type
276 B hospitals. Cluster sampling is a form of proportional sampling, in which each proportion of
predefined persons in the study sample is defined as coming from different groups for
convenience (Sekaran, 2013). For the study the target population was all health workers
present in sections of the General Hospitals of South Sulawesi and Central Sulawesi Province.
This research used 27 parameters or observation variables in the form of question items in
a questionnaire (of these, emotional intelligence accounted for eight items, knowledge sharing
for three items, team conflict for four items, the structure mechanism for four items, and team
performance for eight items), so the minimum number of samples taken amounted to five
times the number of items, or 27 3 5, or 135 samples (Hair et al., 2010). To anticipate a
defective or unreturned questionnaire, the sample size was increased to 136 samples. Taking
account of the sample size requirements described above, a sample of 136 hospital leaders in
the province of South Sulawesi and Central Sulawesi is considered to be good.
Five research variables were defined as follows: (1). Emotional intelligence; theoretical
definition: Emotional intelligence is how one recognizes one’s own feelings as well as those of
another (Goleman, 1995). Operational definition: The skill, ability or self-perceived aptitude to
identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself and others. (2). Knowledge sharing:
Knowledge sharing is a method or step in knowledge management used to provide an
opportunity for group members, organizations, institutions, or companies to share their
engineering knowledge, experiences, and ideas with other members (Liebowitz, 1999).
Operational definition: the level of meaning to give, apply, and create knowledge for young
team members to succeed in the workplace. (3). Team conflict; theoretical definition: Team
conflict occurs when there is an unfavorable interaction, poor information delivery, a lack of
task cooperation, too little substantive support between team members, and a lack of
sympathy for team goals, as well as indifferent behavior and attitudes that degrade team
performance (DeDreu and Weingart, 2003). Operational definition: the result of disputes
between team members, expressed by disharmony or a lack of team performance. (4); The
structure mechanism; theoretical definition: The structure mechanism is a system that has
structure and planning, which are related to one another in a coordinated, cooperative way
lending encouragement to achieve goals (Champoux, 2003). Operational definition: the
authority of a clearly defined set of rules for procedures and roles that is rational because of
the goal setting to be achieved. (5). Team performance; theoretical definition: Team
performance is the process of teamwork and collaboration using effective coordination
systems from various fields and dispositions as well as cooperative strategies (Hoegl and
Gemuenden, 2001). Operational definition: the extent to which teams can achieve predictable
goals or actually achieve the expected standard for tasks.
The main instrument for collecting data in this study was to provide a structured
questionnaire to respondents, who were coopted from various previous research studies that
were considered to have been tested for reliability and validity. To explore more accurate
answers regarding emotional intelligence, knowledge sharing, team conflict, the structure
mechanism and team performance, a closed questionnaire was prepared, with five alternative
answers provided at intervals. The answer to the question posed was changed to an interval
on the Likert scale, which was then converted to a scale ratio, so the average value could be
calculated based on the number of indicators in each observed variable and the respondent’s
answer from a number of alternative answers available.
5. Result and discussion Impact of
5.1 Validity and reliability emotional
The following table presents the average value and outer loading of each variable in each
research variable.
intelligence
Based on Table I, it was found that all indicators measured significantly against their
respective variables. The results also showed that the most powerful indicator as an
emotional intelligence (X1) indicator was an X1.6 indicator with a loading factor value of 0.793
and a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.752. For the knowledge sharing variable (Y1), note that the 277
most powerful indicator as a measure was Y1.3 with a loading value of 0.909 and a
Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.777. For the team conflict variable (Y2), note that the strongest
indicator as a measurement was Y2.3 with a loading value of 0.897 and a Cronbach’s alpha
value of 0.861. For the structure mechanism variable (Y3), the most powerful indicator as a
measure was Y3.2 with a loading value of 0.796 and a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.793. For the
team performance variables (Y4), the most powerful indicator as a measure was Y4.3 with a
loading value of 0.966 and a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.734. In addition, it was also seen that
Cronbach’s alpha value of all variables was >0.6, so it can be concluded that all indicators of
each variable were valid and also reliable as measures of research variables.

5.2 Respondents’ demography

This section discloses the characteristics of the research respondents, who were leaders at the
provincial hospitals of South Sulawesi and Central Sulawesi. The characteristics are based on
the identities of respondents to whom questionnaires were dispersed. A total of 136 samples
from four hospitals divided between two provincial hospitals in South Sulawesi (referred to as
General Hospitals Type A and Type B) and two provincial hospitals in Central Sulawesi
referred to as Types B1 and B2). Of all the dispersed questionnaires, 136 were returned to the

Variable Indicator Loading Cronbach’s alpha

Emotional intelligence (X1) X1.1 0.750 0.752

X1.2 0.675
X1.3 0.746
X1.4 0.783
X1.5 0.722
X1.6 0.793
X1.7 0.729
X1.8 0.775
Knowledge sharing (Y1) Y1.1 0.882 0.777
Y1.2 0.732
Y1.3 0.909
Team conflict (Y2) Y2.1 0.712 0.861
Y2.2 0.820
Y2.3 0.897
Y2.4 0.879
Structure mechanism (Y3) Y3.1 0.614 0.793
Y3.2 0.796
Y3.3 0.636
Y3.4 0.668
Team performance (Y4) Y4.1 0.741 0.734
Y4.2 0.761
Y4.3 0.966 Table I.
Y4.4 0.891 Results of validity test
JMD researchers and all were good to be processed as research data. The number of respondents
39,3 from of the hospitals’ leadership, at the provincial hospital of South Sulawesi (Hospital Type
A) was 70 people or 42.17 percent. For Hospital Type B, the number of leaders who responded
was 44 people or 26.51 percent. From Central Sulawesi Province (Hospital Type B1) there
were 31 respondents or 18,67 percent. From Hospital Type B2 21 people or 12,65 percent
responded.
Table II shows the number and percentage of respondents in the research by their ages.
278 Most respondents in this study were 41–50 years old, that is 59 respondents or 43.38
percent. Respondents aged 30–40 years numbered 43 or 31.62 percent. There were 29
responses from those aged 51–58 21.32 percent. Finally, five respondents or 3.68 percent
were less than 30 years old. Loudon and Bitta (1993), when studying gender, found that men
tend to be more satisfied than women at work. Gender is also responsible for differences in
modes of thinking, feeling, and acting/behaving among humans. Robbins (2001) argued
that the best place to start is with the recognition that there are several important
differences between men and women that affect performance. Hilda (2004) explained the
basic personality differences between women and men. According to Hilda (2004), men are
generally individualistic, aggressive and impetuous, more assertive, higher in confidence,
and exhibit more expertise in their jobs, while women tend to be more attentive to others,
more passive, and more ready to exhibit feelings. They tend to take responsibility for the
care of families in greater numbers than men too. This difference makes female employees

No Category Frequencies Percentages

1 Age
≤30 5 3.68
31–40 43 31.62
41–50 59 43.38
51–58 29 21.32
>58 -
2 Martial status
Single 8 5.88
Married 128 94.12
3 Gender
Men 69 50.74
Women 67 49.26
4 Level of education
Undergraduate 47 34.56
Master Degree 65 47.79
Doctoral Degree 24 17.65
5 Years of service
≤5 59 43.39
06–10 67 49.26
11–15 10 7.35
16–20
>20
6 Rank
IIIa (Low) 2 1.47
IIIb 11 8.09
IIIc 19 13.97
IIId 23 16.91
Table II. Iva 36 26.47
Percentage Ivb 22 16.18
distribution of Ivc 17 12.50
respondents Ivd (high) 6 4.41
more likely to behave and act in accordance with or in line with the policies and regulations Impact of
of institutions or organizations. emotional
Based on their levels of education, the dominant respondent group for this study had
magister-level (master’s, postgraduate) education. There were 65 respondents or 44.79
intelligence
percent of the total so educated. There were 47 respondents with a Stratum one level of
education (bachelor’s, undergraduate), which accounted for 34.56 percent of those surveyed.
At the doctoral level of education, there were 24 respondents or 17.65 percent. Recent
educational achievement affects the ability, insight, and level of confidence of respondents in 279
carrying out their work. This is because education is very important in order to improve the
skill and/or professionalism of those who succeed. Respondents with a high level of education
are able to work at greater difficulty levels and take on greater responsibilities
(Robbins, 2001).
Based on years of service the dominant group of respondents in this study have worked in
health care for periods of 06–10 years. These accounted for 67 respondents or 49.26 percent of
the total of 136 respondents. Respondents with working experience in health care of ≤5 years
numbered 59 or 43.59 percent. There were 11 respondents with tenures of 11–15 years or 7.35
percent of those surveyed. In-service periods greatly affect the mastery of job details by
employees, whereby respondents with longer tenures in office have more experience, more
confidence, and better job statuses (Robbins, 2001). Ability, knowledge, responsibility when
acting, thinking, and decision making are also influenced by the period of work as much as
the age of the employee. It was stated by Hilda (2004) that the age factor and work experience
are interrelated, and both affect the ability of employees to face problems and make decisions.
Most respondents had the rank of IVA. A total of 36 respondents or 26.47 percent of the
total held this rank. Respondents with the rank of IIId numbered 23 or 16.91 percent. In
addition, there were 22 respondents with the rank of IVB or 16.18 percent. There were 19
respondents with the rank of IIIc (13.97 percent), 17 respondents with the rank of IVC (12.50
percent), 11 respondents with the rank of IIIb (8.09 percent) six respondents with the rank of
IVD (4.41 percent), and two respondents with the rank of IIIa (1.47 percent). The proportions
of employees of high rank/class can cause problems within organizations. This is because
there can be difficulties mobilizing and directing employees. In general, employees who have
high rank who are not promoted can lose their motivation to work well.
5.3 Goodness of fit
Based on the feasibility test of a structural model measured using FIT and AFIT, we obtained
a FIT value of 0.859 and an AFIT value of 0.750. The FIT value explains that the total
diversity that can be explained by the model is 85.9 percent. It means that the model formed
can explain all existing variables to 85.9 percent. The variables of government policy, human
resource quality, disposition, bureaucratic structure, welding technology, and labor
competitiveness can be explained by the model to 85.9 percent, and the remaining 14.1
percent can be explained by other variables outside the model. While the overall model
feasibility test result was measured using the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), obtained a GFI value of 0.875 and an SRMR
value of 0.020. A GFI value greater than 0.870 and an SRMS value less than 0.08 indicates that
the model used is a good fit.

5.4 Measurement model

In this structural model, seven relationship hypotheses were tested between variables (for
direct influence). The results of testing the relationship between research variables are
presented in full as follows (see Table III):
Based on generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) in the above table, when
testing the direct influence of EI on knowledge sharing, we obtained a value of path
JMD coefficient of 0.356, with a p-value of <0.000. Because the p-value <0.05, there is a significant
39,3 direct influence between EI and knowledge sharing. Given a path coefficient that is marked
positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive. That is, higher EI will result in
higher knowledge sharing.
Testing the direct influence of EI on team conflict, we obtained a value of path coefficient
of 0.509, with a p-value of <0.000. Since the p-value <0.05, there is a significant direct influence
of EI on team conflict. Given a path coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the
280 relationship is wholly positive. That is, the higher the EI, the higher will be team conflict.
In the test for the direct influence of EI on the structure mechanism, we obtained a path
coefficient value of 0.342, with a p-value of <0.001. Because the p-value <0.05, there is a
significant direct influence of EI on the structure mechanism. Given a path coefficient that is
marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive. That is, the higher the
EI, the higher will be the structure mechanism.
In testing the direct influence of EI on team performance, we obtained a value of path
coefficient of 0.333, with a p-value of <0.000. Because the p-value <0.05, there is a significant
direct influence of EI on team performance. Given a path coefficient that is marked positive,
this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive. That is, the higher the EI, the better the
team performance will be.
Testing the direct influence of knowledge sharing (Y1) on team performance (Y4), the
value of path coefficient is 0.213, with a p-value <0.003. Because the p-value <0.05, there is a
significant direct influence of knowledge sharing (Y1) on team performance (Y4). Given a
path coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive.
That is, higher levels of knowledge sharing will result in better team performance.
Testing the direct influence of team conflict (Y2) on team performance (Y4), the path
coefficient value is 0.234, with a p-value equal to <0.000. Since the p-value <0.05, there is a
significant direct influence of team conflict (Y2) on team performance (Y4). Given a path
coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive. That
is, higher team conflict, will result in better team performance.
Testing the direct influence of the structure mechanism (Y3) on team performance (Y4), we
obtained a coefficient value of 0.361, with a p-value equal to <0.000. Because the p-value
<0.05, there is a significant direct influence of the structure mechanism (Y3) on team
performance (Y4). Given a path coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the
relationship is wholly positive. That is, the higher the structure mechanism value is, the better
team performance will be.

5.5 Indirect influence

Measurement of mediation effects is measurement of indirect effects based on the Sobel test
approach (Preacher, 2008), as shown in Table III below:

Relationship Path coefficient p-value Info

Emotional intelligence (X1) → Knowledge sharing (Y1) 0.356* <0.000 Significant

Emotional intelligence (X1) → Team Conflict (Y2) 0.509* <0.000 Significant
Emotional intelligence (X1) → Structure mechanism (Y3) 0.342* <0.001 Significant
Emotional intelligence (X1) → Team performance (Y4) 0.333* <0.000 Significant
Table III. Knowledge sharing (Y1) → Team performance (Y4) 0.213* <0.003 Significant
Structural model of Team Conflict (Y2) → Team Performance (Y4) 0.234* <0.000 Significant
GSCA results: Direct Structure mechanism (Y3) → Team performance (Y4) 0.361* <0.000 Significant
influence Note(s): Info: * 5 significant at α 5 0.05; ts 5 not significant
 Table IV shows that the indirect influence of EI (X1) on team performance (Y4) through Impact of
knowledge sharing (Y1) has a coefficient value of 0.231 with a p-value of <0.000. Because the emotional
p-value (<0.000) <0.05 then the influence of knowledge sharing mediation is significant.
Given the value of the positive signified coefficient, this means that the higher the value of
intelligence
knowledge sharing is, the greater the influence of EI will be on team performance. Thus,
knowledge sharing is a mediation variable between EI and team performance.
The indirect influence of EI (X1) on team performance (Y4) through team conflict (Y2) has
a coefficient value of 0.365 with a p-value of <0.001. Because the p-value (<0.001) <0.05, the 281
influence of team conflict mediation is significant. Given the value of the positive signified
coefficient, this means that the higher the value of team conflict is, the greater the influence is
that EI will have on team performance. Thus, team conflict is a mediating variable between EI
and team performance.
The indirect influence of EI (X1) on team performance (Y4) through the structure
mechanism (Y3) has a coefficient value of 0.337 with a p-value of <0.002. Because the p-value
(<0.002) <0.05, then the influence of the structure mechanism’s mediation is significant.
Given the value of the positive signified coefficient, this means the higher the value of the
structure mechanism is, the greater the influence of EI on team performance will be. Thus, the
structure mechanism is a mediation variable between EI and team performance.

6. Discussion
H1. Emotional intelligence to team performance.
There is a significant direct seven influence of EI on team performance. Given a path
coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive.
These findings indicate that the higher the EI is, the better team performance is. This is in line
with Beam (2012), who stated that as a total EQ score for a person increases, so does his team’s
cohesion. Faggella-Luby (2007) findings show that group EI predicts positive performance
will be stronger in heterogeneous groups than in homogeneous groups. Results are discussed
with respect to the implications of group construction and for the study of work group
diversity.
Other facts also suggest that creating a factor (shown by vector) moves the employee
toward the reception of the spectrum, and repeats the sequence Constantly monitoring
employee reactions is important because there is evidence that change initiatives fail due to a
lack of attention. For long-term human factors (Eilam and Shamir, 2005), the study found that
the team leader’s EI had an impact on team performance through the mediation effect of the
team’s emotional level and the creativity of team members. This is also supported by Brown’s
findings (2002). Those indicate that a transactional/transformational leadership style acts as
a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness and of ability too. In addition, transactional and
transformational leadership styles seem to have a symbiotic relationship with EI in the
domain of leadership style.
Hansenne (2008) said that EI can be judged using a modified version of the Schutte
emotional intelligence scale and that its cohesiveness can be measured using the group
cohesiveness scale. Finally, the performance of nursing teams is measured on four different

Mediation Influence testing Coefficient p-value Info

Y1 X1 terhadap Y4 0.231 <0.000 Significant Table IV.

Y2 X1 terhadap Y4 0.365 <0.001 Significant Test result of indirect
Y3 X1 terhadap Y4 0.337 <0.002 Significant GSCA influence
JMD levels: job satisfaction. The results show that the quality of health care is positively correlated
39,3 with emotional regulation. Emotional regulation also positively correlates with group
cohesiveness. Curiously, it also appears that emotional assessment is negatively correlated
with the quality of health care provided by the team. These results suggest that EI and, more
specifically, emotional rules might provide an exciting new way to improve team cohesion.
H2. Influence of emotional intelligence on knowledge sharing.
282 There is a significant direct influence of EI on knowledge sharing. Given a path coefficient
marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive. That is, the higher the
EI is, the greater will be the knowledge sharing that results. Empirically, this means that EI
has implications for knowledge sharing at the provincial hospitals of South Sulawesi and
Central Sulawesi.
This finding is in line with Hasanul (2015), who determined that EI provides insight into
the moderating effects of sharing knowledge with organizational support. This is also in line
with Sutton’s (2006) findings that knowledge provides context for people. Ideas and
experiences and, therefore, transferred knowledge must be internalized before it can be used.
Experience creates space for experiments, for work on multidisciplinary, multicultural,
team-building innovation, and idea management processes. EI extends our possibilities to
make an impact. The effect can be contagious, creating inspiration and energy. EI is not new,
but there are many studies that show that this ability is important for success.
Sthutsemakul (2005) stated that commitment affects employees so that they practice
knowledge management. Knowledge management cannot proceed without sharing knowledge,
and EI is one of the main factors that causes individuals to share their knowledge. The
relationship between EI and knowledge-sharing commitment affects the practice of sustainable
knowledge management, emotional intelligence, commitment, and management techniques.
Lin (2007) reinforced this, finding that sharing knowledge is a part of organizational
behavior that captures the general trend of people anticipating good consequences not only
for themselves but also for their colleagues and organizations (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986).
Knowledge sharing is a voluntary behavior that goes above and beyond that defined by job
descriptions. Employees are must have extraordinary virtues that encourage them to engage
in voluntary behavior such as knowledge sharing.
Empirical facts from the findings of Barrick (2005) showed that EI has a strong
relationship with knowledge sharing. Lazovic (2012) stated that there is a relationship
between EI and knowledge management. In the context of the relationship between EI and
knowledge sharing there is a correlation. This is in line with the findings of Jr. (2008), who
stated that depending on the context EI correlates variously with knowledge sharing and
team conflicts within work teams.
H3. Influence of emotional intelligence on team conflict.
There is a significant direct influence of EI on team conflict. Given a path coefficient that is
marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive. That is, the higher the
EI is, the higher is the team conflict. This finding is in line with those of Ashlea’s (2009) study
which observed that in all approaches to conflict management, the EI of service staff, their
levels of concern for others, and the attention of customers to others was an important factor
for successful conflict resolution and prevention. Customer satisfaction is the goal of all
customer service, regardless of how it is achieved. Based on these findings, EI can create
management and self-management strategies to combat workplace conflict. This is also
supported by the findings of McGrath (2013). The results of that study document that
meditation changes the gray matter of the brain over time. “Although the practice of
meditation is associated with a sense of peace and physical relaxation, practitioners have
long claimed that meditation also provides cognitive and psychological benefits that continue
throughout the day.” This is also supported by El Melita (2003), who found that EI, Impact of
leadership, effectiveness, and team outcomes are interconnected, but EI is dominant when emotional
handling individual stress.
This study shows that changes in brain structure may underlie some of these reported
intelligence
improvements and that people feel better not just because they spend time relaxing. Naseer’s
(2011) results show that EI positively affects team performance. This study recommends that
experimental studies be conducted to compare team performance before and after training on
EI is provided so that a clear picture can emerge. Pooya (2013) stated that EI is negatively 283
associated with problem-solving strategies and bargaining, but there is no significant
relationship between EI and control strategies. Because the style of conflict management is
influenced by various predecessors, further research is needed to investigate the influence of
other factors, such as personal characteristics, innovation, and others. It is also necessary to
investigate this research among managers and subordinates simultaneously to compare the
results. It was also suggested by Gamero (2008) that conflict fully mediates the relationship
between task conflicts and influential teams. Team member interaction on team issues
mediates the relationship between task conflicts and relationship conflicts, so that when team
member interaction is low, relationships increase, whereas when team member interaction is
high, they diminish.
H4. Influence of emotional intelligence on the structure mechanism.
There is a significant direct influence of EI on the structure mechanism. Given a path
coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive.
This finding indicates that the higher the EI, the higher the value of the structure
mechanism will be. This finding is in line with research conducted by Chen (2012), which
stated that knowledge sharing creates a positive effect on team performance. On the other
hand, team conflict has a negative effect on team performance. EI has no significant direct
effect on team performance but plays a moderate role. This has also been demonstrated by
Virginia (2012), who stated that EI is the driver of team viability, and that the quality of
communication serves as a mechanism by which this influence exists. Stephane’s (2007)
results revealed that group EI could be combined with other group constructs to predict
performance.
Other factors have also been exposed by O’Higgins (2015). Those results showed that the
transformational leadership style of managers fully mediates the relationship between the
manager’s EI and team performance, team communication, and conflict management.
However, there is no effect of mediating managerial transformational leadership on the
relationship between the manager’s EI and team cohesion.
H5. Influence of knowledge sharing on team performance.
There is a significant direct influence of knowledge sharing (Y1) on team performance (Y4).
Given a path coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly
positive. These findings indicate that the more knowledge sharing there is, the better team
performance will be. This is in line with the results of research conducted by Kannaiah (2015),
who wrote that EI and life balance work together to create organizational success and to
develop competitive advantage for an organization. EI is attributed to every performance
point in the workplace and this is very important nowadays. Therefore, to be successful, EI
plays an important role. Furthermore, the findings of Elizabeth (2007) were that where there
are team leaders with EI, that is significantly related to the presence of emotionally competent
group norms in the teams they lead, and emotionally competent group norms are thus
associated with team performance.
H6. Influence of team conflict on team performance.
JMD There is a significant direct influence of team conflict (Y2) on team performance (Y4). Given a
39,3 path coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is wholly positive.
These findings indicate that the higher team conflict is, the better team performance will be.
This is in line with findings made by Schilderman (2011), whose results showed that process
conflicts have a linear relationship with perceived team performance, team elaboration levels,
team satisfaction, and creativity. This suggests that, in addition to task conflicts, conflict
processes have potentially lucrative effects on team performance.
284 Carsten’s (2003) results showed a strong and negative correlation between relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. By contrast to what has been
suggested in academic research and introductory textbooks, the results also showed strong
and negative correlations (not positive predictions) between task conflicts, team performance,
and team members’ satisfaction. As expected, conflicts have stronger negative relationships
with complex team performance (decision making, projects, mixtures) than less final
(production) tasks. Task conflicts are less negatively related to team performance when weak
relationship conflicts, rather than strong ones, are correlated with task conflicts. Anit Somech
(2008) showed when there is a high level of team identity, task interdependence is positively
associated with the cooperative conflict management style, which in turn encourages team
performance. While there is a negative relationship between competitive management styles
and team performance, this team’s conflict management style does not mediate between the
interactive effects of task interdependence and team identity on team performance.
Espedalen (2016) argued that when tested separately, both relationship conflicts and team
cohesion mediated the negative effects of team size on team performance. When mediators
were tested by the same model, only team cohesion mediated the impact of team size on team
performance. The findings indicated that team cohesion is a key driver of two mediators,
explaining the negative effect of team size on team performance. Although relationship
conflicts are involved in size performance associations, the increase in relationship conflict is
most likely an effect of decreasing team cohesion, which in turn triggers a negative spiral
between the two mediators.
H7. Influence of the structure mechanism on team performance.
There is a significant direct influence of the structure mechanism (Y3) on team performance
(Y4). Given a path coefficient that is marked positive, this indicates that the relationship is
wholly positive. These findings indicate that the higher the value of the structure mechanism
is, it will result in better team performance. In line with Chung’s (2011) findings, the results
indicated that the leader’s positive mood not only directly improves team performance, but
also leads indirectly to improved team performance through explicit mediation processes (i.e.
transformational leadership) and implicit mediation processes (i.e. affective tones, positive
group). The theoretical and practical implications are what have been debated. Morgeson
(2011) also derived 15 team leadership functions that help the team meet their critical needs
and manage their behavior in serving the achievement of goals from this inclusive and
integrated leadership view. The integrative view of team leadership allows for past research
summarization and the identification of promising future research areas.
Greer (2014) suggested that the process of power over time, and the team’s strength
structure shapes the team’s behavioral interactions to ensure proper performance. One of the
most important dynamic processes to understand in terms of the structure and outcome of
team strength is the battle of team strength. Preliminary research has shown that intrateam
power struggles, or related status conflicts, are generally negative for team functions,
disrupting effective conflict resolution and team performance.
H8. Influence of emotional intellignece on team performance through knowledge sharing.
The influence of knowledge sharing’s mediation is significant. Given the value of the positive Impact of
signified coefficient, this means that the higher the value of knowledge sharing is, the greater emotional
the influence of EI will be on team performance. These findings indicate that knowledge
sharing is a mediating variable between emotional intelligence and team performance.
intelligence
The study reveals several factors regarding team performance, which include: (1) the role
and commitment identity of each member (Senior, 1997); (2) team cohesiveness; (3)
communication mechanisms and quality of information sharing (Mesmer-Magnus and
DeChurch, 2009); (4) member homogeneity for team goals; and (5) consensus among team 285
members about the goal approach (Plowman and McDonough, 2010). Therefore, team
performance is often improved. In short, team performance based on the effects of teamwork
strongly supports the idea that effective sharing of information between team members
improves performance and productivity through interaction (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2009).
Another influencing factor is the team members’ EI (Rapisarda, 2002); in the research of
Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998), it was revealed that individuals with a consistent and
fun sense of EI would benefit a team’s cohesion and performance.
H9. Influence of emotional intellignece on team performance through team conflict.
The influence of team conflict is significant. Given the value of the positive signified
coefficient, this means that the higher the value of team conflict, the greater will be the
influence of EI on team performance. This finding indicates that team conflict is a mediating
variable between EI and team performance. Team conflict, as it was discussed in this study,
focused on the hindrance to team cohesion and performance that it created. Plowman and
McDonough (2010) concluded that opposing team members could not trust each other and
would tend to limit communication for self-protection. Members only make efforts for the
sake of their own performance but not for the achievement of team goals; only trivial
discussions about initiatives will be begun among team members. Obviously, constructive
team conflict will limit knowledge sharing and inspirational innovation for meaningful
self-protection, which will certainly reduce team performance.
H10. Influence of emotional intelligence on team performance through the structure
mechanism.
The influence of structure mechanism mediation is significant. Given the value of the positive
signified coefficient, this means that the higher the value of the structure mechanism, the
greater will be the influence of EI on team performance. This finding indicates that
the structure mechanism is a mediating variable between EI and team performance. The
characteristics of a bureaucracy defined by Max Weber are: a division of labor, a hierarchy of
authority, a rational program, system procedures, a system of rules of and obligations, and
interpersonal relationships are kept impersonal. Several studies have claimed that superior
EI includes some concrete abilities, as follows: (1) to identify, evaluate, and nurture personal
emotions precisely (Salovey and Mayer, 1990); (2) to integrate and manage personal emotions
in order to facilitate better thinking-quality skills (Jordan and Troth, 2011); (3) to be aware of
other people’s emotions for better management of personal relationships (Zhang and Wang,
2011); and (4) to exploit various emotional forces to facilitate problem-solving efficiency (Wu
et al., 2003).

7. Conclusion
Based on the results of the descriptive and inferential analysis that has been done, the
following conclusions it can be drawn in answer to the problems and goals that have been set,
namely that EI directly influences knowledge sharing, team conflict, the structure
mechanism, and team performance. There is a direct influence of knowledge sharing, team
JMD conflict, and the structure mechanism on team performance. Then there is an indirect
39,3 influence of EI on team performance through the mediation of knowledge sharing, team
conflict, and the structure mechanism.
The implication of this study is to provide empirical evidence for the results of the analysis
obtained. This study is expected to be used as an additional reference and is expected to
illustrate the influence felt between the variables studied in an organization. This study is
expected to provide guidance for hospital managements about how these variables can
286 influence individual performance. The results have also shown that all the developed
hypotheses are proven. This study used questionnaires for data collection based on employee
perceptions, so it may be biased. Research sites were limited to the provinces of South
Sulawesi and Central Sulawesi, which may have caused biases in the results of the study. A
relatively small research sample could lead to a generalized bias in the results.
In practice, this study has various limitations. The writers will describe these limitations
in the hope that it will be noted and improved upon by researchers in the future. (1) This
research uses elements of leadership, where those elements are the individuals sampled.
Variable EI, knowledge sharing, team conflict, structure mechanism and team performance
have been measured based on the employees’ perceptions as leaders. Self-assessment by
these respondents is susceptible to bias because the assessment results may not be objective.
(2) The novelty of this research is its effort to observe the moderation of knowledge sharing,
team conflict, and the structure mechanism by other variables developed in the research
model. Because the study was limited to the provinces of South Sulawesi and Central
Sulawesi, this may have caused biases in the results of the study. (3) The research sample was
limited just to the hospital management and although the number of samples fulfilled the
methodological requirement, it remained a relatively small study, which could cause bias and
create problems for generalization based on the research results. (4) This research was
conducted partly to answer the challenge set by Mingchan Wu et al. (2014) to examine future
areas of development in the field of human resource management, especially the antecedents
and consequences of team performance at the level of EI by menocoba to explore the variables
of EI, knowledge sharing, team conflict and the structure mechanism as a variable that can
influence team performance in consequence of such moderation. Future researchers might
wish to help develop the issues raised here by exploring other variables that influence or are
influenced by team performance. (5) Future researchers are invited to enrich the results of this
study by using different analytical units because according to the proposed limitations of
this study, self-assessment by these respondents is susceptible to bias and the results of this
assessment may not be objective. (6) In the future, it is expected that more research on team
performance will be subject to be a more accurate construct for measuring its influence on
other variables, especially in the field of human resource management. (7) Future research
samples are also recommended to be more diverse as well as larger to reduce biases and
problems in generalizing from the research results.
The suggestions that can be given to following on from this study are to implement
continuous and comprehensive management. Institutions should ensure that the indicators
are included in each employee development activity, and the institution should give equal
treatment to all employees when assigning workloads and giving rewards.

References
Alam, M.Z., Kabbashi, N.A. and Hussin, S.N. (2009), “Production of bioethanol by direct bioconversion
of oil-palm industrial effluent in a stirred-tank bioreactor”, Journal of Industrial Microbiology
and Biotechnology, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 801-808.
Atwijuka, S. and Caldwell, C. (2017), “Authentic leadership and the ethic of care”, The Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1040-1051.
Austin, S., Fernet, C. and Gagn
e, M. (2010), “When does quality of relationships with coworkers Impact of
predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 1163-1180. emotional
Baardsen, B. (2011), “the market for heat pumps in Norway”, IEA Heat Pump Centre Newsletter,
intelligence
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 11-12.
Badaracco, J.L. (1991), The Know Link: How Firms Compete through Strategic Alliances, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
287
Bamel, U., Budhwar, P., Stokes, P. and Paul, H. (2017), “Dimensions of role efficacy and managerial
effectiveness: evidence from India”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 218-237.
Banna, H. (2015), “Use of social networking sites: Facebook group as a learning management system”,
Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 232-249.
Barrick, M.B. and Mount, M.K. (2005), “Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important
matters”, Human Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-372.
Beam, M.M. (2012), “Emotional intelligence and team cohesiveness”.
Beckman, T. (1997), “A methodology for knowledge management”, IASTED.
Bendell, J., Sutherland, N. and Little, R. (2017), “Beyond unsustainable leadership: critical social theory
for sustainable leadership”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 418-444.
Benoliel, P. and Berkovich, I. (2017), “There is no ‘T’ in school improvement: the missing team
perspective”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 922-929.
Birx, E., Lasala, K.B. and Edd, W.M. (2011), “Evaluation of a team building: retreat to promote nursing
aculty cohesion and job satisfaction”, Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol. 27, pp. 174-178.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behavior”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 11, pp. 710-725.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2015), available at: https://www.bps.go.id/.
Chakravarty, A. and Bhatnagar, J. (2017), “Engendering leadership in the Indian workplace - a
framework on cross-level linkages”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies.
Champoux, J.E. (2003), Organizational Behavior: Essential Tenets, 2nd ed., South-Western, Canada.
Chen, X.H., Zhao, K., Liu, X. and Wu, D.D. (2012), “Improving employees’ job satisfaction and
innovation performance using conflict management”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-172.
Choudhary, N., Naqshbandi, M.M., Philip, P.J. and Kumar, R. (2017), “Employee job performance: the
interplay of leaders’ emotion management ability and employee perception of job
characteristics”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1087-1098.
Chung, J.E. (2011), “Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products”, Journal of
consumer Marketing.
Daft, R.L. (2003), Management, 6th ed., Thomson, South- Western West.
Dartey-Baah, K. and Mekpor, B. (2017), “The leaders’ emotional intelligence: an antecedent of
employees’ voluntary workplace behaviour. Evidence from the Ghanaian banking sector”,
African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 352-365.
Davidson, L., Tondora, J., Pavlo, A.J. and Stanhope, V. (2017), “Shared decision making within the
context of recovery-oriented care”, Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 179-190.
Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, R.D. (1998), “Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive
construct”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 989-1015.
Desanctis, G. and Jackson, B.M. (1994). Coordination of information technology management: team-
based structures and computer-based communication systems, Journal O/Managenunt
Information Systems. Spring, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 85-110.
JMD De Dreu, C.K. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, p. 741.
39,3
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), “Responses to relationship conflict and team
effectiveness”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 309-328.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in
groups and organizational teams”, in West, M.A., Tjosvold, D. and Smith, K. (Eds), International
Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 151-166.
288
Dimttia, S. and Oder, N. (2001), “Knowledge management: hope, hype or harbinger?”, Library Journal,
Vol. 122 No. 15, pp. 33-5.
Downey, L.A., Mountstephen, J., Lloyd, J., Hansen, K. and Stough, C. (2008), “Emotional intelligence
and scholastic achievement in Australian adolescents”, Australian Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 60, pp. 10-17.
Efthimiou, O. (2017), “Heroic ecologies: embodied heroic leadership and sustainable futures”,
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 489-511.
Eilam, G. and Shamir, B. (2005), “What’s your story? A life-stories approach to authentic leadership
development”, The Leadership Quarterly.
Elizabeth Stubbs Koman. (2007), "Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader",
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 55-75, doi: 10.1108/02621710810840767.
El Melita. (2003), “Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes”, The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Espedalen, L.E. (2016), “The effect of team size on management team performance: the mediating role
of relationship conflict and team cohesion, Master’s thesis.
Faggella-Luby, M. (2007), “Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in
heterogeneous secondary literature classes”, Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.
131-147, doi: 10.2307/30035547.
Gamero, N. (2008), “The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: a
longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp.
47-69.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More than IQ, Bantam Books, New York.
Gonçalves, L. and Brand~ao, F. (2017) “The relation between leader’s humility and team creativity: the
mediating effect of psychological safety and psychological capital”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 687-702.
Greer, S.L. (2014), “A reorganisation you can see from space: the architecture of power in the new NHS”,
Centre for Health and Public Organization, London.
Gupta, V. and Jain, N. (2017), “Harnessing information and communication technologies for effective
knowledge creation: shaping the future of education”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 831-855.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Hansenne, M. (2008), “If you can regulate sadness, you can probably regulate shame: associations
between trait emotional intelligence, emotion regulation and coping efficiency across discrete
emotions”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1356-1368.
Hilda, C.F. (2004), Analisis faktor-Faktor Yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Keinginan Karyawan Untuk
Pindah Study Kasus Pada PT. Bank Papua, Universitas Diponegoro Semarang, Tesis.
Hislop, D. (2002), “Managing knowledge and the problem of commitment”, The Proceeding of the 3rd
European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001), “Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a
theoretical concept and empirical evidence”, Organization Science, Vol. 12, pp. 435-449.
Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational Impact of
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”, Journal of
Knowledge Management. emotional
Horgan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Horgan, J. (1994), “What we know about ledership: effectiveness and
intelligence
personality”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49, pp. 493-504.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), “The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition
on team performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
289
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A. (2011), “Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal.
JR, S.E. (2008), “Impact of peer mentor training on creating and sharing organizational knowledge”,
Journal of Managerial Issues, pp. 11-29.
Kannaiah, D. (2015), “A study on emotional intelligence at work place”, European Journal of Business
and Management, Vol. 7 No. 24, pp. 147-154.
Khalili, A. (2017), “Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the
moderating role of emotional intelligence”, The Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1004-1015.
Lazovic, S. (2012), The role and importance of emotional intelligence in knowledge management,
management, knowledge and learning International conference 2012.
Lee, C.K. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002), “Factors impacting knowledge sharing”, Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 49-56.
Lewicki, R.J., MCalllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998). Trust and Distrust: new relationships and realities,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 438-458.
Liebowitz, J. (1999), Knowledge Management Hand Book, CRC Press.
Lin, H.F. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 315-332.
Loudon, D.L. and Della Bitta, A.J. (1993), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Singapore, pp. 99-107.
Lu, L. and Fan, H.L. (2017), “Strengthening the bond and enhancing team performance: emotional
intelligence as the social glue”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 182-198.
Mason, D., Sant, S.L. and Soebbing, B. (2017), “The peculiar economics of sports team ownership:
pursuing urban development in North American cities”, Sport, Business and Management:
International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 358-374.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D. (2002), Emotional Intelli-Gence: Science and Myth, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2000), “Models of emotional intelligence”, in Sternberg, R.J.
(Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 396-420.
McGrath, F. (2013), “Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution”, in ACLEA 49th Mid-Year Meeting
February, pp. 2-5.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and DeChurch, L.A. (2009), “Information sharing and team performance: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 535-546.
Morgeson, F.P. (2011), Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands,
job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
96 No. 1, p. 71.
Naseer, Z. (2011), “Impact of emotional intelligence on team performance in higher education
institutes”, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1.
Noor, N.M. and Salim (2012), “The influence of theories of factors affecting knowledge sharing and its
relationships with innovation and organizational performance”, Knowledge Management
International Conference (KMICe), 2012, Malaysia, pp. 509-514.
JMD O’Higgins, E. (2015), “Is the co-operative model a realistic alternative to traditional joint stock
companies?”, in Ethical Innovation in Business and the Economy, Edward Elgar Publishing.
39,3
Pausits, A. and Pellert, A. (2009) “The Winds of Change: higher education management programmes
in Europe”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Petrides, K.V., Frederickson, N. and Furnham, A. (2004), “The role of trait emotional intelligence in
academic performance and deviant behavior at school”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 36, pp. 277-293.
290
Petrides, K.V., Pita, R. and Kokkinaki, F. (2007), “The location of trait emotional intelligence in
personality factor space”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 273-289.
Pitts, V.E. (2012), “Communication in virtual teams: the role of emotional intelligence”, Journal of
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 Nos. 3/4, pp. 21-34.
Plowman, N. and McDonough, M. (2010), “Seven factors of effective team performance, available
at: http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/62415.aspx (accessed 5
August 2011).
Polese, F., Pels, J., Tronvoll, B., Bruni, R. and Carrubbo, L. (2017), “A4A relationships”, Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1040-1056.
Pooya, A., Barfoei, H.R., Kargozar, N. and Maleki, F. (2013), “Relationship between emotional
intelligence and conflict management strategies”, Research Journal of Recent Sciences,
p. 2502.
Preacher, K.J. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40, pp. 879-891.
Rapisarda, B.A. (2002), “The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and
performance”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-379.
Robbins, S.P. (2001), Organisational Behaviour: Global and Southern African Perspectives, Pearson.
Ryu, C.M., Farag, M.A., Hu, C.H., Reddy, M.S., Wei, H.X., Par
e, P.W. and Kloepper, J.W. (2003),
“Bacterial volatiles promote growth in Arabidopsis”, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, Vol. 100, pp. 4927-4932.
Saklofske, D., Austin, E., Galloway, J. and Davidson, K. (2007), “Individual difference correlates of
health-related behaviours: preliminary evidence for links between emotional intelligence and
coping”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 491-502.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Salovey, P., Grewal, D. and Brackett, M. (2000), “Emotional Intelligence and the Self-Regulation of
Affect”.
Sanda, M.A. (2017), “Guest editorial: leadership and organizational development in Africa”, African
Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 254-261.
Schilderman, H. (2011), “Religious capital and public accountability: challenges to empirical theology”,
in The Public Significance of Religion, Brill, pp. 41-63.
Senior, B. (1997), “Team roles and team performance: is there ‘really’ a link?”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 241-258.
Sekaran. (2013), Research Methods for Business: A skill Building Approach, John wiley & Sons,
New York.
Smith, M. and Bititci, U.S. (2017), “Interplay between performance measurement and management,
employee engagement and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1207-1228.
Somech, A. (2008), “Managing conflict in school teams: the impact of task and goal interdependence on
conflict management and team effectiveness”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44
No. 3, pp. 359-390.
Solimun. (2012), “Pemodelan Persamaan Struktural”, Generalized Structured Component Analysis Impact of
(GSCA), Modul Pelatihan GSCA Universitas Brawijaya.
emotional
Somech, A. and Khotaba, S. (2017), “An integrative model for understanding team organizational
citizenship behavior: its antecedents and consequences for educational teams”, Journal of
intelligence
Educational Administration, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 671-685.
Stephane, C. (2007), “Chapter 12 group emotional intelligence and group performance”, Affect and
Groups, Vol. 10, pp. 309-336.
291
Sthutsemakul, S.A. (2005), Generally Applicable Point-wise Error Measures (Doctoral dissertation),
University of Colorado.
Sutton, R.I. (2006), “Profiting from Evidence-Based Management”, Strategy & Leadership.
Terborg, J.R. and Bryant, S.E. (2008), “Impact of peer mentor training on creating and sharing
organizational knowledge”, Journal of Managerial Issues, pp. 11-29.
Tommasetti, A., Troisi, O. and Vesci, M. (2017), “Measuring customer value co-creation behavior:
developing a conceptual model based on service-dominant logic”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 930-950.
Troth, A. (2009), “A model of team emotional intelligence, conflict, task complexity and decision
making”, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 26-40.
Troth, A.C. and Jordan, P.J. (2011), “A multilevel model of emotional intelligence and communication
performance in teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 700-722.
Turner, J.R. and Lecoeuvre, L. (2017), “Marketing by, for and of the project: project marketing by three
types of organizations”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 841-855.
Ukko, J., Hild
en, S., Saunila, M. and Tikkam€aki, K. (2017), “Comprehensive performance measurement
and management – innovativeness and performance through reflective practice”, Journal of
Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 425-448.
Walker, J.R., Corpina, R.A. and Goldberg, J. (2001) “Structure of the Ku heterodimer bound to DNA
and its implications for double-strand break repair”, Nature, Vol. 412 No. 6847, pp. 607-614.
West, M.A., Guthrie, J.P., Dawson, J.F., Borrill, C.S. and Carter, M.R. (2006), “Reducing patient
mortality in hospitals: the role of human resource management”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 983-1002.
Wright, T. and Cunningham, G. (2017), “Disability status, stereotype content, and employment
opportunities in sport and fitness organizations”, Sport, Business and Management:
International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 393-403.
Wu, T.H., Chan, K.M., Cheng, C.H., Lee, W.C., Chiang, J.M., Chen, J.S. and Wang, J.Y. (2014),
“Prognostic significance of the number of tumors and aggressive surgical approach in
colorectal cancer hepatic metastasis”, World Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 155.
Wu, T.H. and Lin, J.N. (2003), “Solving the competitive discretionary service facility location problem”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 366-378.
Xu, J., Liu, Y. and Chung, B. (2017), “Leader psychological capital and employee work engagement:
The roles of employee psychological capital and team collectivism”, The Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 969-985.
Zhang, M. and Wang, L. (2011), “The impact of trust and contract on innovation performance: the
moderating role of environmental uncertainty”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 114-122.

Further reading
John, W. (1997), Coaching for Performance (Seni Mengarahkan Untuk Mendongkrak Kinerja), PT
Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.
JMD Liebowitz, J. (2001), “Knowledge management and its link to artificial intelligence”, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 20, pp. 1-6.
39,3
Liebowitz, J. and Wright, K. (1999), “Does measuring knowledge make cents?”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 17, pp. 99-103.
Mathis, R.L., John, H.J. and (Terjemahan Jimmy Sadeli dan Bayu Prawira), (2001), Manajemen Sumber
Daya Manusia, Jilid 2, Penerbit Salemba, Jakarta.
292 Rathee, M. (2013), Kajian Pengetahuan Manajemen di Rumah Sakit Multispeciality, Senior Professor
and Head, Department of Prosthodontics, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pt. B.D
Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, Vol. 2 No. 6, ISSN 2277–8179,
Research Paper.
Rivai, V. and Basri (2005), Peformance Appraisal: Sistem Yang Tepat Untuk Menilai Kinerja
Karyawan Dan Meningkatkan Daya Saing Perusahan, PT, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Van den Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-130.

Corresponding author
Zulkarnain Zulkarnain can be contacted at: zul.ur.jp@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com