Human Performance The Relationship Between

This article was downloaded by: [University of the West Indies] On: 11 July 2014, At: 11:08 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Performance Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhup20

The Relationship Between Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence and Contextual Performance and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction a

a

Dion Greenidge , Dwayne Devonish & Philmore Alleyne

a

a

The University of the West Indies Published online: 10 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Dion Greenidge, Dwayne Devonish & Philmore Alleyne (2014) The Relationship Between Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence and Contextual Performance and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction, Human Performance, 27:3, 225-242 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.913591

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Human Performance, 27:225–242, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0895-9285 print/1532-7043 online DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2014.913591

Downloaded by [University of the West Indies] at 11:08 11 July 2014

The Relationship Between Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence and Contextual Performance and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction Dion Greenidge, Dwayne Devonish, and Philmore Alleyne The University of the West Indies

This article investigated the mediating role of job satisfaction between four ability-based emotional intelligence (EI) dimensions and contextual performance and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and controlled for Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness. Based on data collected from 222 employees, results supported the hypothesized partial mediation model. Job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between (a) the ability-based EI dimension, regulation of emotion, and contextual performance, and CWB-I and CWB-O; (b) the ability-based EI dimension, selfemotion appraisal, and CWB-I and CWB-O; (c) the ability-based EI dimension, use of emotion and contextual performance; and (d) between Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness and contextual performance and CWBs. Implications, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Recently, a growing body of research has suggested that emotional intelligence (EI) is important for work settings (e.g., George, 2000; Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006; Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003; Sy, Tram, & O’Hara, 2006; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). Specifically, researchers purported that emotionally intelligent employees are more satisfied with their jobs and are better performers than their counterparts (Carmeli, 2003; Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). However, empirical evidence in the literature for the effect of EI on work-related outcomes is still limited (e.g., Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Day & Carroll, 2004; Ziedner, Mathews, & Roberts, 2004). Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is no study testing the extent to which job attitudes such as job satisfaction may mediate the effect of EI on different job performance dimensions such as contextual performance and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Researchers have called for the development of models of work behavior that postulate how individual difference variables may be linked to dimensions of job performance so as to advance the science of personnel selection (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Viswesvaren & Ones, 2000). As such, the major purpose of this study is to examine the role of job satisfaction on the relationships between EI and contextual performance and CWBs. Moreover, the study seeks to control for the effects Correspondence should be sent to Dion Greenidge, The University of the West Indies, Department of Management Studies, Cave Hill Campus, P.O. Box 64, Bridgetown, Barbados. E-mail: [email protected]

226

GREENIDGE, DEVONISH, ALLEYNE

of Big Five personality traits on these performance behaviors. The next section of this article presents a discussion of relevant literature and evidence behind the relationships explored here and gives a clear and sound rationale for their exploration.


DEFINING EI Salovey and Mayer (1990) were among the first to coin the term “emotional intelligence” to represent those set of interrelated abilities possessed by an individual to validly reason with emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought. Within the EI literature, there are ensuing debates over its conceptualization and measurement. There are those who adhere to a theoretical model where EI consists of a set of emotional-processing skills and abilities (e.g., Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). On the other hand, there are those who suggest that EI encompasses a variety of emotional skills and abilities, including aspects of personality, motivational factors, and affective dispositions (e.g., Goleman, 1995). The former are ability-based models (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000), and the latter are mixed or trait-based models (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). In this study, we adopted the ability-based EI model, and thus defined EI as a set of interrelated skills concerning “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10). Mayer and Salovey (1997) proposed a four dimension ability-based EI model that follows sequentially from the lowest to the highest. The first and lowest dimension, perception of emotion, refers to the individual’s ability to accurately identify and perceive emotions in self and others. The second dimension, the use of emotion to facilitate thought, refers to the individual’s ability to generate and use emotions in productive ways, as an aid to judgment and memory. New emotions can also be generated at this stage. The third dimension, understanding and analyzing emotion, refers to the individual’s ability to label and understand deep and complex emotions, and how these emotions change, combine, and progress. The fourth and highest dimension, reflective regulation of emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth, refers to an individual’s ability to be open to both unpleasant and pleasant emotions, monitor their emotions and those of others reflectively. It also involves managing emotions in oneself and others by moderating negative emotions and enhancing positive emotions without exaggerating or minimizing their importance.

EI, JOB SATISFACTION, AND JOB PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS In the current study, our main hypothesis is that job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between (a) EI and contextual performance and (b) EI and CWB. It is plausible to expect that EI can affect contextual performance and CWBs in one of two ways—directly or indirectly. First, the theoretical propositions underlying EI suggest that employees are able to modulate their emotions to facilitate performance, thus suggesting that there is a direct link between EI


MEDIATING EFFECTS OF JOB SATISFACTION

227

and contextual performance and CWBs. As such, emotional regulation seems to be a reasonable theoretical basis for the proposed link between EI and contextual performance and CWB. Some researchers posited that emotional regulation is a central dimension of EI that influences job performance (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010). Joseph and Newman (2010) purported that “within an organizational setting, emotion regulation is theoretically related to job performance through the induction of affective states that are beneficial to job performance” (p. 56). Two major categories of emotional regulation strategies are antecedent-focused regulation strategies and response-focused regulation strategies. According to Gross (2002), antecedent-focused regulation strategies “refer to things we do before the emotion response tendencies have become fully activated and have changed our behavior and peripheral physiological responding” (p. 282). One example of this strategy is situation selection where an individual actively seeks to avoid certain situations due to their likely emotional impact. On the other hand, response-focused regulation strategies are applied after the emotion has been activated and all response tendencies have been produced. An example of this strategy is suppression where an individual seeks to suppress or hide one’s anxiety or emotional distress from other people (Gross, 2002). Employees with high EI can make effective use of antecedent-focused regulation strategies to produce positive emotion and promote emotional and intellectual growth. In contrast, low EI individuals ineffectively use antecedent-focused and response-focused emotion regulation strategies and have slower emotional growth (Wong & Law, 2002). Moreover, high-ability EI employees can make effective use of emotion regulation mechanisms to foster positive expectation for social interactions, and thus perform citizenship behaviors (Wong & Law, 2002). Furthermore, employees high on EI are able to identify and respond appropriately to the emotions of coworkers, customers, and superiors than low EI employees (Day & Carroll, 2004), as they can easily change from negative to positive moods (Abraham, 1999). These individuals are also better able to provide the needed support and encouragement for those who are perceived to be tensed or frustrated at work. In addition, employees with high EI are able to understand organizational norms and rules and exhibit a high level of sensitivity toward their work environment (Carmeli & Josman, 2006). Hence, emotionally intelligent employees are more likely to exhibit altruistic, compliant, and courteous behaviors that benefit the overall organization. Although research on the relationship between EI and contextual performance is limited, some empirical evidence does exist in the literature for this relationship. Researchers (Carmeli, 2003; Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Lopes et al., 2006) have found EI to be a significant predictor of citizenship behaviors, which largely resemble contextual performance behaviors. In terms of CWB, Quebbeman and Rozell (2002) theorized that employees with low EI are less able to constrain negative emotions triggered by negative work experiences and thus are more likely to react in aggressive and other inappropriate ways that may produce harm to the organization or other employees in the workplace. On the contrary, high EI employees are better able to respond to negative work experiences in more productive ways that are indicative of their ability to regulate and manage their own emotions. Empirical evidence (Desphande, Joseph, & Shu, 2005; Rubin, 1999; Trinidad & Johnson, 2002) has revealed that employees with low EI were more likely to engage in CWB and associated deviant behaviors than high EI employees. Second, one can argue that EI can affect contextual performance and CWBs indirectly through its effect on job satisfaction, as employees with high EI are likely to use specific emotion-focused regulation strategies that contribute positively to job satisfaction. Employees with high EI are more likely to exhibit higher levels of job satisfaction than low EI employees. This positive


228


relationship is evident because employees with high EI are better able to cope with negative experiences and emotions, respond appropriately to a variety of work-related incidents, and enjoy better mental and emotional health (Sy et al., 2006). Hence, emotionally intelligent employees are less likely to experience strong negative emotions and high work stress and are more likely to respond emotionally positive to even the most undesirable situations. A number of prior studies have observed a positive relationship between EI and job satisfaction (Carmeli, 2003; Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008; Lopes et al., 2006; Sy et al., 2006; Wong & Law, 2002). In turn, job satisfaction has been shown to have direct effects on contextual performance and CWB. Previous meta-analyses and studies (Edwards, Bell, Arthur, & Decuir, 2008; Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Organ & Ryan, 1995) have demonstrated a positive relationship between job satisfaction and citizenship behaviors. In terms of CWB, much empirical evidence (Dalal, 2005; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006) revealed that job satisfaction inversely and significantly predicted various measures of deviant behavior as well as counterproductive work behaviors targeted at both the individual and organization (Mount et al., 2006). Baron and Kenny (1986) outlined three conditions for testing mediation: (a) the predictor (ability-based EI, in our study) should be related to the criterion variable (contextual performance and CWBs), (b) the predictor variable should be related to the mediator (job satisfaction), and (c) the mediator should be related to the criterion variable (contextual performance and CWBs). If both the predictor variable (ability-based EI) and the mediating variable (job satisfaction) significantly predict contextual performance and CWBs, there is evidence of partial mediation in each case. Our preceding discussion of the literature provides justification for mediation in this study: EI is significantly related to contextual performance and CWB, EI is significantly related to job satisfaction, and job satisfaction is significantly related to contextual performance and CWBs. Thus, we propose that EI influences contextual performance and CWBs, in part, through job satisfaction.

ROLE OF PERSONALITY In this study, we controlled for personality traits, specifically the FFM or Big Five personality traits. There is substantial meta-analytic evidence showing meaningful relations between the FFM personality traits and job satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and CWBs (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowildo, 2001; Dalal, 2005; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Moreover, there is relatively little research to support the notion that EI measures are largely independent of the FFM traits. Furthermore, the inclusion of FFM personality traits ensured that our model is not underspecified. In addition, Mount et al. (2006) found empirical support for the partial mediation of job satisfaction in the relationships between Agreeableness and both CWB directed toward the organization (CWB-O) and CWB directed toward individuals in the organization (CWB-I). Moreover, they found weak mediating effects whereby Conscientiousness related to both CWB-O and CWB-I through its relationship to job satisfaction. Also, Ilies et al. (2009), using metaanalytic path analysis, tested the mediating effects of job satisfaction on the relationships between Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and found that the two personality traits had both direct and indirect effects through job satisfaction on



229

overall OCB (overall OCB is conceptually and operationally similar to contextual performance). Although there was no support for job satisfaction as a partial mediating variable (or full mediator) in the relationship between Emotional Stability and performance behaviors, this personality factor was found to be significantly correlated with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002) and CWBs (Berry et al., 2007) in previous research. Moreover, Mount et al. argued that research testing partial mediation models should seek to examine models that are most parsimonious, and theoretically sound, and for which empirical support is evident. Similar to the approach used by Mount et al. and in keeping with their arguments, we included Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness as personality predictor variables in the partial mediation model of this research. Overall, there have been a number of studies and meta-analyses that have demonstrated significant empirical support for the significant predictive effects of these three personality factors on OCBs and CWBs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount et al., 2006; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Salgado, 2002).

PROPOSED MODELS AND HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS OF PRESENT STUDY Based on theory, deductive reasoning, and previous empirical research, we put forward a hypothesized partial mediation model that contains direct paths from personality variables (Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness), and the four dimensions of EI to contextual performance, CWBs (CWB-O and CWB-I) and job satisfaction, and paths from job satisfaction to contextual performance and both CWB-O and CWB-I. In this study, we tested our proposed partial mediation model against two alternative models (a full mediation model and a direct effects model) to determine which one best explains the relationships among the study’s variables. In the full mediation model, the four EI dimensions, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness have paths to job satisfaction, and job satisfaction has paths to CWB-O, CWB-I, and contextual performance. In the direct effects model, the four EI dimensions, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and job satisfaction have direct paths to CWB-O, CWB-I, and contextual performance. Within the models, the four dimensions of EI (rather than the composite EI factor) were used consistent with prior arguments on the multidimensional nature of EI (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). These dimensions are fully described in a later section. Overall, the main purpose of this research was to test which of the three models is the most plausible explanatory model for explaining the job performance criteria.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY This study is significant in a number of ways. As stated previously, little is still known about the effects of EI (especially its differential effects) on various job performance criteria, and even less is known about how work attitudes such as job satisfaction intervene in this relationship. Hence, the study contributes to this scant body of knowledge and theory on the relationship between EI and job performance outcomes and the role that job satisfaction plays in the EI-performance relationship. Moreover, researchers have argued that the four dimensions of ability-based EI proposed


230


by Mayer and Salovey (1997) might be differently related to various job performance criteria and have called for studies investigating how the four specific dimensions of EI are differently related to work outcomes (e.g., Carmeli & Josman, 2006). Second, the examination of the mediating influences will seek to better establish the relevant work-related or psychological mechanisms that explain how exactly EI might impact job performance. For example, does EI impact job performance directly (independent of the influence of work attitudes such as one’s satisfaction with the job) or does this variable indirectly impact performance through its effect on job satisfaction? These questions are particularly important in light of theoretical concerns. For example, the affective events theory (AET) suggests that dispositional events, outside of contextual work factors, have the potential to influence work attitudes and job performance (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In particular, the theory notes that affective or attitudinal reactions such as job satisfaction, positive and negative moods or emotions, and perceptions of fairness mediate or partially mediate the relationship between dispositional influences (e.g., personality traits) and employee job behaviors or performance. Hence, an understanding of the role of job satisfaction as a partial mediator in the relationship between EI and job performance may help in evaluating the significance and validity of theoretical claims and assumptions underlying AET and other associated models. Moreover, dispositional influences such as personality and EI are likely to influence the ways in which “events” at work influence affective states (i.e., job satisfaction), which, in turn, influence job performance. As a result, it is important that researchers and theorists seek to establish how various dispositional traits such as EI and other personality characteristics are likely to shape employees’ appraisals of diverse work environments and experiences, their affective responses to these appraisals, and subsequent behavioral reactions. Hence, answers to such questions can aid substantially in our understanding of the complex nature of the EI–performance relationship and may contribute more to our appreciation of the role of work attitudes such as job satisfaction in explaining work performance. The partial mediation hypothesis also gives us a better understanding of the role of job satisfaction, one of the most studied organizational variables, in explaining some variation in the EI–performance relationship. Such research also opens up the door for researchers to consider and assess other possible attitudinal or dispositional mediating variables, outside of job satisfaction (e.g., organizational commitment or self-esteem), to better understand the link between EI and job performance. Third, practitioners can benefit from an understanding of the role that job satisfaction plays in the EI–job performance relationship. If EI positively impacts job satisfaction, which in turn plays a partial role in influencing job performance, then job satisfaction is one of the mechanisms through which EI is likely to foster supportive and productive job behaviors among employees. This essentially means that efforts to recruit, select, train, and retain employees with high EI will also seek to ensure that there are satisfied employees who demonstrate high levels of job performance.

METHOD Participants and Procedure The study sampled 222 employees across five organizations from the manufacturing, financial, and services private sector industries and the public sector in the English-speaking Caribbean.



231

Of the participants, 101 (45.5%) were male and 121 (54.5%) were female. The average age for the employees was 36 years, with ages ranging from 17 to 64 years. The majority of the sample was nonmanual workers (51.6%), with 38.2% manual workers and 10.2% in a managerial/supervisory position. Of the employees providing peer-report ratings, 94 (42.3%) were male and 128 (57.7%) were female. The average age was 32 years (SD = 7.73). Two survey instruments—a self-report questionnaire and a peer or coworker rating measure of CWBs and contextual performance—and return envelopes were distributed to participants between July and August 2008. The self-report survey instrument was administered to employees on worksite. Employees were briefed by the researcher on the purpose of the study and the procedure for completing the survey. During the briefing, the researcher stressed that participation in the study was voluntary. Employees were told that if they chose to participate in the study, a peer or coworker rating of their CWBs and contextual performance was required and that they could choose the peer or coworker. To preserve confidentiality and anonymity, employees were told that they should write a coded number consisting of seven digits in the designated areas provided on the three surveys. Employees then completed the self-report survey instrument during the session, which lasted for 30 to 45 min. Coworkers who completed the rating instruments returned them within 2 days of the questionnaire distribution, in a sealed envelope, to a box placed in the Human Resources Department of the chosen organizations. Of the 500 distributed instruments, 222 usable surveys (44.4%) were returned. Measures Emotional intelligence. The Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale, developed by Wong and Law (2002), was used to measure EI based on the ability model of EI. This measure is consistent with Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) definition of EI. Previous studies support the scale’s factor structure, internal consistency, convergent, and discriminate validity (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). Moreover, this measure has been shown to measure a construct that is distinct from Big Five personality and has shown convergent validity with other related EI measures (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). The scale consists of four dimensions with four items in each dimension. The SEA dimension (Self-Emotional Appraisal) relates to individuals’ ability to understand and express their emotions. The OEA dimension (Others’ Emotional Appraisal) relates to individuals’ ability to perceive and understand the emotions of others. The ROE dimension (Regulation of Emotion) relates to individuals’ ability to regulate their own emotions. The UOE dimension (Use of Emotion) relates to individuals’ ability to make use of their own emotions by directing them toward constructive activities to facilitate performance. Participants responded to each item using a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Law, Wong, & Song (2004) reported Cronbach’s alpha for each scale as follows: SEA (.78), OEA (.76), ROE (.84), and UOE (.89). High scores represent high-ability emotional intelligence. The coefficient alpha for an overall ability EI measure was .97 in the current study. Job satisfaction. The short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction questionnaire (MSQ) by Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1967) was used to measure job satisfaction. The MSQ is a 20-item scale for assessing Overall Job Satisfaction. Participants respond to each item on a 5point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Cook, Hepworth,

232



Wall, and Warr (1981) reported internal reliabilities for the MSQ short form overall job satisfaction scale for a number of samples ranging from .87 to .92. High scores represent high levels of overall job satisfaction. The coefficient alpha for overall job satisfaction was .86 in the current study. CWB. The 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Check (CWB-C) developed by Spector et al. (2006) was used to measure CWB. The scale assesses employee intentional behaviors that harm organizations and people in organizations. The CWB-C scale might be divided into two dimensions of CWB directed toward the organization (CWB-O) and CWB directed toward individuals in the organization (CWB-I). CWB-O consists of 21 items, whereas CWB-I consists of 22 items. The CWB-C Scale could also be divided into five dimensions—abuse (18 items), production deviance (three items), sabotage (three items), theft (five items), and withdrawal (four items). Spector et al. (2006) reported a mean Cronbach’s alpha for each scale as follows: CWBTotal (.87), CWB-O (.84), CWB-I (.85), abuse (.81), production deviance (.61), sabotage (.42), theft (.58), and withdrawal (.63). In this study, the two dimensional scheme of CWB was used: CWB-I and CWB-O, given empirical support obtained by preliminary CFAs, which demonstrated that this two-factor structure was superior in this research. Peers or coworkers responded to each item by choosing one of five response choices ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every day). High scores indicate high counterproductive behaviors. In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas for CWB-O and CWB-I were .96 and .94, respectively. Contextual performance. The 27-item Citizenship Performance Scale by Coleman and Borman (2000), which depicts citizenship behaviors, was used to measure contextual performance. Colman and Borman conducted factor analyses, multidimensional scaling analyses, and cluster analyses of the 27 citizenship behaviors, and this resulted in the emergence of a consistent three-factor taxonomy of citizenship performance. The three dimensions are personal support, organizational support, and conscientious initiative. Preliminary CFAs were run to determine the best factor structure to use for the current study, and the results confirmed that an overall onefactor model of contextual performance was the most plausible model against other competing multidimensional models of contextual performance. Peers or coworkers responded to each item on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (very often). High scores on this scale indicate high contextual performance. The contextual performance measure received a reliability estimate of .92 in the current study. Personality. The Big Five personality dimensions of Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness were each measured by 10-item versions of each scale of Goldberg’s (1999) Big Five factor markers in the International Item Pool. The scale was developed from the lexically approach which derived the Big Five phenotypic model of personality attributes (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996). The construct validity of this scale has been demonstrated in terms of its relationship with the corresponding scales in other five factor measures, such as the NEO (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). The reliability estimates for the three personality dimensions were above .70 in the current study.


233

RESULTS


Confirmatory Factor Analyses AMOS 18 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using Maximum Likelihood estimation to assess the factor structure of measures utilized in the study. Several fit indices were used in the assessment of model fit: chi-square statistic—a nonsignificant p value indicates good fit to the data (Kelloway, 1998); the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)—values less than 0.05 indicate good fit and values as high as 0.08 indicate reasonable fit (Byrne, 2006); standardized root square mean residual (SRMR)—small values of 0.05 or less reflect good fit (Byrne, 2006); comparative fit index (CFI)—values close to 0.90 indicate good fit (Bentler, 1990); and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI)—values of 0.90 or higher indicate adequate fit (Kelloway, 1998). The fit indices for the CFAs of measures used in this study are as follows: the four-factor Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale by Wong and Law (2002) used to assess the four ability EI subscales, χ 2 (104) = 881.11, p < .001; RMSEA = .086, 90% CI [.084 - .089], SRMR = .05 330 CFI = .94, GFI = .95; Weiss et al.’s (1967) MSQ short-form measure of overall job satisfaction, χ 2 (181) = 1631.2, p < .001; RMSEA = .089, 90% CI [.088 - .093], SRMR = .05 CFI = .93, GFI = .95; two-factor model of CWB using Spector et al.’s (2006) CWB-C scale, χ 2 (1126) = 2141.8, p < .001; RMSEA = .068, 90% CI [.067 - .07], SRMR = .03, CFI = .96, GFI = .97; one-factor model of contextual performance using Coleman and Borman’s (2000) Citizenship Performance Scale, χ 2 (393) = 970.34, p < .001; RMSEA = .07, 90% CI [.068 - .071], SRMR = .05, CFI = .96, GFI = .97; and a three-factor model using the items from the Big Five 50 factor markers by Goldberg (1999) that measured Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, χ 2 (402) = 811.72, p < .001; RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.059 - .064], SRMR = .05, CFI = .97, GFI = .97. Although, the chi-square analysis for all of the models indicated poor fit to data, the other metrics showed reasonable and good fit. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and correlations among the study’s variables. The four Ability EI subscales, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness were significantly and negatively correlated with CWB-O and CWB-I and significantly and positively associated with contextual performance and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was significantly and negatively correlated with CWB-O and CWB-I and significantly and positively associated with contextual performance. Thus, all correlations were in the expected direction. Path Analyses AMOS 18 was used to conduct path analyses on latent constructs with single indicators. We fixed the values of latent-to-manifest paths at the square root of their internal consistency reliabilities. Moreover, to account for measurement error, the effects of random error on each manifest variable was fixed as the quantity 1 minus the reliability multiplied by the variance of each measure

234

2.67 2.54 3.15 4.56 3.62 3.73 3.22 5.28 5.27 4.92 5.28 5.35

1. CWB-O 2. CWB-I 3. Contextual performance 4. Job satisfaction 5. Agreeableness 6. Conscientiousness 7. Emotional Stability 8. Emotional Intelligence 9. Self-emotion appraisal 10. Others’ emotion appraisal 11. Use of emotion 12. Regulation of emotion

.82 .66 1.05 1.87 1.01 1.00 1.07 1.36 1.50 1.51 1.61 1.49

SD (.96) .61∗∗ −.36∗∗ −.37∗∗ −.23∗∗ −.33∗∗ −.38∗∗ −.31∗∗ −.35∗∗ −.21∗∗ −.21∗∗ −.38∗∗

1

(.94) −.40∗∗ −.34∗∗ −.31∗∗ −.28∗∗ −.35∗∗ −.32∗∗ −.30∗∗ −.24∗∗ −.20∗∗ −.33∗∗

2

(.92) .40∗∗ .24∗∗ .30∗∗ .21∗∗ .26∗∗ .20∗∗ .18∗∗ .22∗∗ .25∗∗

3

(.86) .34∗∗ .38∗∗ .43∗∗ .31∗∗ .24∗∗ .30∗∗ .28∗∗ .36∗∗

4

Note. N = 222; reliability coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

M

Variables

(.92) .50∗∗ .36∗∗ .32∗∗ .21∗∗ .19∗∗ .19∗∗ .24∗∗

5

(.93) .37∗∗ .29∗∗ .27∗∗ .31∗∗ .28∗∗ .31∗∗

6

(.91) .41∗∗ .29∗∗ .21∗∗ .31∗∗ .29∗∗

7

(.97) .87∗∗ .86∗∗ .87∗∗ .85∗∗

8

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Cronbach’s Alphas Internal Reliabilities


(.98) .80∗∗ .88∗∗ .86∗∗

9

(.94) .80∗∗ .78∗∗

10

(.96) .84∗∗

11

(.95)

12


235

TABLE 2 Model Comparisons Model


Full mediation Partial mediation Direct effects

χ2

df

χ 2

SRMR

GFI

RMSEA

CFI

NFI

AIC

1367.43 1198.29 1243.92

45 24 31

169.14∗∗ 45.63∗∗

.09 .05 .06

.89 .95 .90

.15 .07 .12

.87 .94 .91

.87 .94 .92

1409.43 1282.28 1313.91

Note. N = 222. SRMR = standardized root square mean residual; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

(Podsakoff, Williams, & Todor, 1986). Table 2 presents the results of path analyses for the three models tested that are described earlier. Overall, fit statistics indicated that the hypothesized partial mediation model fitted the data well, relative to the full mediation and direct effects models. The difference in chi-square provided a foundation for testing the three models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Chi-square tests of differences were conducted to compare the fit of the full mediation model and the direct effects model with that of the partial mediation model. The results revealed that the partial mediation model had a significantly better fit to the data than the full mediation model, χ 2 (21) = 169.14, p < .01, and direct effects model, χ 2 (7) = 45.63, p < .01. Taken together, these results indicate that the best model is the hypothesized partial mediation model. As our hypothesized partial mediation model resulted in the best fit of the data, we focus on the path coefficients to test our specific hypotheses. As shown in Table 3, a number of significant findings emerged regarding the partial mediating role of job satisfaction. First, job satisfaction partially mediated the relationships between ROE and contextual performance and both CWB-O and CWB-I, between SEA and both CWB-O and CWB-I, and between UOE and contextual performance. These results provide some support for the study hypotheses on the partial mediation of job satisfaction between EI dimensions and performance criteria. In terms of Big Five personality factors, job satisfaction partially mediated the relationships between Conscientiousness and contextual performance and both CWB-O and CWB-I, between Agreeableness and contextual performance and both CWB-O and CWB-I, and between Emotional Stability and contextual performance and both CWB-O and CWB-I. Using the Sobel’s (1982) test for interpreting these indirect effects, our results showed that they were significant (p < .05), supporting the partial mediation effects of job satisfaction. Table 4 shows the magnitude of the direct, indirect, and total effects for the hypothesized partial mediation model. A closer inspection of total effects (sum of direct and indirect effects) revealed that of the four ability EI dimensions, ROE had the strongest impact on CWB-O, CWB-I, and contextual performance. Moreover, ROE has its weakest impact on contextual performance, whereas it demonstrated its strongest effect on CWB-O. In addition, Conscientiousness has a much stronger effect on contextual performance than the ability EI dimensions, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability, whereas Emotional Stability has a much stronger effect on CWB-O and CWB-I than the ability EI dimensions, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. Therefore, these findings provide evidence of the differential impact of

236


TABLE 3 Parameter Estimates for Model 2 – Hypothesized Partial Mediation Model


Paths JS JS JS JS JS JS JS CWBO CWBO CWBO CWBO CWBI CWBI CWBI CWBI CP CP CP CP CWBO CWBO CWBO CWBI CWBI CWBI CP CP CP CWBO CWBI CP

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←

UOE SEA OEA ROE AG CON ES UOE SEA OEA ROE UOE SEA OEA ROE UOE SEA OEA ROE AG CON ES AG CON ES AG CON ES JS JS JS

Estimate

SE

C.R.

p

.16 .12 .01 .20 .24 .29 .31 −.05 −.12 −.05 −.20 −.00 −.15 −.03 −.17 .09 .05 .05 .15 −.10 −.28 −.30 −.21 −.20 −.27 .15 .28 .13 −.34 −.31 .36

.08 .03 .04 .07 .09 .10 .08 .03 .04 .03 .04 .02 .04 .02 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .05 .05 .04 .04 .05 .04 .05 .06 .07 .06 .07

2.13 3.72 .25 2.74 2.76 2.83 3.87 −1.35 −3.18 −1.48 −4.66 −.34 −3.78 −1.28 −4.49 2.01 1.17 1.33 3.88 −2.78 −5.38 −5.58 −4.77 −4.71 −5.45 3.89 −5.52 2.25 −5.13 −5.02 5.42

.03 .001 .803 .01 .01 .01 ∗∗∗

.177 .001 .140 ∗∗∗

.738 ∗∗∗

.200 ∗∗∗

.04 .242 .182 ∗∗∗

.005 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗

.025 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗

Note. C.R. = XXX; JS = Job Satisfaction; UOE = Use of Emotion; SEA = Self-Emotion Apprasial; OEA = Other Emotion Appraisal; ROE = Regulation of Emotion; AG = Agreeableness; CON = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; CWB-O = Counterproductive Work Behaviors toward the Organization; CWB-I = Counterproductive Work Behaviors toward the Individual; CP = Contextual Performance. The four Ability EI subscales were allowed to intercorrelate; as were the Personality factors as well as the two CWB and contextual performance criteria. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

ability EI dimensions, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability on contextual performance and CWBs. Table 5 summarizes the EI dimensions for which relationships with the performance criteria were partially mediated by job satisfaction.

DISCUSSION The findings reported in this study make several contributions to the literature on emotional intelligence, work attitudes, CWBs, and citizenship behaviors. First, the correlation results revealed


237

TABLE 4 Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Model 2 – Hypothesized Partial Mediation Model


CWBO

Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional stability Self-emotion appraisal Others’ emotion appraisal Use of emotion Regulation of emotion Job satisfaction

CWBI

Contextual Performance

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

.28 .10 .30 .12 .05 .05 .20 .34

.09 .14 .10 .16 .06 .05 .13 —

.37 .24 .40 .28 .11 .10 .33 .34

.20 .21 .27 .15 .03 .00 .17 .31

.07 .11 .10 .12 .05 .03 .15 —

.27 .32 .37 .27 .08 .03 .32 .31

.28 .15 .13 .05 .05 .09 .15 .36

.10 .17 .15 .08 .08 .11 .15 —

.38 .32 .28 .13 .13 .20 .30 .36

Note. CWB-O = Counterproductive Work Behaviors toward the Organization; CWB-I = Counterproductive Work Behaviors toward the Individual. TABLE 5 Summary of Partial Mediation of Job Satisfaction Between EI Dimensions and Performance

Regulation of emotion Self-emotion appraisal Use of emotion Others’ emotion appraisal

CWBO

CWBI

Contextual Performance

Job Satisfaction as a Partial Mediator?



Yes Yes No No

Yes Yes No No

Yes No Yes No

Note. CWB-O = Counterproductive Work Behaviors toward the Organization; CWB-I = Counterproductive Work Behaviors toward the Individual.

that the four dimensions of ability-based EI were positively related to contextual performance, which corroborate the findings of prior research (e.g., Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Lopes et al., 2006). Moreover, ability-based EI dimensions were shown to be inversely related to both interpersonal and organizational counterproductive work behaviors. Therefore, this research validates the findings of previous studies, which investigated the linkages between job satisfaction and deviant behaviors (Desphande et al., 2005). This study also extends the literature by revealing the nature and magnitude of the relationship between ability-based EI dimensions and interpersonally and organizationally targeted counterproductive work behaviors. Furthermore, the findings of our research support the notion that different performance dimensions are likely to have common individual difference antecedents (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000), thus suggesting that EI is one such individual difference variable. This study is one of few, if any, that tests the partial mediating effect of job satisfaction between ability-based EI dimensions and contextual performance, and both interpersonally and organizationally targeted counterproductive work behaviors. Our path analyses indicated that job satisfaction not only has a direct relationship to contextual performance and both interpersonal


238


and organizational counterproductive behaviors at work but also partially mediated the relationship between ability-based EI dimension, ROE, and contextual performance and both types of CWB; between SEA and both types of CWB; and between UOE and contextual performance. These findings are supportive of the study’s claims on the partial mediating role of job satisfaction in the EI-performance relationship. Hence, it suggests that job satisfaction does explain some level of variation in the relationship between EI dimensions and job performance criteria, albeit partially. The partial mediation with ROE is worthy of note, as this EI dimension was the only dimension for which effects were partially mediated by job satisfaction on all three performance criteria. Moreover, ROE had a direct relationship with contextual performance and both interpersonal and organizational counterproductive work behaviors. Thus, the relationships between this abilitybased EI dimension and contextual performance and both types of CWB are explained, in part, by an indirect link whereby ROE is related to job satisfaction and, in turn, job satisfaction is related to contextual performance and both interpersonal and organizational counterproductive behaviors at work. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the partial mediation of job satisfaction on the relationships between ROE and contextual performance and interpersonal and organizational counterproductive work behaviors was stronger for organizationally targeted and interpersonally targeted counterproductive behaviors at work than for contextual performance. Thus, the findings suggest that employees who have affective or emotional regulation processes and strategies tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction and engage in higher levels of contextual performance and lower levels of counterproductive behaviors. Overall, these findings underscore the value of differential effects of the dimensions of ability EI given that only one dimension of ability EI—ROE—was critical in the partially mediated relationships, and it had a stronger effect on CWB-O than on contextual performance. Moreover, other dimensions of EI emerged as nonsignificant predictors of only some of (but not all) the performance criteria. Such findings reflect the possibility of dilution or predictive losses surrounding the use of a higher order ability EI factor in explaining various criteria. Thus, this suggests that a broad EI factor may obscure relationships between individual dimensions of EI and criteria. Furthermore, the findings highlight that the various dimensions of EI possess reliable, specific variance that is important for predicting the various job performance criteria. In addition, our findings support the notion that emotional regulation is the central dimension of EI that influences work behavior. Future studies should be conducted to investigate the role of EI in workplace behavior. Proponents of the EI construct have argued that hiring employees with high levels of EI should benefit the workplace. However, few empirical studies have been conducted with the aim of testing this hypothesis. The results of this study provide some evidence that EI is related to important work outcomes that are of interest to management. Ability–EI dimensions account for variance in contextual performance, CWBs, and job satisfaction, which are not accounted for by the FFM personality traits, in particular, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness. Therefore, the results of this study further contribute to the literature by showing that ability-EI dimensions are relatively independent of FFM personality traits. Implications of the Findings The findings of this study have some interesting and practical implications for organizations. First, human resource practitioners in organizations must consider the importance of EI, alongside



239

other characteristics and abilities, in the conduct of various organizational practices including recruitment and selection. The finding that job satisfaction plays some role in the relationship between EI and performance should not go unnoticed. For example, high EI employees are able to handle and manage negative work situations and work stressors, enjoy higher job satisfaction, and engage in less CWB and high levels of contextual performance. Hence, EI not only directly affects job performance, but also can impact employees’ job satisfaction, which in turn can translate into more productive job behaviors at work. The findings also suggest that organizations could seek to implement adequate strategies for developing EI among their employees through their training and development policies and practices. For example, one should develop current employees’ levels of EI so as to prevent maladaptive or negative employee behaviors and their serious costs and consequences, and to promote positive employee behaviors, thereby contributing favorably to the organization’s technical core and effectiveness. Indeed, prior research suggests that EI training is equally as important as employee selection (Wong & Law, 2002) and is a fundamental component that determines employee success at work (Day, 2000). Therefore, organizations may seek to implement EI training programs that focus on all levels of the organization, from senior managers to lower level employees, so as to build an emotionally intelligent organization. From a theoretical perspective, these findings also suggest strong support for the AET model that reinforces the claim that affective-related variables such as job satisfaction should play some role in mediating the effects of dispositional characteristics and work performance. Clearly, theorists and researchers can consider these findings as providing some support to this model as well as contributing to our understanding of its usefulness in personality and job performance research. This study sets a foundation on which other researchers may seek to investigate a wider range of other mediating and dispositional variables in the context of AET. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research Our use of peer reports of OCB and CWB is a major strength of this study. In so doing, certain biases that might distort the correlations of OCB and CWB measures with participants’ selfratings of ability-EI and the three personality variables may be minimized. However, as with all research, the current study has several limitations. First, the method of asking participating employees to select a coworker to rate their counterproductive and productive work behaviors is a potential limitation. Employees might have chosen coworkers or supervisors who would report on their behaviors more favorably. In addition, coworkers and supervisors, in most cases, are cognizant only of those behaviors that they can actually see or the results of such behaviors that can be observed (Fox, Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2007). Second, given that the current study is of a cross-sectional nature, it cannot purport to provide a causal test of relationships. A longitudinal study design, although not an ultimate solution, may provide a more rigorous test for our hypothesized model. It is conceivable that other variables may influence the hypothesized relationships in this study, and thus is another way in which our model may be underspecified. Further research might consider the effect of theoretically relevant moderators and mediators on the relationships tested. For example, positive and negative affect has been shown to mediate the relationship between EI and job satisfaction (Konstantinos & Zampetakis, 2008). Moreover, researchers found positive and


240


negative affect to be related to citizenship behaviors and CWB (e.g., Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002). Guleryuz, Guney, Aydin, and Asan (2008) found that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between EI and organizational commitment. In a recent meta-analysis by Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001), different organizational justice dimensions were shown to be related to job satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and CWB. In addition, Wong and Law (2002) reported significant interaction effects between ability-based EI and emotional labor on job performance, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. In addition, studies have found support for the effect of EI on leadership style (George, 2000). The leadership style of managers has also been shown to affect employee performance (e.g., Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2008; Vigota-Gadot, 2007) and job satisfaction (e.g., Vecchio et al., 2008). Thus, although our model is theoretically and empirically grounded for other researchers to build on, we recognize the potential explanatory roles of other variables such as positive and negative affect, organizational justice, organizational commitment, emotional labor, and perceptions of leadership style.

REFERENCES Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: A conceptualization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125, 209–224. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Borman, W. C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS. Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 788–813. Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19, 403–409. Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K.Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). Experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York, NY: Academic Press. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and five-factor inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1443–1458.



241

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership, 11, 581–614. Deshpande, S.P., Joseph, J., & Shu, X. (2005). The impact of emotional intelligence on counterproductive behavior in China. Management Research News, 28, 75–85. Edwards, B. D., Bell, S.T., Arthur, W., Jr., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance, Applied Psychology, 57, 441–465. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your co-worker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self-and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41–60. George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, (Vol. 7 pp. 7–28). The Netherlands: Tilburg Free Press. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. Guleryuz, G., Guney, S., Aydin, E. M., & Asan, O. (2007). The mediating effect of job satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment of nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1625–1635. Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138. Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 712–722. Kelloway, K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483–496. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. Lopes, P. N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicothema, 18, 132–138. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence, Intelligence, 27, 267–298. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 320–342). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Slutyer (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Basic Books. McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844. Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51–57. Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591–622. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320.


242


Podsakoff, P. M., Williams, L. J., & Todor, W. D. (1986). Effects of organizational Formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 820–831. Prati, L. M., Douglas, C, Ferris, G. R. Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness and team outcomes. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–30. Quebbeman, A. J., & Rozell, E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity as moderators of workplace aggression: The impact of behavior choice. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 125–143. Rubin, M. M. (1999). Emotional intelligence and its role in mitigating aggression: A correlational study of the relationship between emotional intelligence and aggression in urban adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College, Immaculata, PA. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). Evidence for the big five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10, 61–77. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460. Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’ Hara, L. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 461–473. Trinidad, D. R., & Johnson, C. A (2002). The association between emotional intelligence and early adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95–105. Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: a meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71–95. Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 71–82. Vigoda-Gadot, E., (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, 36, 661–683. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating, evaluations, beliefs and affective experience. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist L. (1967). Manual for Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Work Adjustment Project Industrial Relations Centre Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effect of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 243–274. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53, 371–399.