Journal of Business Logistics, 2020, 41(4): 337–355 doi: 10.1111/jbl.

12258
© 2020 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Quality Output, Workplace Environment, and Employee Retention:

The Positive Influence of Emotionally Intelligent Supply Chain
Managers
Scott B. Keller1, Peter M. Ralston2, and Stephen A. LeMay1
1
University of West Florida
2
Iowa State University

I ndustry advancements are accelerating at phenomenal rates and changing the management of logistics and supply chain operations. Employ-
ers must develop supervision with advanced skills to manage and retain the most effective employees making up the new workforce of
highly skilled and technologically advanced personnel. Emotional intelligence is a managerial competence leveraged by leaders to connect with
subordinates on a psychologically emotional level. Our research evaluates and applies emotional intelligence within the context of managing
logistics and supply chain employees. Recognizing that employees are critical to production and service delivery, logistics and supply chain
managers must be able to cognitively analyze situations and connect with employees in a positive manner even during challenging times. We
find that managers possessing higher levels of emotional intelligence are better equipped to help their employees manage emotions, build more
positive working conditions for subordinates, increase retention of employees, and achieve more positive service outcomes for external cus-
tomers.
Keywords: emotional intelligence; personnel; logistics; supervisor; leadership

INTRODUCTION protecting their own human resources (Gardner 2005; Stank,

The essence of managing a workforce within a supply chain
(SC) is being challenged by modern industry advancements in
information systems, data analytics, artificial intelligence, and
advanced manufacturing. On the one hand, if autonomous vehi-
cles are widely adopted and parts and products are manufactured
immediately when and where they are needed, then it is easy to
envision a SC that employs fewer people to drive trucks or han-
dle products (Cavallaro 2018). On the other hand, the most pro-
gressive SC-oriented companies may opt to interact with labor in
ways that further leverage the value that such advancements gen-
erate (Cantor 2016). Some believe that as companies pursue
operational efficiency through industry advancements, jobs will
change; however, the companies will still need people to operate
the advanced technology and machinery (Goodman 2017; Caval-
laro 2018). As the need for skilled labor increases for operating
domestic and global supply chains (Van Hoek, Wagner, and
Sohal 2013; Kotzab, Teller, Bourlakis, and Wuensche 2018), the
value created by such labor will continue to be a driving force in
achieving logistics and SC management (L&SCM) success
(Ellinger, Keller, and Basß 2010).
While human resources are a requisite for business success,
maintaining needed employment levels at L&SCM firms is
becoming a challenge (Opengart, Ralston, and LeMay 2018).
Causes such as employee mobility; employees who are attractive
to multiple industries; mismatches between employee knowledge,
skills, and abilities and job requirements; and firms focusing on
meeting customer needs and cost containment, while not
Corresponding author
Peter M. Ralston, Department of Supply Chain Management, Ivy
College of Business, Iowa State University;
Email: pralston@iastate.edu
Dittmann, and Autry 2011; Sweeney 2013), are impacting a
firm’s ability to meet its human resource needs. Whatever the
reason, firms involved in L&SCM have been forced into a com-
petition to attract and hire new employees, and struggling like
never before to retain their highly qualified people (Gibson
2019). Firms need specialized skill sets in connecting with their
labor base.
Arguably, a firm’s greatest asset in leveraging L&SCM
employees is effective managers (Sheehan, Ellinger, and Ellinger
2014). Skilled supervision is the key to organizing and leading a
productive labor force. We suggest firms will find their competi-
tive advantage within the same arena that they find the problem,
in people. Specifically, L&SCM firms will find a competitive
advantage in the labor market by having supervisors with high
levels of emotional intelligence (EI).
EI is the ability to recognize or perceive, utilize, understand,
and manage emotions during workplace interactions with
employees (Mayer and Salovey 1997). Van Hoek et al. (2002)
pointed out that SC managers will be required to have technical
knowledge of functional operations and the ability to manage
emotions of the workforce to fully achieve company goals.
The present research sets out to evaluate the individual emo-
tional dimensions apparent in L&SCM managers. We explore
the core dimensions of EI and their relationships with measures
of workplace environment, employee turnover, and aspects of
quality service. Our focus is on the emotionally intelligent
L&SCM supervisor (EIS). Research in psychology and organiza-
tional behavior suggests that the most effective supervisors pos-
sess a prescribed intellect to recognize, understand, and leverage
varying emotional states when interacting with subordinates (Sal-
ovey and Mayer 1990; Goleman 1995; Mayer and Salovey 1997;
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios 2003; Salovey and Gre-
wal 2005). Ultimately, the goal of EI is to equip people with the
skills to perceive, use, understand, and successfully manage their
338
individual emotions and to help others manage emotions during
challenging situations.
The following research questions convey the underlying moti-
vation for the current research:
1 Do the dimensions of EI follow a prescribed sequence from
the basic EI skills to the more advanced as theorized within
the literature?
2 Does EIS enable L&SCM supervisors to create positive work-
ing environments for employees and influence employee reten-
tion?
3 Does EIS help to reduce the frequency of poor quality perfor-
mance within L&SCM operations?
This research contributes to the literature by exploring the
importance of leadership possessing and leveraging the critical
set of EI skills within L&SCM operational workplaces. EI has
been researched within the areas of mental health, maternity care,
sport psychology, academic performance, and child psychology
(Van Rooy and Viswesvaran 2004; Akerjordet and Severinsson
2009; Lane et al. 2009). Context matters greatly in workplace
decision making, learning, engagement, and productivity (Akhtar
et al. 2015; Van Knippenberg et al. 2015; Arkan et al. 2019).
The nuances associated with L&SCM workplaces often create
dynamic conditions with critical operational responses, heavy
reliance on individual decisions and effort, and highly variable
human responses (Ellinger et al. 2010; Goffnett et al. 2016). The
current research assesses the value of EI toward managing the
L&SCM workforce, to further our understanding of the value of
EI as a necessary supervisory competency, and to expand the
toolkit utilized by firms when evaluating and hiring L&SCM
supervisors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
L&SCM managerial competencies in interpersonal
relationships
Competent and skillful workforce leaders require fundamental
business knowledge augmented with the abilities to manage
interpersonal relationships (Tokar 2010). Research pertaining to
L&SCM managers has focused on supervisor attitude and behav-
iors in guiding and retaining logistics employees (Ellinger, Ellin-
ger, and Keller 2005; Keller et al. 2006; Van Hoek and Mitchell
2006) and the importance of frontline supervisors having positive
cognitive and affective interactions with employees (Autry and
Daugherty 2003). In a study of 438 warehouse employees and
supervisors, Ellinger et al. (2005) found low levels of employee
coaching among supervisors. However, the researchers further
discovered that the supervisors who demonstrated coaching abili-
ties obtained high satisfaction and performance from their work-
force. Keller et al. (2010) established a taxonomy of supervision,
whereby the most productive grouping of distribution center
managers provided employees with exceptional levels of appreci-
ation, fairness, and responsiveness, and created an informative
and positive place to work (see also, Keller et al. 2006). Murphy
and Poist (2007; see also, Murphy and Poist 1991a, 1991b,
2006) utilized feedback from recruiters to determine that general
S. B. Keller et al.
managerial skills (e.g., strong interpersonal communication skills)
are sought after first and followed by specific logistics skills.
While past research has investigated supervisor interpersonal
skills as well as attitudes and behavior, L&SCM supervisor skills
in identifying, understanding, and managing emotional elements
when communicating with subordinates have much room left for
examination. Keller (2002), Keller et al. (2013) created a two-
volume compendium of the measurement scales published in 37
years of logistics research from 1973 to 2010. None of these
scales pertained to the EI aspects of supervising employees. Only
recently has research pertaining to EIS begun to appear within
the L&SCM literature. Understanding and evaluating the emo-
tional abilities of supervision within supply chains are necessary
as employees and the work itself are ever-changing and diverse.
The next section provides a concise review of the literature
pertaining to EI. Mayer and Salovey’s 4-branch model of EI is
detailed as it is applied within this study.
Emotional intelligence
Scholars in organizational behavior, industrial psychology, and
other sciences have established the importance of leaders having
the intelligence to recognize or perceive, utilize, understand, and
manage emotions during workplace interactions with employees
(Mayer and Salovey 1997; Bar-On 2004; Goleman 2013; Calla-
han 2016; Rana et al. 2017). Salovey and Mayer (1990, p. 189)
established that EI pertains to the ability of an individual to mon-
itor his or her own emotions and the emotions of others while
distinguishing and identifying differences among the primary
human emotions displayed. Ultimately, it is the utilization of this
information to guide actions and responses during an interaction
that establishes the level of EI possessed by a person.
EI is a set of interrelated skills that allows managers to pro-
cess information pertaining to emotions in the context of various
interpersonal exchanges (Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey 1999;
Goleman et al. 2002; Bradberry and Greares 2009). Bar-On
(2004) used the term “emotional quotient” (EQ) to describe and
measure 5 domains of EI: interpersonal, intrapersonal, adaptabil-
ity, stress management, and general mood. Building on Gole-
man’s 4 domains of EI, Bradberry and Greaves (2009) created
the 28-item Emotional Intelligence Appraisalâ-Me to measure
self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relation-
ship management.
EI has been used sparsely within the L&SCM literature. Calla-
han (2016) conducted a primarily qualitative study pertaining to
frontline food distribution warehouse supervisors and employees
and found that supervisors who showed EI behaviors positively
affected the daily performance of the people who worked for
them. He administered the Emotional Intelligence Appraisalâ-
Me Edition to 9 supervisors within 6 companies and conducted
qualitative interviews with two employees that worked for each
supervisor. Although this research had limitations on generaliz-
ability, it showed a direct connection between EI in supervisors
and the sense of motivation and performance felt by the people
they supervised. Schumacher et al. (2009) used survey data from
dyadic pairs of buyers and aggregated supplier assessment scores
(performed if more than one supplier matched to a specific
buyer) to report that the supplier’s perception of a buyer’s EI
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers
was positively related to relationship performance. Interestingly,
a buyer’s own EI did not significantly relate to buyer’s self-
assessed relationship performance. These results show the critical
nature of one party’s perception of another’s EI. In building on
this research, Kaufmann and Wagner (2017) investigated the
effectiveness of EI within sourcing team members to mitigate the
negative effect of unfair feelings related to their company’s
selection of suppliers. The authors noted that EI served as a
“conflict-mitigating trait” (p. 13).
The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) is a comprehensive ability-based test that has been
transformed into a self-report measurement tool (SSCEIT) for
ease of data collection and for providing supervisors the opportu-
nity to respond to the test within the context of their own work-
place interactions (Schutte et al. 1998; Mayer, Salovey, and
Caruso 2002; Mayer et al. 2003; Ashkanasy and Daus 2005).
Stewart (2018) adapted the 33-item SSCEIT self-assessment tool,
the Work and Well-Being Survey, and the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire to study the relationships between EI, employee
engagement, and job satisfaction. Data from 31 supervisors and
154 employees revealed the significant importance of EI to job
satisfaction and the importance of both EI and job satisfaction to
enhanced employee engagement.
While multiple definitions exist, Mayer and Salovey (1997)
offered a formal definition of EI that seems to capture the com-
prehensive and complex nature of the phenomenon: “Emotional
intelligence involves the ability to perceive accurately, appraise,
and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feel-
ings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emo-
tion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate
emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (p. 10).
We utilize this definition and the Mayer and Salovey (1997) 4-
branch model of EI as a framework to guide the current study
(Schutte et al. 1998; Mayer et al. 2002; Mayer et al. 2003; Ash-
kanasy and Daus 2005).
Four branches of emotional intelligence
Mayer and Salovey (1997) refined their initial conceptualization
of EI into 4 primary dimensions or branches which are applied
in the current research. Their seminal work has been adapted by
researchers to develop various measures of EI. Perceiving emo-
tions is a personal skill that can be learned, and, when used,
equips the manager with the ability to accurately recognize an
emotion and distinguish it from other emotions (Salovey and
Grewal 2005; Kotsou et al. 2011). While the range and makeup
of emotions can be very complex, recognizing and distinguishing
basic emotions, such as happiness, or distinguishing sadness
from anger or fear from shame is the foundation from which all
emotions are derived (Bradberry and Greaves 2009, p. 14). High
degrees of perceiving emotions allow for the manager to then
begin using other dimensions of emotional information to
improve an interpersonal interaction.
Awareness of an emotion at the time of occurrence will help a
manager to quickly decipher the emotion and to refrain from
being “blind-sided” or irrationally caught-up in the emotion.
Because emotions are reactions to stimuli, it is important for
managers to be aware of the types of emotions they may encoun-
ter and under what circumstances. L&SCM requires the
339
management of complex components and consequently, the
workforce faces ongoing frustrations pertaining to interacting
with temperamental products, being accountable for detailed doc-
umentation, and catering to the service needs of demanding cus-
tomers. Awareness requires reflection and the ability to recognize
and distinguish emotions (Akerjordet and Severinsson 2009).
Using emotions, the second branch of EI, pertains to the abil-
ity to use one’s emotional state to gain an advantage, for exam-
ple, in dealing with a difficult situation and solving a problem
(Mayer and Salovey 1997; Salovey and Grewal 2005). Managers
equipped to leverage an emotion will be more successful at facil-
itating cognitive problem solving. Suppose a manager experi-
ences emotional anxiety when he or she realizes that one section
of the warehouse is falling behind in the day’s order processing.
Being aware that the anxiety is occurring because of the situa-
tion, he or she may then begin to evaluate alternatives for reas-
signing employees and balancing the workflow. In this respect,
the manager is leveraging emotions to assist in generating new
ideas and problem solving.
Understanding emotions, the third branch, pertains to the abil-
ity of a manager to understand the complex variations of emo-
tions and how emotions may alter over time (Mayer and Salovey
1997; Salovey and Grewal 2005). For an employee, sadness may
turn into grief if a manager fails to properly respond to an
employee’s pressing need. In understanding emotions, a manager
who is well-skilled will be able to describe and differentiate one
emotion from another. Interpretation of an emotion entails the
ability to comprehend and connect the relationship of an emotion
to an event, such as grief to the loss of a close partner (Mayer
and Salovey 1997; Salovey and Grewal 2005). An L&SCM
supervisor may recognize that grief is unintentionally contribut-
ing to a lack of focus by an employee on the shipping dock. A
keen EI supervisor will intervene prior to the occurrence of a
workplace accident.
Managing emotions, the fourth branch, pertains to a person’s
ability to recognize a specific emotional occurrence and to ration-
ally control or to help change that emotion (Salovey and Grewal
2005). For instance, a supervisor may recognize that an
employee feels anxious because of an overwhelmingly busy shift
in order fulfillment. The supervisor may be able to help the
employee change that anxiety into confidence by having the
employee reflect on a time when he or she accomplished a simi-
lar challenging task. This branch contains two facets, the man-
ager’s ability to self-regulate emotions and his or her ability to
regulate emotions in others. Achieving these two facets requires
a higher level of EI competence compared to the other EI abili-
ties (Mayer and Salovey 1997). Possessing this advanced level
of EI equips people to leverage positive emotions and minimize
negative ones to moderate the situational outcomes.
The current research assesses the role of each EI dimension
and EI’s overall effect on the work environment, employee reten-
tion, and quality of service provided to customers. Figure 1 illus-
trates our conceptual model and the related hypotheses.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Before they can achieve the highest competence in EI, L&SCM
supervisors must first achieve EI at the basic level of perceiving
340 S. B. Keller et al.

Figure 1: Theoretical Model of Emotional Intelligence and Supply Chain Logistics Outcomes.

Manage Positive
Emotions Workplace
(Self-Manage) Environment

H5 H6
H2

Understanding Managing
Perceiving H1 Emotions H3 Emotions H8 Turnover
Emotions (Describe/ (Helping (Voluntary)
Differentiate) Others)

H4
H7

Using
Emotions Quality
(Generate (Poor)
Ideas/Problem
Solve)

emotions (Mayer and Salovey 1997, Mayer et al. 2002, and Kot-
sou et al. 2011). It stands to reason that an individual would be
incapable of understanding, controlling or changing emotions
without having the capacity to recognize an emotion and per-
ceive that it is occurring (Mayer and Salovey 1997). This is at
the basic psychological level of EI. For instance, a logistics
supervisor must know when they become angry because a task
or procedure did not go as planned. Without such perception, the
ability to manage the emotion is left up to chance. H1 is there-
fore offered.
H1: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to per-
ceive emotions is statistically positively related to his or
her increased ability to understand emotions.
situation and return later with a clear mind to resolve the issue?
Likewise, can a SC supervisor direct an employee to take a
break or refocus and perform a different task if that employee is
becoming frustrated and careless with his or her current assign-
ment? We propose that understanding emotions is critical to self-
managing emotions and helping others manage emotions.
H2: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to under-
stand emotions is statistically positively related to his or
her increased ability to self-manage emotions.
H3: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to under-
stand emotions is statistically positively related to his or
her increased ability to help subordinates manage emo-
tions.

Understanding emotions is a prerequisite to managing emo-
tions. If supervisors can articulate, describe, and interpret emo-
tional changes, and can differentiate one emotion from another,
such as frustration from anger, then they should be better able to
help themselves and employees work through difficult situations
(Mayer and Salovey 1997). This ability to describe and differen-
tiate emotions pertains to the basic knowledge level of EI (Miko-
lajczak 2009). A L&SCM supervisor must know of an emotion
before he or she can develop the ability to reflect on an emotion
or the ability to alter a course of emotional action. For example,
can a SC supervisor realize that they are frustrated and then
determine that they should remove themselves from a volatile
The ability to use emotions has been operationalized in the
context of self-problem solving and idea generation. Schutte
et al. (1998, p. 168) categorized managing and using emotions as
“reflective” abilities that when developed helped to regulate emo-
tions and behaviors, but further state that these higher-level abili-
ties are complex. It is hypothesized that by understanding
emotions, a L&SCM supervisor will be better enabled to use
emotions.
H4: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to under-
stand emotions is statistically positively related to his or
her increased ability to use emotions.
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers
While the fourth branch of the model contains two facets,
self-manage emotions and manage emotions in others, it is logi-
cal to expect that supervisors must first be able to help them-
selves before being equipped to help others. To our knowledge,
this proposition has not been tested in the literature; however,
correlations between measures of managing emotions in self and
in others have been statistically significant (Lane et al. 2009).
H5: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to self-
manage emotions is statistically positively related to his or
her increased ability to help subordinates manage emo-
tions.
Outcomes of EI have included, for example, reduced stress
and health issues, improved quality of relationships, and
improved interpersonal relationships (Lopes et al. 2006; Kotsou
et al. 2011). Mignonac et al. (2003) determined that EIS reduces
absenteeism and improves commitment and involvement in the
job. Pradhan Jena and Singh (2017) in a study of manufacturing
managers in India determined that EI played a moderating role
impacting performance. Callahan (2016) in a study including
supervisor and employee dyads working in the distribution indus-
try found that subordinate identified EI attributes of their imme-
diate supervisors had an impact on the subordinates’
performance. The current work examines EIS and the impact on
quality service.
Further researchers have established connectivity between the
attitudes of warehouse employees toward their supervisors and,
ultimately, reduced intentions of employees to quit their jobs
(Autry and Daugherty 2003). Moreover, Murphy and Poist
(1993) identified that excellent warehouse operators focus on
providing positive motivation techniques toward logistics opera-
tion employees (see also, LeMay et al. 1999), while Keller et al.
(2010) identified the importance of supervisors in creating an
internal and external customer-focused working environment.
Stewart (2018), in a study of supervisors and employees within
manufacturing demonstrated a relationship between EI and job
satisfaction and EI and employee engagement. The implication
was that higher job satisfaction and engagement resulting from
EI would lead to improved productivity and workforce retention.
This was also supported by Colbert (2012) and Sarkar (2011) as
their research illustrated the importance of management’s willing-
ness to be open to employee input/feedback and creating an
environment focused on outwardly demonstrating the interest to
help employees. Gibson (2019) further suggested that efforts
such as these may create a positive working environment for
employees. In an effort to extend the literature base, the current
research focuses on a L&SCM supervisor’s ability to help his or
her subordinates manage their emotions and, in turn, create a
favorable place to work, achieve higher quality job-related out-
put, and reduce employee voluntary turnover. Hypotheses 6, 7,
and 8 are offered.
H6: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to help
subordinates manage emotions is statistically positively
related to a L&SCM supervisor increased ability to pro-
mote a positive working environment.
H7: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to help
subordinates manage emotions is statistically negatively
341
related to poor quality service associated with employee
output.
H8: An increased ability of a L&SCM supervisor to help
subordinates manage emotions is statistically negatively
related to an increase of employee voluntary turnover.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
A review of the literature revealed Salovey and Mayer’s (1990)
4-branch model of EI and self-report measurement items
designed and tested by Schutte et al. (1998) and further evalu-
ated by Lane et al. (2009). Our research adapted the self-report
measures to provide L&SCM administrative and operations
supervisors the opportunity to respond within the context of their
own unique workplace interactions (Schutte et al. 1998; Mayer
et al. 2002; Mayer et al. 2003; Ashkanasy and Daus 2005).
While commercial software is available to measure EI, an
assessment of the psychometric properties of the scales that we
employed indicates that the reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha of
0.73 to 0.85) fall within the acceptable range advocated in the
literature and are very comparable to the scale reliabilities within,
for example, the TalentSmart.com commercial software Emo-
tional Intelligence Appraisalâ-Me (Cronbach’s alpha range 0.79
to 0.92; Bradberry and Greaves 2009). Our scales utilized also
pass the tests to establish unidimensionality and discriminant
validity, and we believe that the EI dimensions and items we
employed better reflect the progression from the simpler to the
more complex EI competencies, a core objective of our research.
A respondent base was gathered by disseminating a question-
naire through e-mail via Survey Monkey and targeted members
of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
(CSCMP), the Arkansas Trucking Association, and L&SCM pro-
fessional contacts of one author. The multiple targeted sources
represent a convenience sample to insure that we collected an
ample and relevant respondent base consisting of logistics and
supply chain managers. One hundred and fifty-five useable
responses were returned from an e-mailing of 500 (31% response
rate). Tests revealed no significant differences between the
responses to key EI and outcome variables provided by the
L&SCM members from the three sources.
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the respondents
who are separated into two primary management “areas” includ-
ing “Logistics Operations” (n = 83) and “Administration”
(n = 72). The two primary areas consist of respondent subgroups
that range from distribution center operations to SC strategy and
10 additional subareas in between these polar extremes: logistics
operations (DC, n = 25; logistics, n = 24; transportation, n = 18;
warehousing, n = 9; and materials management, n = 7) and
administration (strategy, n = 42; sales, n = 15; planning, n = 6;
inventory, n = 3; customer service [C.S.], n = 3; information
technology [IT], n = 2; and safety, n = 1).
Of the full sample (n = 155), 27% identified as senior corpo-
rate-level managers (n = 42), 39% as middle managers at the
director and plant manager level (n = 61), and 34% as frontline
junior management level (n = 52). Table 1 results indicate that
342 S. B. Keller et al.

40% within logistics operations includes frontline junior man-
agers (n = 33) and 16% within senior management (n = 13). In
contrast, an average of 26% within administration identify as
frontline junior management (n = 19) while approximately 35%
identify as senior-level management (n = 25).
Respondents within administration and operations, both, indi-
cate an average of approximately 6-year experience in their cur-
rent job position. On average, logistics operations managers have
some college or technical school training (mean = 3.53, where
3.00 = some college level and 4.00 = graduated from college).
In comparison, administrators report, on average (mean = 3.96),
possessing an undergraduate degree. While 11 of the 13 sub-
groups report, most often (mode = 4 or greater), to have
achieved an undergraduate or higher degree, eight subareas indi-
cate, most frequently, possessing a master’s level degree or
higher (mode = 6).
Table 1 indicates the average number of subordinates for
administration managers (mean = 84) exceeds the number
reported by logistics operations managers (mean = 67). Strategic
administrators report having the greatest average number of sub-
ordinates directly reporting to them (mean = 134), while distribu-
tion center operations managers indicate having an average of
106 subordinates. On average, the ages are similar for logistics
operations managers (mean = 46) and administrators
(mean = 48).
Respondents were asked to report the number of times within
the past year they received any form of supervisory training.
Both logistics operations managers (mean = 1.64) and adminis-
trators (mean = 1.69), on average, reported just over one and a
half times. A greater distinction is evident when comparing man-
agers responsible for safety (mean = 6.00), sales (mean = 2.36),
planning (mean = 2.20), and DC managers (mean = 2.06) who
all report having received the greatest training opportunities over
the past year.
The managers described above are in positions of supervision
within L&SCM. As supervisors, each would be privy to his or

Table 1: Demographics, job experience, and personnel responsibility*

Years In Current Direct Mgmt.§ Level Sr.-Mid.- # Times Training Past

† ‡
Manager Area N Job Edu. Reports Supv. M-F Age Year

Logistics 83 6.00 3.53(6) 67 13-37-33 49- 46 1.64

Operations 10
Dist. Center 25 5.94 3.44(6) 106 6-12-7 14-4 42 2.06
Logistics 24 4.66 3.83(6) 43 7-7-10 13-4 47 1.47
Trans. 18 5.71 2.83(4) 61 0-12-6 10-1 44 1.70
Warehouse 9 8.22 3.44 72 0-3-6 6-0 31 0.60
(3,4,6)
Mat. Mgmt. 7 8.71 4.71(6) 27 0-3-4 6-1 52 1.71
Administrative 72 6.14 3.96(6) 84 25-24-19 43- 48 1.69
14
Strategy 42 7.08 4.17(6) 134 27-11-4 28-5 51 1.38
Sales 15 4.75 3.53(4) 11 2-7-6 8-5 45 2.36
Planning 6 4.26 4.67(6) 14 0-2-4 4-1 44 2.20
Inventory 3 9.67 2.00(6) 12 0-1-2 1-0 49 1.00
C.S. 3 4.33 4.67(4) 52 0-1-2 1-2 45 0.67
IT 2 2.50 1.50(3) 13 0-1-1 1-0 47 0.00
Safety 1 2.00 6.00(6) 6 0-2-0 0-1 24 6.00
Management Level
42 8.08 4.07(6) 145 42-0-0 30-2 53 1.30
Sr.
61 4.69 3.85(6) 69 0-61-0 36- 47 1.76
Mid. 11
52 6.02 3.31(6) 24 0-0-52 26- 43 1.83
Jr. 11
Full Sample¶ 155 6.07 3.73(6) 75 38-61-52 92- 47 1.66
24

*Mean unless otherwise specified. ( )=mode.

†
Types of industries represented: transportation (railroad and trucking), warehousing, 3PL, and manufacturing (computers, cell phones, electronics, autos,
aircraft, agriculture, construction equipment, chemicals, food processing, beverage, medical equipment, housing industry, greeting cards, retail, vacation,
and entertainment).
‡
Education: 1 (some high school, grade 11 or less); 2 (graduated from high school or G.E.D.); 3 (some college/technical school); 4 (graduated from col-
lege, B.A., B.S.); 5 (some graduate school); and 6 (graduate degree, Master’s, Ph.D., J.D., etc.).
§
Management level: Sr.=senior level, corporate manager; Mid.=director level, middle management; Jr.=junior level, frontline.
¶
When summing to total sample size and n < 155, missing data = difference.
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers 343

Table 2: Items, Descriptives, and Reliabilities

St. Item- C. Alpha

Construct/Items Mean Dev. Total Scale

Managing Emotions (Helping Others) .81

I know how to help my employees get over feeling angry. 5.01 0.93 .57
Other people find it easy to confide in me. 5.60 1.07 .66
When an employee is in a bad mood, I can help them feel better quickly. 4.85 0.89 .66
I am the type of person to whom employees go when they need help with a difficult 5.53 1.04 .63
situation.
Managing Emotions (Self-Manage) .84
I know how to keep calm in difficult situations. 5.91 0.92 .53
I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally. 5.85 1.02 .79
I am capable of keeping my emotions in check. 5.79 0.99 .81
Perceiving Emotions .79
By looking at my employees’ facial expressions, I recognize the emotions they are 5.69 1.05 .46
experiencing.
I can tell when an employee is lying to me by looking at his or her facial expression. 4.52 1.29 .61
I know what my employees are feeling by just looking at them. 4.32 1.27 .73
I can tell how my employees are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice. 5.23 1.11 .62
*I have a good sense of what my feelings are most of the time. 5.94 0.92 .30
*I am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to my employees. 5.49 1.11 .35
Understanding Emotions (Describe/Differentiate) .85
When it comes to describing my emotions, I have a rich vocabulary. 4.75 1.28 .76
I can accurately describe how emotions progress from simple to complex emotions. 4.58 1.40 .75
Compared to most other people, I find my vocabulary regarding emotions to be more 4.14 1.30 .76
extensive.
I can easily differentiate between emotions such as happy and ecstatic or disgust and 5.79 1.07 .48
angry.
Using Emotions (To Generate Ideas & Solve Problems) .73
When I am in a positive mood, solving problems is easy for me. 5.23 1.31 .59
I can access my emotions in order to help me improve my problem solving abilities. 4.73 1.39 .51
When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas. 5.44 1.15 .56
Poor Quality Service† .76
Increase in customer claims. 3.69 0.98 .61
Increase in shipping errors. 3.55 1.04 .55
Increase in customer complaints. 3.66 0.96 .59
Positive Environment .63
Promoted a non-threatening work environment. 6.44 0.93 .46
Promoted fairness in the workplace. 6.30 0.85 .46

*Items dropped from measurement model due to poor internal consistency and reliability.
†
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which customer claims have declined (1), not changed (4), or increased (7) over the past month.
Respondents were also asked to indicate the extent to which shipping errors and customer complaints have declined or increased using the same 7-point
scale.

her subordinates’ service performance levels and would know if
customer complaints and claims associated with his or her
employees have increased or decreased. They would also have
first-hand knowledge of direct subordinates who quit.
Measurement model assessment
We designed procedural remedies into our questionnaire to limit
the potential for common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Item complexity was reduced to a minimum, and no double-
barreled items were employed. Our items for primary predictor
and criterion variables were temporally separated in different
parts of the questionnaire. This allowed time to elapse from
when a respondent answered questions about predictors to the
time he or she addressed criterion variables. In addition, our
questionnaire contained specific directions for each section of
questions and assured respondents that their responses would be
anonymous and that “there is no right or wrong answer.”
Lastly, the scale anchors for primary predictor and criterion
variables were different and one criterion required an open-
ended ratio variable answer compared to Likert-type scales of
others.
344 S. B. Keller et al.

Table 3: Measurement and model fit statistics

Construct/Items k SE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *AVE
†
Cor.> †Shared .36 .26 .29 .11 -.21 .40 .80
Managing Emotions (Helping Others) Var.> (.13) (.07) (.08) (.01) (.04) (.16)
‡
MEothers1 .68 .13 1.00
MEothers2 .75 .15 .47 1.00
MEothers3 .73 .10 .57 .53 1.00
MEothers4 .71 .15 .41 .60 .52 1.00
.36 (.13) 1.00 -.05 .04 -.08 .01 .16 .90
Managing Emotions (Self-Manage) -- (.00) (.00) (.00) (.00) (.03)
MEself1 .56 .07 1.00
MEself2 .92 .08 .50 1.00
MEself3 .93 .08 .52 .86 1.00
.26 -.05 1.00 .21 .32 .16 .35 .81
Perceiving Emotions (.07) (.00) -- (.04) (.10) (.03) (.12)
PEothers1 .46 .11 1.00
PEothers2 .66 .09 .41 1.00
PEothers3 .91 .17 .39 .60 1.00
PEothers4 .75 .12 .36 .44 .69 1.00
.29 .05 .20 1.00 .45 -.25 .07 .76
Understanding Emotions (Describe/ (.08) (.00) (.04) -- (.20) (.06) (.00)
Differentiate)
UnderE1 .84 .29 1.00
UnderE2 .83 .32 .71 1.00
UnderE3 .85 .08 .71 .70 1.00
UnderE4 .52 .08 .43 .43 .44 1.00
.11 -.08 .33 .45 1.00 -.04 -.02 .74
Using Emotions (To Generate Ideas & (.01) (.01) (.10) (.20) -- (.00) (.00)
Solve Problems)
UseE1 .73 .18 1.00
UseE2 .62 .17 .47 1.00
UseE3 .73 .16 .54 .42 1.00
-.33 .12 .32 -.18 -.01 1.00 -.01 .75
Poor Quality Service (.01) (.23) (.01) (.10) (.92) -- (.88)
PoorQ1 .66 .18 1.00
PoorQ2 .73 .16 .77 1.00
PoorQ3 .77 .19 .73 .66 1.00
.40 .16 .35 .07 -.02 .08 1.00 .60
Positive Environment (.16) (.03) (.12) (.00) (.00) (.00) --
PositEnv1 .68 .34 1.00
PositEnv2 .68 .34 .60 1.00

*Average variance extracted = [Σ(k)2]/ [Σ(k)2 + Σvar (є)] Fornell and Larcker 1981, pp. 45, 46).
†
Construct correlations significant at the p < .01 level; shared variance for pairwise summated scales.
‡
Scale item correlations significant at the p < .01.

Measures of social desirability (SD) have been evaluated as to
their relationships with the primary predictor and criterion factors
in our study (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Table 4 illustrates that the
three SD measures had inconsistent correlations across the EI
constructs and ultimate outcome measures. One SD measure
failed to correlate with any of the EI constructs and two of the
outcome variables. The other two SD measures correlated with
only 3 of the 8 model constructs and outcome variables.
Table 5 illustrates the chi-square statistic for a series of struc-
tural models. Specific to the discussion of common method bias,
the “EI Constructs Only Model” and the EI model that includes
outcomes are the best-fitting models. However, the SD variables
were retained in the final model (D) where they resulted as sig-
nificant predictors of any predictor or criterion constructs. Lastly,
when the final model (D) was fully constrained as a single-factor
model, the resulting chi-square fit was significantly poorer than
the unconstrained model or any other model. The previous dis-
cussion pertaining to the procedural and statistical remedies sug-
gests that common method bias is not a factor in our study
(Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Table 4: Initial Assessment of Control Variables Predictors of EI Dimensions and Outcome Variables

Model Constructs and Outcome Variables

Managing Managing Quality [Reverse Employee

Perceiving Understanding Using Emotions Emotions Positive coded as Poor Turnover
Control Variables Emotions Emotions Emotions [in Self] [in Others] Environment Quality] [Voluntary]

Years In Current Job 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.18*,§ 0.04 0.09 -0.11
Direct Reports 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.37*
Area† 0.02 0.16 0.12 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.06
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers

Administration –
Operations
Mgmt. Level‡ 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.32* 0.03
Sr.-Mid.-Jr.
¶
M-F 0.15 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.03
§ §
Age 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.08
# Times Training 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.29* 0.18 0.08
Past Year
Social Desirability 1 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.15 0.34* 0.03 0.04
(.01)
Social Desirability 2 0.02 0.23* 0.05 0.45* 0.05 0.41* 0.04 0.02
(.01) (.00) (.00)
Social Desirability 3 0.20* 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.39* 0.29* 0.09 0.04
(.02) (.00) (.00)

*Significant p < .05. All other factor loadings statistically nonsignificant.

†
Areas: Administration – Operations.
‡
Management level: Sr.=senior level, corporate manager; Mid.=director level, middle management; Jr.=junior level, frontline.
§
Resulted nonsignificant in final model. Dropped to statistically improve (model change improved, significance p < .05) final model chi-square and to achieve model parsimony.
¶
Dropped to improve final structural model fit. Not a strong control variable for perceiving emotions (standard beta-coefficient: 0.17 contributing to R2 = 0.07).
345
346
Table 2 provides the item wordings organized by primary con-
structs along with item descriptive statistics and the results to
evaluate the internal consistency and reliability of each focal
component in the model. All items demonstrated internal consis-
tency on their intended constructs as all item-to-total correlations,
with the exception of two items, resulted above 0.40. Two items
originally intended to represent perceiving emotions were elimi-
nated from the construct’s measurement model due to the items’
lack of internal consistency (item-to-total correlations: 0.30 and
0.35) and poor average variance extracted resulting below 0.5
and indicating the two variables did not well represent any
dimension of perceiving emotions in the study.
Table 2 indicates the coefficient alpha, representing construct
reliability, exceeded 0.60 for each construct. Table 3 contains
the results for the measurement models and the results for estab-
lishing discriminant validity. Following Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), data representing the scale items for each construct were
subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis where the resulting
lambda coefficients (item loadings) were deemed statistically
significant (t-values> 1.96), and, with the exception of three
items, all meet or exceed the baseline of 0.60 or greater. Three
item exceptions (k-loadings of 0.46, 0.52, and .56) were not
exceptionally lower and were retained to maintain the face
validity of the constructs. All interitem correlations within fac-
tors were statistically significant (p < .05). Construct discrimi-
nant validity was examined for each pair of constructs
appearing in the overall model. Average variance extracted for
each construct was calculated and compared with the shared
variance of construct pairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). In each
case, the average variance extracted for individual constructs
exceeded 0.60 and was greater than the shared variance for any
two construct pairs.
Stepwise analysis to evaluate potential control variables
Table 4 provides results from a series of structural equations
models to assess the influence of 10 control variables including
aspects of social desirability (SD) on the primary constructs of
EI and outcome variables.
A reverse stepwise process was followed to assess which con-
trol variables should be utilized in the "Full" and final structural
model. The process began with conducting eight analyses,
including one for each primary EI construct and for each final
outcome variable. The variables/factors are in the column head-
ings within Table 4. Each model contained a single dependent
EI or outcome multi-item construct or single-item variable at a
time and all of the potential control variables (listed in the first
column of Table 4) as independent predictor variables. Utilizing
a reverse stepwise method, the control variable associated with
the poorest insignificant coefficient alpha was removed from the
model. The altered model was then analyzed and the process
continued until all of the insignificant control variables were
removed. Consequently, the comprehensive model containing the
statistically meaningful control variables for each primary EI
construct and outcome variables is more parsimonious and mean-
ingful.
Results in Table 4 indicate that the three SD variables have
varying influences on the EI factors and the positive workplace
environment factor. The SD variables reflect different aspects of
S. B. Keller et al.
social desirability, and for this analysis, the variables were
entered as three independent variables: SD1: “Was always will-
ing to admit when I made a mistake” (1 = infrequently to
7 = frequently); SD2: “Was always courteous, even to employ-
ees who were disagreeable” (1 = infrequently to 7 = frequently);
and SD3: “No matter who I talked to, I was always a good lis-
tener” (1 = infrequently to 7 = frequently) (Crowne and Mar-
lowe 1960).
In specific, Table 4 illustrates that SD3 resulted as a signifi-
cant (path coefficient = 0.20, p < .05) predictor variable of “per-
ceiving emotions.” Similarly, SD2 resulted significant (path
coefficient = 0.23, p < .05) in predicting “understanding emo-
tions.” SD appears to be of greater predictive influence with
respect to SD2 and “self-managing emotions” (path coeffi-
cient = 0.45, p < .05) and “creating a positive workplace” (SD1
path coefficient = 0.34, p < .05; SD2 path coefficient = 0.41,
p < .05; and SD3 path coefficient = 0.29, p < .05). While the
relationships are statistically significant, SD is not the sole pre-
dictor of EI, whereas additional EI variance is left to be
explained.
In reflecting on the three SD items, it is not counterintuitive
to believe that managers skilled in EI would also respond in
like manners to the specific SD items within our study.
Whereas creating a positive workplace entails promoting a
nonthreatening environment, it stands to reason that to achieve
this goal, a manager must be skilled at being courteous and at
being a good listener to his or her subordinates. Highly EI-
skilled managers are able to recognize that when an employee
is disagreeable, it is an opportunity for the manager to model
exceptional self-control and to be courteous and, thereby, have
a chance to diffuse the situation. Likewise, it seems reasonable
to believe that a manager who is focused on creating fairness
in the workplace will be more likely to understand that the
value of admitting to an error is important for achieving posi-
tive perceptions among the workforce. The final structural
model contains the SD variables where they resulted as signifi-
cant independent variables.
Table 4 also indicates that the additional control variable
pertaining to the number of times a manager received supervi-
sory training during the past year was related to creating a
positive workplace environment (path coefficient = 0.29,
p < .05). Moreover, two additional control variables were sig-
nificantly related to quality (management level, path coeffi-
cient = 0.32, p < .05) and employee turnover measured as a
single ratio variable where respondents indicated within the
past year the number of employees under their direct supervi-
sion voluntarily quitting the job (# of direct reports, path coef-
ficient = 0.37, p < .05). All other control variables resulted
nonsignificant and were dropped to improve the final model fit
and parsimony.
Structural model results and hypothesis assessment
The research objective is to examine the application of EI to
supervisors of L&SCM. We used AMOS structural equation mod-
eling software for path analysis of these data. EI is multidimen-
sional in nature, and we wished to examine the components and
outcomes simultaneously.
Table 5: Structural Model Fit Results and Test Results for Post Hoc “Area” Moderation Analysis

Model Chi Sq. Difference* Moderation (Area: Administration/Operations) Chi. Sq. df/p-val.*

Chi. Sq. df/p-val IFI CFI TLI RMSEA

159.74 130/.04 .97 .96 .97 .039
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers

A EI Constructs Only Model>

299.18 246/.01 .95 .94 .95 .037
A EI Model with Outcomes>
420.23 314/.00 .92 .89 .91 .047
A EI Model with Outcomes & Social Desirability Items>
519.72 395/.00 .90 .88 .90 .045
A EI Model with Outcomes, Significant Controls & Social Desirability>

Path Chi Sq. Difference* Moderation

(Area: Administration/Operations)
All other paths resulted non-significant* Chi. Sq. df/p-val* Admin. Path/p-val. Ops. Path/p-val.

Unconstrained Model D (from above) 1252.22 816/.00

Fully Constrained Model D (from above) 1454.46 849/.00
Chi. Sq. & df. Difference/Significance 202.24 33/.00

Perceive Emotions> Understand Emotions 1258.02 817/.05 .09/.52 .42/.01

Manage Emotions (Others)> Positive Workplace Environment 1255.97 817/.10 .47/.01 .03/.82

*All other path coefficient differences between areas of administration compared to operations are nonsignificant at p < .05 (range of Chi. Sq. and df. Differences: Chi. Sq.diff = 2.40 to 0.51 &
df.diff = 1).
347
348 S. B. Keller et al.

Figure 2: Structural Model Path Analysis Results (*p < .05).

SD2 SD1
.32*
SD3 .38*

Manage .20* Posive

.45* Supervisory
SD2 Emoons Workplace
Training .26*
(Self-Manage) Environment

SD3 SD2
H2=ns H6=.30*
.21* .21* H5=.24*

Understanding Managing
Perceiving H1=.22* Emoons H3=.21* Emoons H8=-.20* Turnover
Emoons (Describe/ (Helping (Voluntary)
Differenate) Others) # of Direct .36*
Reports
.32*
H4=.45*
SD3 H7=-.27*

Using
Emoons Quality
(Generate Posion
(Poor)
Ideas/Problem (Sr.-Mid.-Jr.) .28*
Solve)

Table 5 contains the results pertaining to the structural model
fit. Four structural model variations are depicted in Table 5 and
consist of:
A The model of EI constructs only to illustrate fit of the theo-
rized 5 dimensions of EI.
B The EI model with additional outcome variables (positive
workplace, turnover, and quality) important for measuring the
effectiveness of L&SCM supervisors.
C The EI model with outcome variables and variables to con-
trol for social desirability tendencies of respondents and as
one assessment of common method bias.
D The EI model with outcome variables, social desirability con-
trol variables, and three additional control variables (supervi-
sory training, number of direct reports, and position) that
ultimately resulted as significant predictors of the outcome
variables.
Tests for significant differences between models A through D
indicate Model A has the best overall model fit; however, its chi-
square is only moderately statistically better in structural fit than
Model B (Chi. Sq.difference = 139.44, dfdifference = 116, p = .07).
Models A and B, on the other hand, statistically differ from
Models C and D (p < .001) in all cases. Lastly, there is only
moderate statistical difference in structural fit (p = .08) between
Models C and D.
The results in Table 5 suggest the more parsimonious EI
structural model A is well supported (Chi Sq.=159.74, df = 130,
p = .04, IFI=.97, CFI=.96, TLI=.97, and RMSEA=.039), while
the more complex, and arguably more intriguing, Model D con-
taining important L&SCM outcomes and interesting control vari-
ables is also a good fitting model (Chi Sq.=519.72, df = 395,
p = .00, IFI=.90, CFI=.88, TLI=.90, and RMSEA=.045). Model
D was selected to discuss its path analysis results pertaining to
the formal hypotheses and ultimately to discuss the predictive
ability of the control variables.
Figure 2 contains the structural model path analysis results for
Model D (structural model fit results in Table 5). H1 pertained to
the relationships between a L&SCM supervisor’s ability to per-
ceive or recognize emotions and his or her ability to then under-
stand or describe/differentiate emotions. The results indicated the
presence of a statistically significant positive relationship
between the two EI dimensions (c = 0.22, p < .05); conse-
quently, H1 is supported.
H2 predicted a significant positive relationship between under-
standing emotions and a L&SCM supervisor’s ability to manage
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers
his or her own emotions. The path coefficient (b= 0.03,
p = .78) was nonsignificant and failed to support the hypothesis.
In reflecting on the items of each construct, the self-management
items more closely represent managing negative emotions while
the items pertaining to understanding emotions were more
broadly defined as describing, articulating, and differentiating
emotions. While the concept of understanding prior to managing
is logical and theoretically sound, in hindsight, the items pertain-
ing to self-managing emotions should be more broadly conceptu-
alized in future studies.
A relationship between a L&SCM supervisor’s skill at under-
standing emotions and helping subordinates to manage their
emotions was hypothesized. The results support hypothesis 3
(H3: b = 0.21, p < .05). H4 also proposed the existence of a
relationship between a L&SCM supervisor’s ability to understand
emotions and use emotions to generate ideas and solve problems.
The hypothesis was supported (b = 0.45, p < .05). H5 suggested
that L&SCM supervisors who are capable of managing their own
emotions will also be better equipped to help their employees
manage emotions. The results indicate that a statistically signifi-
cant relationship exists between the dimensions (b = 0.24,
p < .05). As has been shown, there is a process to EI, whereby
basic knowledge of emotions is followed by a more complex
and reflective ability to regulate emotions.
Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 pertained to outcomes of L&SCM
supervisors helping subordinates to manage emotions while on
the job. The results in Figure 2 support H6 (b = 0.30, p < .05)
and suggest that L&SCM supervisors who are well-equipped to
help subordinates to manage negative feelings, moods, and diffi-
cult situations will also be more skilled at creating a positive
working environment. Furthermore, as L&SCM supervisors help
their employees manage emotions, and while working through
bothersome issues, the overall operational result is a reduction in
service errors, customer complaints, and claims. H7 (b= 0.27,
p < .05) is supported. Lastly, Figure 2 results indicate that a
L&SCM supervisor who is capable of helping his or her subordi-
nates manage emotions, in turn, helps to reduce voluntary turn-
over (single ratio variable of number of direct subordinates
voluntarily quitting within the past year as reported by the
L&SCM supervisor respondent) among those employees
(b= 0.20, p < .05). Consequently, H8 is supported.
Figure 2 also illustrates the results pertaining to the signifi-
cant control variables in the final model. The results are simi-
lar to the initial control variable results from the stepwise
analyses presented in Table 4. Of particular interest is that,
along with the EI construct and the three SD variables (path
coefficients ranging from 0.20 to 0.38, p < .05), the supervi-
sory training received by a L&SCM supervisor within the past
year continues to be significantly related to creating a positive
logistics/SCM workplace (path coefficient = 0.26, p < .05).
Along with helping others manage emotions while on the job,
the number of direct reports assigned to a L&SCM supervisor
influences voluntary turnover among his or her direct reports
(path coefficient = 0.36, p < .05). Increases in the number of
employees assigned to a supervisor are associated with
increases in subordinates quitting their jobs. The resulting cor-
relation between the L&SCM supervisory level (junior front-
line to midlevel to senior level) and quality performance
resulted significant (path coefficient = 0.28, p < .05).
349
Interestingly, in comparison with higher and midlevel manage-
ment, it is the junior frontline managers who indicated that
annual service quality has improved as poor quality service
related to miss-shipping customer orders and customer com-
plaints/claims has receded over the past year.
Post hoc moderation analysis results
Table 5 contains the test results for the post hoc “area” (adminis-
trative compared to operational supervision) moderation analysis.
L&SCM supervisors reported whether they were assigned to
operations (n = 83) or to administration (n = 72), and while
“area” was not a statistically significant independent predictor
control variable, it is important to test its potential moderating
role when it comes to helping explain the relationship magnitude
between EI construct dimensions and between EI constructs and
outcome variables.
To test for “area” moderation, the chi-square difference
between an “unconstrained” Model D in Table 5 was esti-
mated and compared to a “fully constrained” Model D. The
resulting chi-square difference was significant (Chi.
Sq.diff = 202.24, 33 = dfdiff, p < .05). This is a required first
condition. The next step is to compare the two “area” groups
(administration and operations) and constrain individual struc-
tural model paths, one at a time, to assess the chi-square dif-
ference between the “path constrained” model and the
“unconstrained” model. When the unconstrained “area” model
chi-square is statistically significantly smaller (indicating better
model fit) compared to the model with the individually con-
strained path, then “area” has a moderating influence on the
relationship depicted in the path.
The results from testing the moderating effect of “area” on all
paths (pairwise relationships between all EI constructs and out-
come variables) indicate that “area” has a moderating effect on
the relationship between “perceiving emotions” and “understand-
ing emotions” (Chi. Sq.diff = 5.80, dfdiff = 1, sig. p < .05) and
the relationship between “helping others to manage emotions”
and “creating a positive workplace environment” (Chi.
Sq.diff = 3.75, dfdiff = 1, sig. p < .05). L&SCM supervisors in
administration compared with being in frontline operations had
no moderating effect on any other relationship pairs within the
model (Chi. Sq.diff ranged from 2.40 to 0.51 with dfdiff = 1 and
sig. p > .10).
The moderating results suggest that L&SCM operations super-
visors who report a keen ability to perceive emotions (perceived
ability to recognize employee emotions when occurring through
facial and voice signals) report being able to understand emo-
tions (perceived ability to accurately describe, differentiate, and
articulate emotions) to a greater degree (path coefficient=.42,
p = .01, significant) than their L&SCM administrative supervisor
colleagues (path coefficient= .09, p = .52, nonsignificant). The
moderating results in Table 5 further suggest that L&SCM ad-
ministrative supervisors who report the ability to help their sub-
ordinates manage emotions within the workplace (helping them
get over feeling angry, feel better, and work through difficult sit-
uations) report that they create a more positive workplace (reduc-
ing workplace threats and promoting fairness) to a greater degree
(path coefficient=.47, p = .01, significant) than their L&SCM
350
operations supervisor colleagues (path coefficient= .03, p = .82,
nonsignificant).
Post hoc phenomenological interviews
In further exploration of EI within L&SCM, 12 semistructured
interviews were conducted with 10 L&SCM supervisors and 2
subordinates. Interviews are an appropriate method to explore the
phenomenon of EI from the participants’ frame of reference
(Turkulainen et al. 2017). The responses of the interview partici-
pants provide a rich, first-hand perspective of EI in L&SCM
(Van Hoek, Mena, and Gattorna 2014). Also, the utilization of
interviews augments our data collection to include methodologi-
cal pluralism which allows a clearer and more detailed picture of
the research questions being investigated (Sweeney, Grant, and
Mangan 2015). The 12 respondents are more than the 6–10 sug-
gested by Eisenhardt (1989). The 10 supervisor respondents have
on average over 13 years of supervisory experience.
All interviewees indicated that EIS influences an employee’s
perception of the working environment. A common theme was
that differences exist between “old school” supervisory
approaches to directing employees compared to progressive
supervisor-leaders who are more emotionally mindful and per-
ceptive when interacting with each employee. A transportation
service terminal manager for a regional LTL provider reflected
about a workplace situation:
“You can tell employees’ emotions just from seeing them
work on the dock [EI: perceiving emotions].
Previous to me, there was a supervisor who wasn’t aware
of that (employee emotions) so he would give the driver
that is most upset the hardest task and it would just make
that driver more mad [need for EI: helping others manage
emotions].
Not being aware of what the driver was feeling was a big
detriment to that supervisor because that driver gets mad
and breaks something [lack of EI influences poor quality
output].
Something I would try to do is, if we had a driver that
had a bad day out on the road, be aware of it and know
that he is upset and try to get him a more manageable
task when he gets back [EI: understanding emotions influ-
ences helping others manage emotions and leads to fair-
ness in the workplace].”
Another manager with a different regional LTL provider dis-
cussed a time when he visited another terminal within the com-
pany’s network. He was selected to mentor the service terminal
manager.
“Yes, I had an individual that I worked with at another
location, he was more of a hard core dictator vs. a leader.
On my visit I kind of put myself in his role and I worked
with him for a few days just to find how he works and
learning him. We went through this exercise together (me
shadowing his operation) and I immediately noticed how
his emotions controlled the work environment unfortu-
nately for the negative [EI: understanding emotions].
S. B. Keller et al.
We discussed my opinion and talked about him being more
of a leader and understanding his employees’ personalities
and their emotions and then help apply those (the manage-
ment of those emotions) to their work and their tasks [EI:
using emotions to problem solve].
He has come to me afterwards and said how that exercise
has really helped him [EI: helping others manage emo-
tions].”
Perhaps the most serious sentiment pertaining to EIS was
expressed by interviewees who were subordinates to other man-
agers.
The corporate supply chain specialist at the headquarters of a
large global financial institution stated:
“My manager has no leadership skills or emotional intelli-
gence, and doesn’t realize what negative emotions can do
to the fabric of an organization [lack of EI influences the
workplace]”
One port management liaison described his supervisor’s EI
skills:
“The person responsible for writing proposals soliciting
new business was just an absolute jerk. He did not know
how to communicate through proposal presentations and
this resulted in him being terrible to his subordinates. I do
not know how much money he cost the company [lack of
EI influences the workplace and quality].”
In regards to the third research question, all respondents noted
that effectively skilled managers in EI could help achieve reduc-
tions in logistics operational errors. The common thread here
seemed to be that more effective supervisors could perceive emo-
tions in their employees and recognize that some situations could
cause a lack of focus which can be detrimental to the service
offerings of the L&SCM firm. One warehouse manager responsi-
ble for 21 employees noted:
“One employee, he is 21 years old, made a big mistake.
He incorrectly shipped parts to a customer. This mistake
almost cost the employee his job; but, I began to realize
that the employee was going through some things [EI: per-
ceiving emotions].
His father has a brain tumor and the employee was just
really stressed [EI: understanding emotions].
I was able to keep the employee on and provided him
some time away [EI: using emotions to problem solve].
The employee just went 62 straight working days without
an error [EI: help others manage emotions and improve
quality].”
Another supervisor for a dedicated transportation management
company reported that a supervisor’s response to mistakes can
be just as important:
“I could tell this one employee was really upset with them-
selves for making an error [EI: perceiving emotions].
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers
They were disappointed that they made the error and wor-
ried about what might happen to their job [EI: under-
standing emotions].
I told the person that I had made the exact same mistake
before. While the employee was still disappointed that the
error occurred, they responded well. Oftentimes, it is just
about learning from our mistakes [EI: helping others man-
age emotions].”
Another supervisor, in the home medical care and supply dis-
tribution industry, noted that she had an employee who was frus-
trated with the inventory management portion of her job. The
employee scheduled medical professionals to meet with clients in
their homes, and she controlled the medical supply inventory that
the professionals would use during visits with patients. It was
clear to the supervisor that the L&SCM employee placed more
emphasis on scheduling than on inventory management, failing
to recognize the connection between the two. The challenge
arose because other team members were frustrated when they did
not have the equipment or supplies that they needed for their
home visits because of the poor inventory accuracy. The supervi-
sor recognized the employee’s frustration and despair [EI: under-
standing emotions]:
“I discussed with her the reason why she was taking
care of inventory, but I also told her that when this
was a focus for her, she did a really good job of it (in-
ventory management). I gave her positive feedback [EI:
understanding emotions and helping others manage emo-
tions].
That positive feedback made her want to do a better job
and she did. Her performance got better and she ended up
being one of my best employees. She stayed on top of
inventory from that point on. You sense her satisfaction
when talking with her about it [EI: helping others manage
emotions, promoting a non-threatening and positive work-
place, and improving quality output].”
EIS can help to influence employees’ willingness to accept
their mistakes and ultimately improve performance.
Finally, during the interviews, all managers, unequivocally,
mentioned that EIS provides a competitive advantage for firms.
The manager at a national 3PL firm stated it best:
“Having an emotionally strong management and emotion-
ally strong workforce and making it that place where peo-
ple want to work inevitably makes people care about their
jobs and have a better focus on quality [EI leads to posi-
tive workplace].
The cost of quality dramatically decreases, your level of
turnover will decrease, and we certainly use that in any
presentation we provide to our customers and value it as
a strength of the organization [EI leads to improved qual-
ity and retention of employees].”
In this person’s own words, and realizing that 3PLs are reliant
on providing a supply chain service to customers, EIS is part of
the sales pitch when seeking to earn new business.
351
DISCUSSION
If a L&SCM firm builds a supervisory team possessing high
levels of EI, then the firm is likely to excel in finding and keep-
ing the people it needs to operate its portion of increasingly long
and complex supply chains. Managing L&SCM operations is
more complex in many ways than ever before. Managers are
constantly being pressed to reduce operating cost while increas-
ing customer service. There is even concern that as customers
require more and more differentiation, “markets of one” will be
created that will stress the productivity and quality of L&SCM
employees (Singh 2000; Stevens and Johnson 2016). Adding to
the pressure is the need to retain the very best employees within
an environment that is historically challenged with relatively low
wages, long hours, and high employee turnover. Employee turn-
over and a lack of experience in logistics operations are often
associated with negative operational performance, poor decision
making, and negative customer service outcomes (Miller et al.
2017; Castillo et al. 2018; Franke and Forestl 2019). These cir-
cumstances highlight the necessity of hiring and retaining the
very best employees because of the critical nature of employees
within SC operations. One area which can help manage human
resources and secure this vital factor of production is effective
supervision (Opengart et al. 2018).
It is important to examine the application of EIS in the
L&SCM business environment, because it is difficult to separate
service from the service provider. L&SCM supervisors should
develop and deploy all of their skills and abilities in leading ser-
vice-type subordinates. Our empirical results illustrate that EI is
applicable to supervisors of L&SCM because supervising takes
place in dynamic work environments where daily situations are
influenced by the emotional states of supervisors and subordi-
nates. Whereas people experience emotions prior to formulating
rational-level actions, L&SCM supervisors possessing greater EI
should, indeed, make better decisions and formulate more cre-
ative ideas (Mayer and Salovey 1997; Schutte et al. 1998; Jordan
et al. 2002). As shown through our results, L&SCM supervisors
who understand emotions and are highly capable of managing
their own emotions are better skilled at helping their immediate
subordinates manage emotions and work through problems while
on the job. The current research supports previous thoughts
espoused by Van Hoek et al. (2002) that emotional capabilities
are a needed skill of managers within the SC.
Our model successfully accounts for 20 percent (R2 = 0.20) of
the supervisor’s skill at helping others manage emotions. EI can
be a critical tool for managers as they work to retain top talent
in an environment with low unemployment (CSCMP 2019).
Perhaps EI should be viewed as a requisite capability for
L&SCM supervisors in high performing firms. This is because
the true value of a supervisor’s EI is in how he or she can effec-
tively interact with the firm’s human resources. EI assists super-
visors in developing unique solutions to challenging problems
and enables supervisors to motivate employees toward a common
productive goal in different manners.
Research suggests that effectively managing human resources
can become a source of competitive advantage that positively
influences SC performance (Sheehan et al. 2014; Goffnet et al.,
2016). Logistics employees want to feel like they are more than
352
just an input into a business operation. By developing and
deploying supervisors with EI, these supervisors are better
equipped to connect on a higher emotional level with firm
employees and enable them to provide the greatest value to their
organization.
Practical implications
One practical implication is the need for focused supervisory train-
ing of EI by L&SCM firms. The current research questionnaire
asked respondents to list the most recent specific training they
received from their organizations. The largest response category per-
tained to leadership development (32/153); however, only 12
respondents received training on understanding employees, develop-
ing empathy, or EI. While the results suggest a lack of EI training
within L&SCM firms, research shows that it is possible for supervi-
sors to learn EI (Ashkanasy and Daus 2005; Kotsou et al. 2011).
Firms within L&SCM must begin to instill EI into the talent
assessment and acquisition process. While EI may not prevent emo-
tions from occurring, supervisors skilled in EI can interrupt, alter,
and leverage emotions to produce favorable and productive results.
Firms should consider if EIS should become part of their value
proposition process to customers and to new hires. The employee of
a 3PL firm noted specifically that EI of both supervisors and front-
line employees was a selling point to potential customers. The 3PL
tied EI to the cost of quality and connected EI to a reduction of pro-
duct damages and errors. Professionals in our study perceived that
environments with EI are better due to the culture created. People
enjoyed going to work and took greater pride in their jobs.
The results illustrate that EI can provide a competitive advan-
tage to firms and especially L&SCM companies operating within
highly competitive labor markets. We encourage senior leader-
ship within such firms to pursue organization-wide EI by institut-
ing these seven steps:
1 Utilize well-established, valid, and reliable EI assessment mea-
sures to evaluate current L&SCM supervision within the firm.
2 Identify and encourage supervisors who score high in EI capa-
bility. Consider each a potential mentor or training resource
for others in the organization.
3 Identify and train supervisors who score low in EI capability. Uti-
lize existing online video-type scenario learning tools, role-play-
ing in group training settings, and assign EI mentors to each
L&SCM supervisor for ongoing coaching and reinforcement.
4 Initiate a program of EI testing, training, and mentoring
among the subordinate employee workforce. Such initiatives
would share the growth responsibility of EI among trainers,
mentors, supervisors, and subordinates.
5 Offer EI retesting, training, and coaching company-wide to
institutionalize EI into the culture of L&SCM operations and
administration.
6 Utilize well-established, valid, and reliable EI assessment mea-
sures to evaluate potential new hires for all levels. For those
scoring low in EI, but having the preferred technical skills and
qualifications, communicate the importance of EI to the firm
and provide the expectation that formal EI training will be a
part of the new-hire training process.
7 Promote the improvements associated with EI to internal and
external customers.
S. B. Keller et al.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Our study focused on the interpersonal aspects from the per-
spectives of individual supervisors. Research suggests that EI
compared with IQ also may be of greater influence on leading
groups (Goleman 1995; Jordan and Troth 2004; Offermann
et al. 2004). Managing supply chains requires intra- and inter-
firm relationships between individuals and within groups.
Future research should evaluate EI within the context of
managing cross-functional work groups, across SC partners,
and with supervisors and employees from a dyadic and recur-
sive perspective.
The results indicate that a developmental process begins with
acquiring the basic skills of EI, including recognizing and under-
standing emotions, and progresses to the development of a
higher-level competence in the more complex EI dimensions
requiring self-reflection and the integration of managing emo-
tions. Research is needed to demonstrate the “tipping-point” in a
training program where a supervisor’s EI skills reach the next
level of competence. While EI may be learned, it is proposed
that higher levels of EI require higher levels of differentiated
training which may require greater time commitment, practice,
and expertise of trainers.
The items within our study utilized one dimension to measure
“perceiving emotions” and focused on recognizing emotions of
subordinates. Perceiving emotions has the added element of rec-
ognizing emotions in self that, because of low item statistical
internal consistency, was eliminated from our model. Future
research should build upon our model by adding such a dimen-
sion. Furthermore, the nonsignificant relationship between under-
standing emotions and self-managing emotions was unexpected.
In reflecting on our items, “managing emotions in self” should
be broader in scope and include managing emotions as they pro-
gress from one emotion to another or as an emotion begins to
intensify. In addition, positive and happy emotional states may
be viewed as weaknesses in a supervisor. Further research is
needed to evaluate how supervisors may utilize positive as well
as negative emotional states to achieve desirable workplace cul-
tures and effective operational outcomes.
Collaborative research could be undertaken by academics and
practitioners in L&SCM to employ the strengths of quasi-experi-
ments in the field. Experimental comparisons between unique test
and control groups of subordinates and supervisors could be con-
ducted. Results could reveal the real-world L&SCM conditions
within which EI is highly needed and creates the greatest value.
This would reduce the reliance on self-reported measures, as uti-
lized in the current and many studies, and would further enhance
the validity of findings by conducting field experiments within
the context of L&SCM supervisor and employee workplace
interactions.
With today’s spotlight on the mental and emotional well-being
of employees and workplace safety and security, future research
is needed to evaluate how companies may leverage EI to reduce
workplace threats. Our measure of “promoting a non-threatening
work environment” would need further development to assess
the interaction of EI and the reduction of specific workplace
threats and violence. Some of the interviewees within our post
hoc qualitative study felt that supervision skilled in EI could help
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers
to reduce workplace violence, but had no experiences or exam-
ples to share.
EI may impact evolving supervisor/employee relationships
over time and researchers may look to integrate EI with leader–
member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen, Novak and Som-
merkamp 1982; Jordan and Troth 2011). LMX could be a valu-
able framework to explore the longitudinal aspects of EIS and to
see whether EI leads to better long-term working relationships
with specific groupings of L&SCM supervisors and employees.
Murphy and Poist (1991: 2007) provided a longitudinal perspec-
tive on the desired logisticians skill set. The surveys showed
some unique differences generate over time, but Murphy and
Poist (2007, p. 430) indicated “that the contemporary logistician
should be a manager first, and logistician second.” Effective tal-
ent management is required to meet the objectives of L&SCM
firms (Stank et al. 2011; Goffnet et al. 2016). As the current
research reports, EI represents a complex skill set that L&SCM
firms can develop in managers for the benefit of the supervisor,
subordinates, and firm performance goals.
REFERENCES
Akerjordet, K., and Severinsson, E. 2009. “Emotional
Intelligence: Part 1: The Development of Scales and
Psychometric Testing.” Nursing & Health Sciences 11(1):58–
63.
Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D., and Chamorro-Premuzic,
T. 2015. “The Engageable Personality: Personality and Trait
EI as Predictors of Work Engagement.” Personality and
Individual Differences 73(January):44–49.
Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. 1988. “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-
Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3):411–423.
Arkan, O., Gaspar, J. P., Gunia, B., Kennedy, J. A., Methasani,
R., Nagpal, M., . . . & Skowronek, S. 2019. Theoretical and
Empirical Insights into Ethical Decision Making: The Role of
the Social Context. In Academy of Management Proceedings
Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Ashkanasy, N.M., and Daus, C.S. 2005. “Rumors of the Death
of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior Are
Vastly Exaggerated.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26
(4):441–452.
Autry, C.W., and Daugherty, P.J. 2003. “Warehouse Operations
Employees: Linking Person-Organization Fit, Job Satisfaction,
and Coping Responses.” Journal of Business Logistics 24
(1):171–197.
Bar-On, R. 2004. “The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory
(EQ-i): Rationale, Description and Summary of Psychometric
Properties”. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional
intelligence: Common ground and controversy (p. 115–145).
Nova Science Publishers.
Bradberry, T., and Greaves, J. 2009. Emotional Intelligence 2.0.
San Diego, CA: Talent Smart.
Callahan, H. 2016. “Emotional Intelligence: A Leader’s Impact
on Productivity in a Distribution Environment.” Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations/19 .
Cantor, D.E. 2016. “Maximizing the Potential of Contemporary
Workplace Monitoring: Techno-Cultural Developments,
353
Transactive Memory, and Management Planning.” Journal of
Business Logistics 37(1):18–25.
Castillo, V.E., Bell, J.E., Rose, W.J., and Rodrigues, A.M. 2018.
“Crowdsourcing Last Mile Delivery: Strategic Implications
and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Business
Logistics 39(1):7–25.
Cavallaro, F. 2018. “Automation in Manufacturing Will Create
More, Better Paying Jobs.” Fronetics. April 4. Accessed 07/
22/2019.
Colbert, E.M. 2012. “The Impact of Leadership on Employee
Engagement at a Chemical Manufacturing Company in the
United States.” ProQuest. AAI3537415:https://
repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3537415. https://re
pository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3537415.
Crowne, D.P., and Marlowe, D. 1960. “A New Scale of Social
Desirability Independent of Psychopathology.” Journal of
Consulting Psychology 24(4):349–354.
CSCMP. 2019. 30th State of Logistics Report. Council of
Supply Chain Management Professionals. CSCMP.org.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study
Research.” Academy of Management Review 14(4):532–550.
Ellinger, A.E., Ellinger, A.D., and Keller, S.B. 2005.
“Supervisory Coaching in a Logistics Context.” International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35
(9):620–636.
Ellinger, A.E., Keller, S.B., and Basß, A.B.E. 2010. “The
Empowerment of Frontline Service Staff in 3PL Companies.”
Journal of Business Logistics 31(1):79–98.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1):39–50.
Franke, H., and Foerstl, K. 2019-Forthcoming. “Goals, Conflict,
Politics, and Performance of Cross-Functional Sourcing
Teams—Results from a Social Team Experiment.” Journal of
Business Logistics.
Gardner, T.M. 2005. “Interfirm Competition for Human
Resources: Evidence from the Software Industry.” Academy
of Management Journal 48(2):237–256.
Gibson, B.J. 2019. “6 Tips for Attracting (and Keeping)
Distribution Labor.” CSCMP’s Supply Chain Quarterly Q 4
(2019):46–48.
Goffnett, S.P., Williams, Z., Gibson, B.J., and Garver, M.S.
2016. “Identifying Critical Skills for Logistics Professionals:
Assessing Skill Importance, Capability, and Availability.”
Journal of Transportation Management 27(1):45–61.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter
More than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. 2013. “The Focused Leader: How Effective
Executives Direct Their Own – and Their Organizations’
Attention.” Harvard Business Review. 91(12):50–60.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R.E., and McKee, A. 2002. The New
Leaders: Transforming the Art of Leadership into the Science
of Results. London: Little Brown.
Goodman, P.S.“The Robots Are Coming, and Sweden Is Fine”.
New York Times, December 27, 2017. Accessed 07/20/2019.
Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., and Sommerkamp, P. 1982. “The
Effects of Leader-Member Exchange and Job Design on
Productivity and Job Satisfaction: Testing a Dual Attachment
354
Model.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
30(1):109–31.
Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., H€artel, C.E.J., and Hooper, G.S.
2002. “Workgroup Emotional Intelligence: Scale
Development and Relationship to Team Process Effectiveness
and Goal Focus.” Human Resource Management Review 12
(2):195–214.
Jordan, P.J., and Troth, A.C. 2004. “Managing Emotions during
Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict
Resolution.” Human Performance 17(2):195–218.
Jordan, P., and Troth, A. 2011. “Emotional Intelligence and
Leader Member Exchange: The Relationship with Employee
Turnover Intentions and Job Satisfaction.” Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 32(3):260–280.
Kaufmann, L., and Wagner, C.M. 2017. “Affective Diversity and
Emotional Intelligence in Cross-Functional Sourcing Teams.”
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 23(1):5–16.
Keller, S.B. 2002. “Internal Relationship Marketing: A Key to
Enhanced Supply Chain Relationships.” International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 32(8):649–
668.
Keller, S.B., Hochard, K., Rudolph, T., and Boden, M. 2013. “A
Compendium of Multi-item Scales Utilized in Logistics
Research (2001–10): Progress Achieved Since Publication of
the 1973–2000 Compendium.” Journal of Business Logistics
34(2):85–93.
Keller, S.B., Lynch, D.F., Ellinger, A.E., Ozment, J., and
Calantone, R. 2006. “The Impact of Internal Marketing
Efforts in Distribution Service Operations.” Journal of
Business Logistics 27(1):109–137.
Keller, S.B., Voss, M.D., and Ozment, J. 2010. “A Step toward
Defining a Customer-Centric Taxonomy for Managing
Logistics Personnel.” Journal of Business Logistics 31
(2):195–214.
Kotsou, I., Nelis, D., Gregoire, J., and Mikolajczak, M. 2011.
“Emotional Plasticity: Conditions and Effects of Improving
Emotional Competence in Adulthood.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 96(4):827–839.
Kotzab, H., Teller, C., Bourlakis, M., and W€ unsche, S. 2018.
“Key Competences of Logistics and SCM Professionals – the
Lifelong Learning Perspective.” Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 23(1):50–64.
Lane, A.M., Meyer, B.B., Devonport, T.J., Davies, K.A.,
Thelwell, R., Gill, G.S., Diehl, C.D., Wilson, M., and
Weston, N. 2009. “Validity of the Emotional Intelligence
Scale for Use in Sport.” Journal of Sports Science &
Medicine 8(2):289–295.
LeMay, S.A., Carr, J.C., Periatt, J.A., and McMahon, R.D. Jr.
1999. The Growth and Development of Logistics Personnel.
Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management.
Lopes, P.N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., and Salovey, P.
2006. “Evidence that Emotional Intelligence Is Related to Job
Performance and Affect and Attitudes at Work.” Psicothema
18(Supplement):132–138.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., and Salovey, P. 1999. “Emotional
Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence.”
Intelligence 27(4):267–298.
Mayer, J., and Salovey, P. 1997. "What is Emotional
Intelligence." In Emotional Development and Emotional
S. B. Keller et al.
Intelligence: Educational Implications, edited by Salovey P.
and D. Sluyter. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D.R. 2002. Mayer Salovey
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User’s
Manual. Toronto: MHS Publishers.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., and Sitarenios, G. 2003.
“Measuring Emotional Intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.”
Emotion 3(1):97–105.
Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., and Gond, J.P. 2003.
“L’intelligence emotionnelle en questions (Emotional
Intelligence in Question).” La Revue des Sciences de Gestion:
Direction et Gestion 38(201–202):83–98.
Mikolajczak, M. 2009. “Going Beyond the Ability-Trait Debate:
The Three-Level Model of Emotional Intelligence.” E-Journal
of Applied Psychology 5(2):25–31.
Miller, J.W., Saldanha, J.P., Rungtusanatham, M., and
Knemeyer, M. 2017. “How Does Driver Turnover Affect
Motor Carrier Safety Performance and What Can Managers
Do About it?” Journal of Business Logistics 38(3):197–216.
Murphy, P., and Poist, R. 1991a. “Skill Requirements of Senior-
Level Logisticians: Practitioner Perspectives.” International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 21
(3):3–14.
Murphy, P., and Poist, R. 1991b. “Skill Requirements of Senior-
Level Logistics Executives: An Empirical Assessment.”
Journal of Business Logistics 12(2):73–94.
Murphy, P., and Poist, R. 1993. “In Search of Warehouse
Excellence: A Multivariate Analysis of HRM Practices.”
Journal of Business Logistics 14(2):145–64.
Murphy, P., and Poist, R. 2006. “Skill Requirements of
Contemporary Senior- and Entry-Level Logistics Managers: A
Comparative Analysis.” Transportation Journal 45(3):46–60.
Murphy, P., and Poist, R. 2007. “Skill Requirements of Senior-
Level Logistics Executives: A Longitudinal Assessment.”
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12
(6):423–31.
Offermann, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Seal, C., and
Sass, M. 2004. “The Relative Contribution of Emotional
Competence and Cognitive Ability to Individual and Team
Performance.” Human Performance 17(2):219–243.
Opengart, R., Ralston, P.M., and LeMay, S. 2018. “Labor
Markets: Preventing Rivalry and Myopia through HRM.”
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance 5(4):346–360.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., and Podsakoff,
N.P.. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88
(5):879–903.
Pradhan, R.K., Jena, L.K., and Singh, S.K. 2017. “Examining
the Role of Emotional Intelligence between Organizational
Learning and Adaptive Performance in Indian Manufacturing
Industries.” Journal of Workplace Learning 29(3):235–247.
Rana, S., Mahavidyalaya, K., Rathore, D., and Chadha, N.K.
2017. “Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace.” Indian
Journal of Positive Psychology 8(2):162–165.
Salovey, P., and Grewal, D. 2005. “The Science of Emotional
Intelligence.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 14
(6):281–285.
Emotionally Intelligent SC Managers
Salovey, P., and Mayer, J.D. 1990. “Emotional Intelligence.”
Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9(3):185–211.
Sarkar, S. 2011. “A Study on Employee Engagement at
Manufacturing Industries.” Global Management Review 5
(3):62–72.
Schumacher, L., Wheeler, J.V., and Carr, A.S. 2009. “The
Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Buyer’s
Performance.” The Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing 24(3–4):269–277.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J.,
Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., and Dornheim, L. 1998.
“Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional
Intelligence.” Personality and Individual Differences 25
(2):167–177.
Sheehan, P.M., Ellinger, A.E., and Ellinger, A.D. 2014.
“Leveraging Human Resource Development Expertise to
Improve Supply Chain Managers’ Skills and Competencies.”
European Journal of Training and Development 38(1/2):118–
135.
Singh, J. 2000. “Performance Productivity and Quality of
Frontline Employees in Service Organizations.” Journal of
Marketing 64(2):15–34.
Stank, T.P., Dittmann, J.P., and Autry, C.W. 2011. “The New
Supply Chain Agenda: A Synopsis and Directions for Future
Research.” International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 41(10):940–955.
Stevens, G., and Johnson, M. 2016. “Integrating the Supply
Chain . . . 25 Years on.” International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 46(1):19–42.
Stewart, S. 2018. “Examining the Relationships between Front
Line Supervisors and Employees’ Emotional Intelligence,
Engagement, and Job Satisfaction within the Manufacturing
Industry.” Dissertations. https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/
6371 .
Sweeney, E., ed. 2013. The People Dimension in Logistics and
Supply Chain Management – Its Role and Importance. Edited
by R. Passaro and A. Thomas, SCM Perspectives, Issues and
Cases. Milan, IT: McGraw-Hill.
Sweeney, E., Grant, D., and Mangan, D. 2015. “The
Implementation of Supply Chain Management Theory in
Practice: An Empirical Investigation.” Supply Chain
Management 20(1):56–70.
Tokar, T. 2010. “Behavioural Research in Logistics and Supply
Chain Management.” The International Journal of Logistics
Management 21(1):89–103.
Turkulainen, V., Roh, J., Whipple, J.M., and Swink, M. 2017.
“Managing Internal Supply Chain Integration: Integration
Mechanisms and Requirements.” Journal of Business
Logistics 38(4):290–309.
Van Hoek, R.I., Chatham, R., and Wilding, R. 2002. “Managers
in Supply Chain Management, the Critical Dimension.”
355
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 7
(3):119–125.
Van Hoek, R., Mena, C., and Gattorna, J. 2014. “Mind the
Gaps: Exploring How Value-Creation Perceptions Across the
Internal Triad Influence Identity and Impact.” Journal of
Business Logistics 35(1):44–51.
Van Hoek, R.I., and Mitchell, A.J. 2006. “The Challenge of
Internal Misalignment.” International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications 9(3):269–281.
Van Hoek, R.I., Wagner, B., and Sohal, A.S. 2013. “Developing
Competencies of Supply Chain Professionals in Australia:
Collaboration between Businesses, Universities and Industry
Associations.” Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 18(4):429–439.
Van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M.R., and George,
G. 2015. “From the Editors: Information, Attention, and
Decision Making.” Academy of Management Journal 58
(3):649–657.
Van Rooy, D.L., and Viswesvaran, C. 2004. “Emotional
Intelligence: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Predictive
Validity and Nomological Net.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 65(1):71–95.
SHORT BIOGRAPHIES
Scott B. Keller is Professor and Director of the Center for
SCM Excellence at the University of West Florida. He received
his Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas. Dr. Keller’s research
interests include managerial leadership and customer orientation
in logistics operations. Along with his brother, he co-authored
The Definitive Guide to Warehousing. He is Associate Editor for
the Journal of Business Logistics and former editor of Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management.
Peter M. Ralston is Assistant Professor of Supply Chain
Management at Iowa State University. His research centers
around supply chain relationships with supply chain collaboration
and human resources in supply chain management being prime
interests. Dr. Ralston spent nearly 6 years in the cosmetics and
office products industries as a customer specialist and distribution
center manager before pursuing his Ph.D.
Stephen A. LeMay is Associate Professor of Marketing and
Logistics at the University of West Florida and Professor Emeri-
tus of Marketing and Logistics at Mississippi State University.
His research interests include supply chain ethics, supply chain
design and structure, security, and logistics human resources. He
holds a doctorate and an MBA from the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, and an undergraduate degree in journalism from
Northwestern University.
Copyright of Journal of Business Logistics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.