Leadership Emotional Intelligence and Organizational

Leadership Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Justice: A Correlational Study of Follower Perceptions in American Organizations

By Chelle Annette Islas

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the College of Business and Leadership in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Leadership

Piedmont International University

March 29, 2018

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

ii

This Dissertation was written by: Chelle Annette Islas Under the guidance of a Faculty Committee approved by its members, has been submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

April 12, 2018

Faculty Committee

Nicole A. Lowes, Ph.D.

CommitteeChairperson PiedmontInternationalUniversity

ActingDean and CommitteeMember PiedmontInternationalUniversity


iii

Copyright © 2018 by Chelle Annette Islas. All rights reserved. No part of this dissertation may be used, reproduced, stored, recorded, or transmitted in any form or manner whatsoever without written permission from the copyright holder or her agent(s), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in the papers of students, and in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Requests for such permission should be addressed to: Chelle Annette Islas 6805 Salizar Street San Diego, CA 92111-3330 [email protected] or [email protected]

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE Dedication For Jesus my Savior through whom I can do all things.

iv


v

Acknowledgements I want to acknowledge my God from whom every blessing has come to me. The greatest of these blessings is my best friend and husband, Miguel M. Islas, the love of my lifetime, whose I Corinthians 13 love for me makes every single day the very best day of my life. Darling, your understanding, support, and faith in me never once wavered though mine own did fairly regularly. Mere words could not express my abiding love for you nor adequately describe my gratitude for the way you respect and honor me as the wife God gave to you. You are COURAGEOUS! Additionally, I want to acknowledge my grandchildren, Lela and Louis. I was often motivated by the thought that my example would one day serve you on your own academic journey. When it is your turn, I want you to remember that if Yiayia can do it, so can you! Chica Peanut and Chito, Yiayia loves you super mucho! Next, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Nicole Lowes, my dissertation chair. She not only kept things moving and managed the ridiculous timeline that I set toward completion, but she never failed to pull out the pompons and wave them around as needed. Thank you for pointing out the open windows as I pounded on the closed doors; “You will not quit; not on my watch” has carried me through. Thank you, also to my committee members, Dr. D. Brent Powell and Dr. Ken Bandy for their time and contributions (especially for being willing to work on Easter Sunday so I could make the deadline). I must also thank Dr. Charles Morris who encouraged me to enter the program, who offered insights, constructive feedback, and prayer through the coursework and all along the way. Thanks for reading and commenting on a dissertation you were not even on the committee for, Chuck. The result is better because you did. Finally, I want to acknowledge my extended family. This accomplishment does not


vi

happen in a vacuum. Thank you to my mother-in-law, Maria L. Islas, whose support and encouragement has been relentless over the years. Gracias por todo, Mom. Estoy muy agradecida por tu amistad, tu apoyo, y tus oraciones; te quiero mucho. Also, thank you to our nephew, Tomas G. Davila-Islas. Memo, you helped us so much during the final weeks leading up to this moment, and your love (and concern for my safety) is something your tiá will always remember. I must also acknowledge my fan club, which includes Savas and Nancy Baloglu whose presence in my life makes everything better; Theo and Thea you have been a rock of love and support and I will be eternally grateful for the blessing that is you! S’agapo poli. Also, Miss Stella and Mr. Richard, without your continuous prayer and encouragement from one deadline to the next, I am absolutely sure I would not be writing these acknowledgements at all. If only I were as special as you think I am; I love you, Browns! And for everyone who has received my texted prayer requests and taken the time to put me before the Lord our God. His faithfulness to hear our prayers is a constant reminder of what matters most. Last, but by absolutely no means least, I want to acknowledge my beloved companion, Güero. God knew that I would need someone to be there for me in any and every moment, someone who would never have a scheduling conflict, and someone who would let me ignore them for hours and days at a time, but still be available for me to hang on their neck, cry in their fur, and kiss them repeatedly when needed. My dear friend, for the last 13 years you have been the biggest blessing that I never knew I needed. If God has a place for our dog companions, I am sure you will one day be there. You are the best furry friend who ever lived, and I love you. So, for all of you who have spent the last 2-1/2 years cheering me on and telling me how you would one day call me “Dr. Islas,” I say to you that the time has come! At the same time, I remind you that this moment – this accomplishment – is as much yours as it is mine.


vii

Table of Contents Dedication .................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Illustrations .......................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................2 Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................4 Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................6 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................7 Research Questions and Hypotheses ...............................................................................8 Research Questions ..............................................................................................8 Research Hypotheses ...........................................................................................8 Significance to the Field of Study ....................................................................................9 Definitions ......................................................................................................................10 Organizational Justice ........................................................................................10 Distributive Justice .............................................................................................10 Procedural Justice ..............................................................................................10 Interactional Justice ...........................................................................................10 Overall Justice ....................................................................................................10 Emotional Intelligence .......................................................................................11 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ...........................................................................................13 Framework .....................................................................................................................13 Research Sourcing .........................................................................................................15 Keywords and Key Phrases ...........................................................................................15 Emotional Intelligence (EI) ................................................................................15 Overview ................................................................................................16 Emotional and Social Intelligence (ESI) ................................................18 Models ....................................................................................................19 Salovey and Mayer Model .........................................................19 Bar-On Model ............................................................................19 Goleman Model ..........................................................................19 Measures ................................................................................................20 MSCEIT ......................................................................................20 EQ-I ............................................................................................21 Genos EI .....................................................................................23 Organizational Justice ........................................................................................24 Overview ................................................................................................26 Justice Dimensions .................................................................................28 Distributive Justice ....................................................................28 Procedural Justice .....................................................................28 Interactional Justice ...................................................................29


viii

Overall Justice ...........................................................................30 Justice and Leadership ...........................................................................31 Measurement ..........................................................................................32 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) .....................................................34 Extra-role Behaviors ..............................................................................36 OCBs and Justice ...................................................................................36 OCBs and Emotional Intelligence in Leaders ........................................37 Research Gaps and Opportunities ..................................................................................38 Summary ........................................................................................................................39 CHAPTER 3: Method of Research ........................................................................................41 Research Method and Design ........................................................................................42 Participants .....................................................................................................................43 Population ..........................................................................................................43 Sample ............................................................................................................... 43 Sample Size ........................................................................................................44 Recruitment Strategy .........................................................................................45 Respondent Characteristics ................................................................................45 Materials/Instruments ....................................................................................................45 Emotional Intelligence .......................................................................................46 Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI) .............................47 Genos EI Dimensions and Scales ..........................................................48 Genos EI Validity ...................................................................................50 Organizational Justice ........................................................................................50 Perceived Overall Justice Measure (POJ) ............................................51 POJ Validity ...........................................................................................51 Operational Definition of Variables ...............................................................................52 Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................54 Data Collection ..................................................................................................54 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................56 Delimitations and Limitations ........................................................................................59 Assumptions .......................................................................................................59 Delimitations ......................................................................................................59 Limitations .........................................................................................................60 Ethical Assurances .........................................................................................................61 Summary ........................................................................................................................62 CHAPTER 4: Results ..............................................................................................................64 Research Questions ........................................................................................................64 Research Questions ............................................................................................65 Research Hypotheses .........................................................................................65 Emotional Intelligence Inventory ..................................................................................66 Organizational Justice Inventory ...................................................................................66 Respondents ...................................................................................................................67 Response Rate ....................................................................................................67 Demographics ....................................................................................................68


ix

Age .........................................................................................................69 Race ........................................................................................................69 Education ...............................................................................................70 Direct Leader Level ...............................................................................71 Duration of the Leader-Follower Relationship .....................................71 Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................................73 Genos EI Data Analysis .....................................................................................74 Total EI and Subscales ..........................................................................75 Additional Results ..................................................................................77 Justice Data Analysis .........................................................................................78 POJ Subscales ........................................................................................79 POJ Overall ...........................................................................................79 Correlation Analysis ..........................................................................................80 Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................82 Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................84 Summary ........................................................................................................................85 CHAPTER 5: Discussion and Implications ...........................................................................87 Introduction ....................................................................................................................87 Study Purpose ....................................................................................................88 Research Questions ............................................................................................89 Findings ..........................................................................................................................89 Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................89 Response to RQ1 ................................................................................................89 Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................90 Response to RQ2 ................................................................................................90 Limitations .....................................................................................................................92 Implications for Future Research ...................................................................................92 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................94 References .................................................................................................................................97 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................115 Appendix A: Informed Consent Form .........................................................................115 Appendix B: Qualifying Questions for Participants .....................................................117 Appendix C: Respondent Demographic Data Points ....................................................118 Appendix D: Perceived Overall Justice Scale ..............................................................119 Appendix E: Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory Items .......................................120 Appendix F: Genos EI Inventory Subscales .................................................................125 Appendix G: Genos EI Scoring Categories ..................................................................126

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE List of Tables Table 1. Internal Consistency of Individual EQ-i 2.0 Scales ......................................................22 Table 2. Internal Consistency of Genos EI Inventory by Nationality.........................................24 Table 3. Operational Definitions of Variables ...........................................................................53 Table 4. Respondents by Age Bracket .......................................................................................69 Table 5. Respondents by Race ...................................................................................................70 Table 6. Respondents by Education Level .................................................................................71 Table 7. Role of Respondent’s Direct Leader ............................................................................71 Table 8. Duration of Follower-Leader Workplace Relationship ...............................................72 Table 9. Genos EI Scores as Percentiles ....................................................................................75 Table 10. Aggregated Data Analysis Results for Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory .....77 Table 11. Aggregated Data Analysis Results for Perceived Overall Justice Scale Items ..........80 Table 12. Pearson Correlations (r values) ..................................................................................84

x


xi

List of Illustrations Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for the Present Study ............................................................14 Figure 2: Scatter Plot of Emotional Intelligence and Overall Justice Perceptions.....................83


1

Chapter 1: Introduction The impact of emotional intelligence (also referred to as Emotional Quotient, or EQ; Bradberry & Greaves, 2009) on follower perceptions of leader effectiveness has been a topic of discussion for decades (Goleman, 2015; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013; Kouzes & Posner, 2012), as has organizational justice as a perception of fairness in the workplace (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Greenberg, 1987; Karriker, Williams, & Williams, 2017). It is widely agreed that leaders have a great deal of influence over followers in the workplace (Deschamps, Rinfret, Lagacé, & Privé, 2016; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2012) and that followers respond in productive ways to leaders they perceive as caring and authentic (Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Rodin, 2010). Emotionally intelligent leaders are more adept at navigating the increasingly complex social dynamics of human interactions (Bolman & Deal, 2013) and these leaders are likely to wield their influence with greater effectiveness (Goleman et al., 2013). The attitudes and actions that reflect follower effort beyond their official role (extra-role) produce desirable organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) including increased job satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Banerjee & Banerjee, 2013; Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2017). These highly desirable extra-role behaviors are influenced by follower perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interpersonal (in)justice (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007), which makes organizational justice a valuable consideration. This illustrates that follower perceptions of fairness play a role in how follower extra-role contributions are motivated, and to what degree followers contribute to the organizations that employ them. Additionally, research in organizational justice as a perception of fairness has illustrated that the presence or absence of such justice directly impacts organizational outcomes (Simons & Roberson, 2003).


2

While research is ongoing in both leader emotional intelligence and the impact of fairness perceptions (organizational justice) on extra-role behaviors (OCBs), there is an opportunity to bridge the gap in these differentiated areas of study. The present research considers if and how follower perceptions of leader emotional intelligence influences organizational justice. The results contribute to the understanding of the role emotional intelligence has, if any, in follower perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interpersonal fairness (organizational justice). Background Despite some controversy over what impact emotional intelligence has on leadership (Walter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2011), there has been a great deal of research and writing about its essentiality for leaders (Carroll, 2017; Goleman, 2015; Goleman et al., 2013). There is also growing interest in understanding the role it plays in leveraging people relationships, especially as they relate to the ever more valuable outcomes of innovation and collaboration. The mastery of emotional intelligence competencies positions leaders to establish and maintain relationships with followers that foster an environment of trust and fairness (Goleman, 2015). This type of environment has implications toward increased job satisfaction and commitment, two highly desirable extra-role behaviors that reflect positive organizational citizenship. This is especially relevant to contemporary organizations as the war for talent is both escalating and on-going (Goldsmith, Greenberg, Robertson, & Hu-Chan, 2003). Similarly, organizational justice has been described as a functional necessity for organizations, both as a foundation of operations and as a contributor to the wellness of organization members (Greenberg, 1990). Rooted in the concepts of fairness and justice, which can be traced back to ancient Greece (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2007), organizational justice as a field of study is well founded, with research dating back more than 50


3

years (DiFabio & Palazzeschi, 2012). Since that time, interest in the field has steadily grown, in part as a response to the ethics scandals in American organizations at the turn of the century (Kelly & Earley, 2009). The awareness generated by collective behaviors within organizations like Enron (Johnson, 2009; McGill, 2003), Arthur Andersen (Kelly & Earley, 2009), Peregrine Systems (Department of Justice, 2004), and others highlights the value of understanding how perceptions drive behavior, and the subjective nature of these perceptions. For example, while the SarbanesOxley Act (SOX) of 2002 was established to regulate financial reporting as a means of protecting shareholders in American organizations through the demand for compliance (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012; Whitney, 2007), perceptions and the behaviors that follow cannot be legislated. In the same manner, the perception of organizational justice is subjective (Cropanzano et al., 2007) and likewise, it cannot be mandated by organizations or the leaders within them. Therefore, increased understanding of what influences follower perceptions and generates desirable behaviors is of value. The impact of perceived organizational (in)justice has received a great deal of research attention in the United States. And, recently this interest has expanded around the world with studies that have been conducted in many countries, including China (Anjum, 2014), India, (Bakhski, Kumar, & Rani, 2009; Banerjee & Banerjee, 2013), Indonesia (Sjahruddin, Armanu, Sudiro, & Normijati, 2013), Iran (Heidari, Rajaeepoor, Davoodi, & Bozorgzadeh, 2012; Mirmohhamdi & Marefat, 2014), Jordan (Al-Zu’bi, 2010), Malaysia (Ponnu & Chuah, 2010), Nigeria (Akanbi & Ofoegbu, 2013), Pakistan (Malik & Naeem, 2011), and others. The collection of effort has illuminated relationships between organizational justice and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors, including commitment to the organization (turnover


4

intention), job satisfaction, trust, and performance (Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). Even so, there remains a dearth of research on what factors influence the perception of organizational justice and on leadership’s role in the formation of that perception. The present study examines follower perceptions of direct leader emotional intelligence as a possible influencer of organizational justice, and therefore, it offers an important contribution to the field. Problem Statement Leadership influence is at the heart of much of the research that seeks to equip organizations for effectiveness. Organizations that hope to compete must consider how leaders can wield their influence to foster desirable organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) while mitigating attitudes and actions that are detrimental to organizational outcomes. While there is some debate about the role of emotional intelligence as the “sine qua non” of leadership (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; Walter et al., 2011), there is general agreement about the value of extending organizational research investigating the role and impact of emotional intelligence in leadership; “the research is pretty clear: EI and social intelligence differentiate great leaders from average ones” (McKee, 2015, p. 42). However, despite extensive study, there is a gap in the research that invites further investigation. To date, the majority of research seeking to increase understanding in the areas of emotional intelligence and organizational justice has focused on one or the other: emotional intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic & Yearsley, 2017; Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, & Weissberg, 2006; Côté, 2014; Emmerling & Goleman, 2005; Hyter & Tapia, 2015; Mayer et al., 2004) or organizational justice (Cooper & Robertson, 1997; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 1990; Zhang, Lepine, Buckman, & Wei, 2014 ). However, there does exist a modest body of work that has sought to discover how one influences the other (Graham, 2017; Passer, 2014;


5

Stutzman, 2016). In the substantially less robust inventory of works that considers the emotional intelligence in conjunction with organizational justice, studies are (a) exclusively predicated on self-assessment of emotional intelligence, (b) not directed toward the EI of leaders specifically, or (c) studying populations outside of the United States (Devonish & Greenidge 2010; DiFabio & Palazzeschi, 2012; Meisler, 2013; Ouyang, Sang, Li, & Peng, 2015). While these contributions to the knowledge base are both valuable and commendable, the use of leader self-assessment fundamentally excludes the very relevant perspective of followers. As organizations seek to compete ever more effectively in the dynamism of today’s organizational environments, it would behoove them to consider how follower perceptions influence the presence or absence of justice and sought-after OCBs including motivation, satisfaction, and commitment. The present study examines the possibility of relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence in direct leaders (independent variable) and follower perceptions as defined by organizational justice (dependent variable); it also seeks to identify whether the leader’s role-level in the organization serves as a mediating factor (mediating variable). From this statement, the following sub problems are recognized: 

Establish leader’s role-level in the organization



Ascertain follower’s perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence



Identify follower’s perception of organizational justice



Compare emotional intelligence and organizational justice perceptions to one another to identify correlations between the two, if any



Analyze perception data across role-levels to determine what relationships exist, if any


6

Purpose Statement Contemporary organizations face more challenges than ever (Liao & Chuang, 2007). In the battle for competitive advantage and the effort to drive innovation and creativity, 21 st century organizations are challenged to leverage dynamic change (Conner, 1992; Goldsmith et al., 2003; Kotter, 2012), as well as increasingly complex models of individual and group communication and collaboration (Tsai, 2011). These same organizations are in fierce competition with one another to attract and retain essential human resources (Kotter, 2012), which makes OCBs like job satisfaction and commitment to the organization valuable weapons in the on-going talent war. The fact that leadership plays a critical role is well defined, making the present study’s search for increased understanding of a potential correlation between follower perceptions of direct leader emotional intelligence and organizational justice a worthwhile effort. While the impact of emotional intelligence on organizational justice has been studied based on self-perception of leader emotional intelligence, there is no known research that considers the potential for relationship between follower perception of leader emotional intelligence and organizational justice. Neglecting the workplace realities that result from follower perceptions limits how the findings inform the relationship between follower perceptions and organizational realities. To bridge this gap, the present study employs descriptive, quantitative measures to identify what, if any, correlation exists between followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence (EI) and their perception of organizational justice. While it does not purpose to establish causal relationships, this study employed normative surveys as a means of data collection in order to examine two subjective measures among non-leader, full-time employees in large U.S. organizations (more than 500 employees) who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months.


7

Using their own perceptions, survey respondents rated their direct leader’s EI, and they also rated their perceptions of organizational justice. These data were analyzed as a means of assessing potential correlations between the two variables. Theoretical Framework Both emotional intelligence and organizational justice have been subjects of study for more than a quarter century, and the resulting knowledge in both fields inform this study. In addition to historic research efforts, interest in these fields has only increased during the past decade. Research into the concept of social/emotional intelligence dates back to the early twentieth century (Bar-On, 2006; Goleman, 2005; Thorndike, 1920), and while attention in academia was plentiful through the years, it was not until Goleman’s 1995 work that the term emotional intelligence was made popular (Bar-On, 2006; Goleman, 1995). Today, emotional intelligence is not only studied in academic research, but also examined for its practical application in leadership development and personal growth for individuals. Justice has been a subject of interest to scholars since the ancient philosophers (Ryan, 1993). Today, organizational justice as it refers to the perception of fairness (Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005) and as a social construct reflecting perception of justice (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997) remains a field of great interest. The work done in this field has resulted in the identification of causal relationships between those perceptions of justice and certain organizational outcomes (Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005), making the extension of knowledge in this area of value to academia as well as to the business world.


8

Research Questions and Hypotheses Research questions. These questions guided the research and preceded the research hypotheses: RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of overall justice? RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice? Research hypotheses. In consideration of the preceding questions, the following hypotheses are posed in this research: H10. There is no statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H1a There is a statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H20 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence. H2a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence. H30 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice.


9

H3a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice. Significance to the Field of Study Today’s organizations are competing in a dynamic and complex environment for limited resources – not the least of which is people/talent, (Goldsmith et al., 2003; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). This dynamism and arduous competition will only increase going forward (Conner, 1992), so it is increasingly valuable to understand perceptions of organizational justice; “Organizational justice – members’ sense of the moral propriety of how they are treated – is the ‘glue’ that allows people to work together effectively” (Cropanzano et al., 2007, p. 34). For these reasons, the present study of organizational justice and the ways in which perceptions of it are mediated is a worthwhile undertaking. While existing research in organizational justice is plentiful, there is opportunity to extend that research by considering the role that emotional intelligence may have in the creation of perception of justice among organization members. Research has already established that emotional intelligence plays an important role in the quality of the leader-follower relationship (Kouzes & Posner, 2012) and that perceived justice impacts outcomes including performance, commitment, trust, and other organization citizenship behaviors that positively impact the workplace (Cropanzano et al., 2007; Xu, Loi, & Ngo, 2016). The implications of justice present organizations with the opportunity to compete for talent, collaborate for innovation, operate ethically, and offer members a much-needed sense of belonging (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). Therefore, the present research has both academic and practical purpose, and its benefits include an exploration of whether followers’ perceptions of


10

their direct leader’s emotional intelligence effects their perceptions of organizational justice. The results of the present effort serve as a point of extension toward future study. Definitions Organizational justice. While the logic-based concept of justice is concerned with what really is just, organizational justice is concerned with the subjective elements of justice; it “captures what individuals believe to be right, rather than an objective reality or a prescriptive moral code” (Cropanzano et al., 2007, p. 35). Maintaining alignment with the general field of study, the present study employs a definition of organizational justice that is limited to the perception of justice rather than its actual presence or absence. In addition, it incorporates the three core elements of (1) distributive justice, (2) procedural justice, and (3) interactional justice. Distributive justice. In keeping with the general field of study, the present research defines distributive justice as the perception of equal, equitable, and/or need-based division of various opportunities, compensations, and rewards among all those who have a stake (Cropanzano et al., 2007; Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). Procedural justice. For the purpose of this study, the definition of procedural justice is the principles, governance, and policies that are established as processes to ensure justice when applied consistently (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Interactional justice. The present study utilizes a definition of interactional justice that is limited to the perception of fairness relating to the interpersonal treatment during the procedural and/or distributive processes; it is the perception of respect and civility that is extended to the persons impacted (Greenberg, 1990). Overall justice. The present study utilizes a definition of overall justice that employs entity judgments and general judgments of organizational fairness. Entity judgments as defined


11

by Lind (2001), are those that result from an individual’s consideration of their own experiences, in general; “How am I treated?” is one example. General judgments that look at perceptions over the overall entity rather than personal/direct experiences are those that result from consideration of questions like “How does this organization treat employees?” (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005). Emotional intelligence. While emotional intelligence has been defined as simply as “how leaders handle themselves and their relationships” (Goleman et al., 2013, p. 6), for the purpose of this study, emotional intelligence is defined by seven distinct dimensions that are inclusive of the two sides of emotional intelligence: self and others, as found within the Genos Emotional Intelligence model (Genos EI; Gignac, 2010). Those seven competencies are: 1. Emotional self-awareness 2. Emotional expression 3. Emotional awareness of others 4. Emotional reasoning 5. Emotional self-management 6. Emotional management of others 7. Emotional self-control (Gignac, 2010) Summary Emotional intelligence and organizational justice have long been recognized ass elements of organizational effectiveness. However, their relationship to one another through the focused lens of follower perceptions has yet to be examined. This makes the present research not only interesting but of practical relevance to organizations and the leaders within them. While this


12

study aimed to contribute to the discussion, it only begins to scrape the surface of potential value to organizations. As a means of constructing a frame of reference for the present study, the following chapter presents a review of the literature. This review outlines theory, models, and measures for both emotional intelligence (EI) and organizational justice (OJ). Furthermore, it offers a review of organizational citizenship behavior, and discusses how those extra role behaviors relate to leadership and justice.


13

Chapter 2: Literature Review The present study seeks to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field of leadership. It proposes to do that by exploring whether perceptions of leader emotional intelligence (EI) correlate to perceptions of overall justice in the organization (OJ), and if such a relationship exists, to what extent it is impacted by the level that leader has in the organization. To this end, the following literature review presents historic and current research results and conclusions as a framework for the purpose and value of the present research. It commences with a review of literature discussing leadership as a construct, and the study of leadership impact. It continues with an overview of related concepts, including organizational justice, emotional intelligence, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Based on an examination of select articles and studies, this review concludes with a discussion of opportunities to expand on current research and address apparent gaps therein. Framework The purpose of the present study is to explore the relationship between followers’ perception of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence and their perception of overall justice in the organization. While the measure of a leader’s applied emotional intelligence (actual) in the workplace is useful, and the application of just policies, procedures, and activities is valuable, the present study focuses on what happens after those actuals are filtered through followers’ experience resulting in perception. In fact, the present study focuses solely on follower perceptions; it examines the potential of relationship between follower perceptions of organizational justice and their perceptions of the emotional intelligence of their direct leader. Specifically, it explores whether perceptions of the leader as more or less emotionally intelligent will correlate with the follower’s perception of the organization as more or less just overall.


14

Conceptually, this study seeks to understand whether follower perceptions of direct leader emotional intelligence will correlate to perceptions of greater or lesser overall justice in the organization or have no statistically relevant correlation at all.

Follower Perceives Leader as More Emotionally Intelligent Follower Perceives Organization as More Just Overall

Direct Leader's Applied Emotional Intelligence Follower (Non-Leader)

Organizational Justice Inputs Follower Perceives Organization as Less Just Overall Follower Perceives Leader as Less Emotionally Intelligent

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the present study There are many ways to approach the presentation of a literature review (Cooper, 1988). This review expands on the conceptual framework of the present study by focusing on the subjects that most directly relate to understanding the research questions posed in the present study. For this reason, it considers the topics of general leadership, emotional intelligence, and organizational justice. The materials used to gather relevant information were obtained through a comprehensive search of online databases and journal resources, as well as print material in the form of books and articles, and in some cases through requests made directly to researchers and


15

authors. The majority of selected sources are restricted to the 5-year period preceding 2017, yet the entire preceding decade was considered, and some seminal works date back considerably further. Research Sourcing Efforts to amass the most relevant and useful information resulted in numerous searches. Using the EBSCO service, queries were executed on multiple databases, including American Doctoral Dissertations, Business Source Premier, Education Source, and Regional Business News. In addition to sources accessed via the EBSCO service, searches were conducted in Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and directly through Harvard Business Review online. Finally, a limited number of sources were obtained via direct request to the author or were obtained prior to the formalized querying just described. Keywords and Key Phrases A comprehensive listing of key words and phrases that comprised search queries in each category is found immediately after the associated heading in the sections that follow. In general, the search terms used in conducting the research queries already discussed include organizational justice, fairness, emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness and organizational citizenship behaviors. Emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence, emotional quotient, emotionally intelligent leaders, emotionally intelligent leadership, emotional quotient of leaders, emotional intelligence in leaders, emotional intelligence in leadership. Numerous studies suggest that up to two-thirds of the competencies that relate to performance above the mean (superior) are related to emotional and social qualities (Cherniss, 2005), and for leaders the number rises upward to 90% (Goleman, 2005). Considering these


16

realities, and the fact that people spend the majority of their non-sleeping hours at work (Cherniss, 2005), seeking to understand the role of these qualities in effective individual and leader performance is worthwhile. The following represents a look at the history, popular models, and specific competencies of emotional intelligence. Overview. Researchers frequently trace the concept of emotional intelligence back to social intelligence, and it has been referred to as the “seed field” of EI (Siegling, Saklofske, & Petrides, 2016). While some would establish the roots of those seeds back to Darwin’s work in the nineteenth century (Bar-On, 2006), most refer to Thorndike’s efforts in social intelligence in the 1920s (Petrides, 2011). In fact, Thorndike (1920) presented one of the earliest definitions of social intelligence, stating “By social intelligence is meant the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (p. 228). His assertion was that understanding one’s own internal condition, and awareness of the inner state of others, presents the means to behave more effectively than someone without this understanding and awareness (Thorndike, 1920). However, he recognized that tests of social intelligence were difficult to define (Thorndike, 1920), and after years of effort it was eventually determined that social intelligence simply could not be measured accurately and without dispute (Cronbach, 1970). Regardless of whether the roots are established with Thorndike or Darwin, most agree that modern research interest in the topic was renewed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) who took the term from an unpublished dissertation (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), and constructed a theoretical model. From there, the concept and label of “emotional intelligence” was popularized in the mid-1990s by Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence (Bar-On, 2006; Bass & Bass, 2008). Since that time, emotional intelligence has been garnering academic


17

respect and gaining popular acceptance; it has also been tied to leadership, studied for its influence on leadership effectiveness, and packaged for practical application by leaders in publications like Primal Leadership (Goleman et al., 2013). Contemporary research has not only focused on leaders’ competencies, but on the influence leader emotional intelligence has on followers and organizational outcomes (e.g. Goleman et al., 2013; Miao et al., 2017). Formal research into the topic stemmed from the idea that some people have “the ability to reason about and use emotions to enhance thought more effectively than others” (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008, p. 503). However, despite the popular belief that those abilities, now termed emotional intelligence, are a major factor in leadership, there are some who continue to question its scope of influence (Walter et al., 2011), and others who wonder if there is a manipulative element to it (Furnham & Rosen, 2016). Among researchers who view emotional intelligence as a complex construct still unfolding there are varying degrees of agreement about the definition (Walter et al., 2011). There are two constructs related to emotional intelligence – trait EI and ability EI, which are independent of one another and differentiated by the measurement used (Petrides, 2011). Trait EI stems from the realm of personality, while ability EI relates to cognitive abilities (Mayer et al., 2004). This distinction resulted from the findings of many studies, which confirmed that the various methods of measurement used in emotional intelligence research were not interchangeable (Petrides, Siegling, & Saklofske, 2016). Trait emotional intelligence is a model that evolved from the work of Petrides and Furnham (2001) that identified fundamental differences in the measurements, and in what was being measured. Trait EI is based in tendencies of behavior and perceived abilities (Bass & Bass, 2008; Petrides et al., 2016; Siegling et al., 2016). It is measured through self-reporting


18

tools, and the measurement is of the perception of ability and of tendencies (Bass & Bass, 2008; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Petrides et al., 2016). The ability model introduced by Salovey and Meyer (1990) presents emotional intelligence as the ability to recognize and monitor one’s own emotional state as well as the emotional state of others, and to then employ what is ascertained toward influencing thinking and behavior. It defines emotional intelligence as cognitive, and specifically as success in (1) perceiving and identifying emotions in the thoughts of oneself and others; (2) using emotions to think creatively and make decisions; (3) understanding and interpreting meaning in emotions, being open to feelings, avoiding defensiveness, and reflectively monitoring emotions. (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 124) Unlike the self-reporting that trait EI relies on, ability EI employs maximum performance measurements rather than self-reported perceptions (Caruso, 2015; Siegling et al., 2016). Based on the means of measurement, this model is considered more psychometrically sound than trait emotional intelligence which is generally measured through perceptions by self and others (Bass & Bass, 2008). Emotional and social intelligence (ESI). While emotional intelligence (EI) and social intelligence (SI) are different constructs, the terms are sometimes found in use together. This is not to imply that they are the same thing, however. Even so, while social intelligence focuses on interpersonal elements in particular, and to the exclusion of other elements (Ganaie & Mudasir, 2015), Goleman’s definition of emotional intelligence includes interpersonal competencies. In fact, there are studies where the two constructs are considered together as emotional and social intelligence (ESI). The present study seeks specifically to explore emotional intelligence competencies in an organizational context as they relate to leadership. For this reason, it


19

employs a definition of EI that is inclusive of SI and ESI in alignment with Goleman’s model of competencies, because this definition has been vetted in previous studies in similar contexts. Models. Today, there are three major models of ability EI; they are attributed to Salovey and Mayer, Bar-On, and Goleman (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Salovey and Mayer model. This model defines emotional intelligence as “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 5). It asserts that emotional intelligence is manifested in the appraisal and communication of emotion relating both to self and to others, the regulation of one’s own emotions and those of others, and the application of that emotional information toward problem solving (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and that it has four central components: perceiving emotion, applying emotion perceptions in thought processes, understanding and managing emotion in self and others (Mayer et al., 2004). This model uses the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) an ability-based measure. Bar-On model. Bar-On (2006) describes his model as “a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that impact intelligent behavior… [and] determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands” (p. 2). Unlike the other models noted here, Bar-On identifies that his model can be measured by multiple means, including self-report, interviewing, and multi-rater assessment (Bar-On, 2006). Goleman model. Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence is defined by abilities including self-motivation, persistence, impulse control, delayed gratification, mood regulation, clear-headed thinking under duress, empathy, and hopefulness (Goleman, 1995). This model is


20

constructed in a leader-context as it relates to management and is measured by assessment from multiple raters (self and others; Bar-On, 2006). Measures. Early measures of ability emotional intelligence sought to identify maximal performance data by employing performance-based tests (Siegling et al., 2016). This best-case performance “represents the highest level of ability that can be manifested by an individual at a particular time” (Gignac, 2010, p. 10). These are the types of tests associated with the measurement of true intelligence (IQ), and therefore some argued that there are questions of consistency when measuring and reporting on the subjective nature of emotional experience (Petrides, 2011). However, over time, a mixed-method approach utilizing self-rating was introduced to measure typical performance (Siegling et al., 2014). There are three major measures of emotional intelligence each of which aligns with the one of the three EI models previously discussed, and while only one is used in the present research, they are worthy of the overview provided for each one below. MSCEIT. Arguably, the most common of the three major measures of EI (Fiori, Antonietti, Mikolajczak, Luminet, Hansenne, & Rossier, 2014); the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is designed to test performance maximum ability versus perception of performance (Caruso, 2015). The designers state the Cronbach α=.97 for the total MSCEIT expert scoring (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003), which represents excellence in internal consistency. In an online grey paper, Caruso (2015) describes the MSCEIT as “like an IQ test for emotions” (para. 2), and he explains that it does not measure perceptions (one’s own or those of others), but rather it tests for the ability to discern, employ, and apply EI abilities. Still, he asserts that the MSCEIT is a valuable tool that is relevant to


21

organizational settings for selection and promotion, as well as various forms of career development (Caruso, 2015). Recently, Fiori and colleagues (2014) challenged the usefulness of the MSCEIT except where individuals are at the “low end” of the scale for a particular measure. In fact, they stated that its usefulness is limited to testing where the expectation is scoring below average on EI (Fiori et al., 2014). While this is a serious criticism, theirs is not the only challenge to the MSCEIT (see also, Maul, 2012) and its relevance to practical application contexts like organizational studies. Maul (2012) not only claims issues with application but challenges the Cronbach’s α reports for the test. These claims were quickly rebutted by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2012), and the claims of Fiori et al. (2014) are likely to receive attention from those researchers, as well. Regardless of the debate over internal consistency, for the purposes of the present study, the measure’s focus on demonstrated ability over impressions of performance is a poor fit for the present research on follower perceptions. EQ-i. The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) was developed to assess emotional and social intelligence (ESI) according to the Bar-On model (2006). The Bar-On model is a mixed model that overtly and intentionally includes social intelligence, and accordingly it asserts that “emotional-social intelligence is a cross-section [sic] of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands” (emphasis from original text; Bar-On, 2006, p. 3). The EQ-i is available in self-rating and multi-rater formats; it uses 133 items in five groupings to measure emotional and social intelligence across 15 separate scales (MHS, 2011).


22

It has been deployed and validated in large studies in North America (n=3831), the Netherlands (n=1639), Israel (n=2702; Bar-On, 2006), and a recent, but smaller study in Belgium (n=187; De Weerdt & Rossi, 2012). Bar-On (2006) presents the overall internal consistency of the EQ-I from the North American study as .97, a more than respectable level. Interestingly, De Weerdt and Rossi (2014) present the following side-by-side list of Cronbach α for each of the EQ-i's 15 scales for the large North American study cited by Bar-On (2006), and their own significantly smaller study of in Flemmish-speaking Belgium. Table 1 Internal consistency of individual EQ-i 2.0 scales (De Weerdt & Rossi, 2012, p. 151) EQ-i 2.0 Scale

Belgium N=187

USA N=3931

Emotional Self-Awareness

0.83

0.8

Assertiveness

0.76

0.81

Self-Regard

0.87

0.89

Self-Actualization

0.67

0.8

Independence

0.76

0.79

Empathy

0.75

0.75

Interpersonal Relationship

0.8

0.77

Social Responsibility

0.72

0.7

Problem Solving

0.77

0.8

Reality Testing

0.66

0.75

Flexibility

0.71

0.77

Stress Tolerance

0.79

0.84

Impulse Control

0.78

0.79

Happiness

0.78

0.81

Optimism

0.77

0.82


23

The overall validity of the EQ-i 2.0 has been confirmed in multiple studies (Bar-On, 2006; MHS, 2011), and the validity confirmation of each scale is reflected in the preceding data (De Weerdt & Rossi, 2012). As a reliable and validated measure, the EQ-i 2.0 is a practical tool for researchers and for organizations. Genos EI Inventory. The Genos Emotional Intelligence (Genos EI) Inventory results from the efforts of Ben Palmer and Con Stough at Swinburne University in Australia (Gignac, 2010). Revisions to the original iteration resulted in the 7-factor Genos EI inventory (Palmer, Stough, Harmer, & Gignac, 2009). Today, the Genos EI inventory is available in full, compressed, and short formats, and has been made generally available and accessible without cost for research purposes. This 70-item, multi-rater inventory employs 7 emotional intelligence dimensions, and specifically measures for both a total EI score and seven separate subscales (Gignac, 2010). The inventory is designed to measure “how often individuals are perceived to demonstrate emotionally intelligence workplace behavior” (Gignac, 2010, p. xiii). It has been used for both academic and organizational research in five separate nationalities, including American, Australian, South African, Indian, and Asian (Palmer et al., 2009). In addition, the results of the measurement have been used as a means of identifying opportunity for development and practical application in the workplace (Gignac, 2010). The Genos EI inventory has been validated to effectively measure a construct separate from other constructs, measure what it purports to measure, and offers prediction to outcomes in the workplace (Gignac, 2010; Palmer et al., 2009). Cronbach α for total EI and each of the seven subscales is based on workplace samples across the five nationalities, and reported as follows:


24

Table 2 Internal consistency of Genos EI inventory by nationality (Gignac, 2010, p. 45) Scale

Mean American

Asian

Australia Indian

S. African

N=374

N=450

N=4775

N=174

N=1023

Total emotional intelligence

.96

.97

.96

.96

.95

.94

Emotional self-awareness

.81

.83

.82

.83

.84

.77

Emotional expression

.77

.83

.77

.81

.67

.75

Emotional awareness of others

.85

.88

.87

.87

.83

.81

Emotional reasoning

.71

.76

.79

.74

.60

.67

Emotional self-management

.77

.83

.80

.79

.72

.73

Emotional management of others

.85

.87

.87

.86

.80

.83

Emotional self-control

.78

.80

.82

.78

.76

.73

The present research focuses on the Genos EI model as a robust assessment of the presence of emotionally intelligent behaviors in the workplace, as well as a means of supporting development. The Genos EI measures perceptions of actual behaviors and experiences rather than evaluating potential or maximal performance as measured in structured scenarios, and other inventories previously described, and is specifically designed for workplace contexts. For these reasons, the present study employs the Genos EI inventory as a measurement tool to collect appropriate data. Organizational justice. Organizational justice, justice and leadership, organizational injustice. fairness, fairness at work, fairness perceptions, organizational fairness, fair treatment in the workplace, justice perceptions, social exchange, psychological contract, reciprocity, justice and performance.


25

Organizational justice is one of the most researched topics in organizational studies (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2007; Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki, & Shao, 2017). It is defined as “employees’ perceptions of the fairness of outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment” (Rupp et al., 2017, p. 939). These perceptions result from social exchanges, and unlike perceptions of injustice, positive justice perceptions generate cohesiveness between employees and the organization, which fosters collaboration (Cropanzano et al., 2007), an increasingly important outcome in contemporary organizations (Carter, 2016; Goldsmith et al., 2003; Kumar, 2014). As an influencer of followers’ attitudes and behaviors justice plays a vital role in organizations (Colquitt et al., 2007; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Podsakoff, Cropanzano, Rupp, Thornton, & Shao, 2016). The perceptions of justice that followers have are prominent issues for them in the workplace (Colquitt & Zipay, 2015). When they perceive the organization as fair and just, they exhibit more desirable behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2016), but those behaviors are withdrawn when injustice is the prevailing perception (Chang, 2015). Perceptions of (in)justice promote (or derail) all-important knowledge exchange and cooperation (Carter, Mossholder, Feild, & Armenakis, 2014). They have an effect on both attitude and behavior (Thomas & Nagalingappa, 2012), and while justice can increase desirable behaviors, injustice is “hurtful to individuals and harmful to organizations” (Cropanzano et al., 2007, p. 34). Follower perceptions of organizational (in)justice are of importance to today’s organizations because they influence levels of trust, which positively impact desirable outcomes, including performance (Banerjee & Banerjee, 2013; Colquitt, Lepine, Piccolo, Zapata & Rich, 2012; Xu et al., 2016), as well as innovation and creativity (Carnevale et al., 2017) all of which contribute to an organization’s ability to compete in today’s demanding and dynamic


26

marketplace. Finally, justice perceptions are related to desirable extra-role behaviors that benefit the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2016; Thomas & Nagalingappa, 2012). Conversely, perceptions of injustice may result in undesirable behaviors including theft and absenteeism (Greenberg, 1990) and other retaliatory and counterproductive behaviors (Chang, 2015). Overview. While justice as a virtue can be traced back to Aristotle (Bass & Bass, 2008; Kumar, 2014; Rupp et al., 2017), the term organizational justice is used to describe perceptions of fairness, as they exist (or do not) in workplace contexts (Al-Zu’bi, 2010; Chang, 2015; Choudhry, Philip, & Kumar, 2011; Demirtas, 2015). Justice is important in organizations because justice perceptions have for years been linked to both positive organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Moorman & Byrne, 2005) and injustice to counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs; Chang, 2015) and retaliatory behaviors (Scarlicki & Folger, 1997). Where the former represents desirable and necessary extra-role behaviors upon which organizations rely (Demirtas, 2015), the latter have negative impacts that can be costly to the organization (Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). Since the turn of the century, justice research has focused on and confirmed social exchange theory as the link to organizational justice perceptions (Colquitt, Scott, Rodell, Long, Zapata, Conlon, & Wesson, 2013), and how those perceptions influence employee outcomes like performance among others (Zhang, Lepine, Buckman, & Wei, 2014). Organizational justice perceptions are established in social exchange relationships where employees perform based on the perception of benefits received (reciprocation; Moorman & Byrne, 2005). The desire to reciprocate perceived benefits is rooted in the idea of felt obligation or the employee’s belief that they should care about the leader or organization and contribute to the accomplishment of shared goals (Einsberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Employee expectations of


27

reciprocity of the employee-organization relationship have long been described as a psychological contract (Solberg & Dysvik, 2015), and the idea of felt obligation can be considered an element of that contract which encompasses employees’ expectations of what they should receive from and contribute to the leader and organization (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). An employee’s behaviors of cooperation with (or efforts against) the organization are a function of the level of justice (or injustice) they perceive (Hayibor, 2017). Where employees perceive fair treatment, they present a tendency to contribute to and provide support for the organization (Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). Recently Goldman and Cropanzano (2015) have initiated discussion of separating the terms justice and fairness in the research. They argue that justice relates to perceptions of consistency in rules employment, while fairness pertains to the perception of appropriateness of such justice actions (Goldman & Cropanzano, 2015). For example, if an organization had a policy of providing a 1% bonus to every employee in years where the company exceeds its net revenue goals, and the organization does just that in a particular year, the action could be perceived simultaneously as both just and unfair. The distinction of perceptions of justice and fairness could be result from the idea that although it may seem just that every employee received 1% according to the rule, the level of fairness is open to perception based on how appropriate employees feel the action is toward themselves and towards others. For example, consider how a new employee working in a minor role at the organization might perceive the fairness of such an action differently than a 15-year veteran who contributes directly to the revenue generation that resulted in the bonus trigger. While there is certainly merit in a call for research differentiating the distinction in these terms, as introduced by Goldman and Cropanzano (2015), the terms continue to be used synonymously


28

in much of the research (Rupp et al., 2017). Therefore, for the purpose of the present study, the terms justice and fairness are used interchangeably. Justice dimensions. Current research on justice in organizations identifies that perceptions of justice are drawn from organization and leader actions and decisions relating to three dimensions, recently labeled the “Big 3” (Podsakoff et al., 2016; Rupp et al., 2017): distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Research on these dimensions seeks to explain employees’ justice perceptions in organizations, while acknowledging that those perceptions are subjective in nature, and therefore distinctions among individuals exist (Rupp et al., 2017). Distributive justice. Defined as the fairness of distribution of resources and rewards (distributive justice; Al-Zu’bi, 2010; Bass & Bass, 2008; Choudhry et al., 2011), this dimension encompasses impressions of decision-making fairness (Podsakoff et al., 2016). Much of the research in this dimension has been narrowly focused on pay equity (Rupp et al., 2017). Distributive justice in organizations is based on the perceptions of individual employees, and therefore subjective in nature. As is the case with all the justice dimensions, the subjective nature of resulting perceptions is a compounding of subjectivity; it begins with individualized definitions of what are or are not valuable resources or benefits (to receive) and continues with employees’ subjective definitions of their own contribution obligation (to give) in the exchange relationship (Rupp et al., 2017). Correspondingly, injustice perceptions are equally subjective, depending on the correlation (or lack thereof) between the individual’s perceptions of equity in the give-receive relationship. Procedural justice. Procedural justice is the seed from which much of contemporary organizational justice research has grown (Rupp et al., 2017). It relates to fairness and


29

justification in the decision-making process (Choudhry et al., 2011), and reflects ethics, consistency, and accuracy, all while mitigating bias (Podsakoff et al., 2016). Procedural justice theory is rooted in dispute resolution, and perceptions of fairness are tied to the individual’s perception of control – both in being heard and in influencing the outcomes, but more importantly in being heard; “the more voice disputants have, the greater the perceived fairness of the dispute resolution procedure” (Rupp et al., 2017, p. 929). Research on procedural justice has identified that it is a predictor of important attitudes, including trust and outcomes important to the organization, including commitment (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). However, the research has positioned procedural justice in a light unique from the other dimensions; specifically, that it influences perceptions of distributive justice, and it predicts outcomes – on its own and together with other justice dimensions (Rupp et al., 2017). Interactional justice. This dimension encompasses perceptions of fairness in treatment, including how decisions are communicated (Bass & Bass, 2008; Ohana, 2014). It is worth noting that although the three-dimension model is still widely used, there is a four-dimension model (Colquitt & Rodell, 2015) that splits the interactional dimension of justice into two parts; specifically that people perceive they are treated with “dignity and respect” (interpersonal justice; Colquitt et al., 2012, p. 3), and that the decisions and execution of decisions are communicated adequately in a manner that stimulates perceptions of fairness (informational justice; Chang, 2015; Kumar, 2014). Like the other justice dimensions, the research and measure of interactional justice, has evolved to generally include one or more other dimensions of justice within the studies. This has resulted in valuable findings, including the fact that interpersonal justice, which includes impressions of interpersonal and informational fairness, can offset the potential for retaliatory


30

behavior even where unfairness is perceived in procedures (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). These types of findings underscore the importance of respect, authenticity, and communication from both organizations and leaders in fostering positive justice perceptions. Overall justice. Despite this topic of on-going discussion, the abundance of research confirms that there is a clear distinction among the different dimensions of justice and how perceptions are formed as they relate to each one (Colquitt et al., 2013). Even so, there is evidence that perceptions of justice reflect a “holistic judgment in which [people] respond to whatever information is both available and salient” (Greenberg, 2001, p. 211) rather than to one or more specific dimensions. This school of thought has been present since the early 1990s (Podsakoff et al., 2016), but only found a theoretical foundation in the work of Ambrose and colleagues (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose, Wo, & Griffith, 2015). This holistic approach of overall justice asserts that perceptions are formed based on events as experienced from the various individual dimensions in concert, rather than being recognized as any single or specific combination of the individual dimensions. It perceives justice impressions as formed either based on a specific event with a clear ending, or they are formed based on an entity which is an enduring, overarching experience not tied directly to a specific event (Ambrose et al., 2015). Research indicates that overall justice perceptions are not limited to justice, but also to injustice; when injustice is perceived, people do not differentiate among the justice dimensions, but rather form an overall impression (Shapiro, 2001). This makes overall fairness and its influence on attitudes and behavior a valid direction for research (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005). That said, it is important to clarify that overall justice does not replace the individual justice dimensions, nor does it address the specificity of justice perceptions related to events (Podsakoff


31

et al., 2016). Overall justice is distinct from the other dimensions of justice, and while it does not replace the others, it has its own place in the research (Jones & Martens, 2009). Justice and leadership. Leaders have an influential role in the development of justice perceptions (Demirtas, 2015), and follower perceptions of justice increase leaders’ ability to influence them in organizations (De Gieter, De Cooman, Hofmans, Pepermans, & Jegers, 2012). Perhaps not surprisingly, research has demonstrated that perceptions of justice and quality of social exchanges are related to employee attitudes and behaviors (Tekleab et al., 2005). In addition, the role of leadership in communicating information and treating followers respectfully is essential. These leader behaviors influence the interpersonal and informational justice perceptions (Podsakoff et al., 2016). In turn, where these perceptions are of justice, they have the potential to negate perceptions of procedural injustice; however, it is noteworthy that where the perceptions are fundamentally of injustice, they are more likely to result in negative outcomes than are the other dimensions (Rupp et al., 2017). Fostering justice perceptions and mitigating the potential for perceptions of injustice contributes to the presence of desirable attitudes and behaviors, or organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2016). These behaviors, discussed in detail in the following subsection entitled Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, are critical in organizations because they bridge the gap between stated role descriptions and the actual performance outcomes that are necessary to support the organization and address unforeseen contingencies (Kumar, 2014). Therefore, understanding what influences these extra role behaviors is relevant and represents an important concern for contemporary organizations not only because they increase desirable behaviors (Carnevale et al., 2017; Colquitt et al., 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2016), but also because


32

they are negatively correlated to unproductive behaviors including turnover (Thomas & Nagalingappa, 2012), intention to turnover, and absenteeism (Tekleab et al., 2005). Measurement. When measuring justice, it is pertinent to determine whether the focus is on a singular justice dimension, or a combination of dimensions (distributive, procedural, interactional, and interactional as represented by interpersonal and informational), or whether the focus is on a holistic impression of justice (overall justice). Additionally, justice impressions can differentiate based on the focus of the perception; perceptions of the individual leader and of the overall organization may not only be distinct but may serve as mediating or moderating factors (Podsakoff et al., 2016). Much of the research has included more than one justice dimension as a means of understanding the complexities that underlie justice perceptions, and there are myriad tools to measure them individually and in combination. Despite a plethora of research that singles out one, two, or more specific dimensions of justice, there are some who assert that there is increasing evidence that measures of overall justice should be receiving more attention in contemporary research (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005; Rupp et al., 2017). While there is growing evidence that perceptions of the various justice dimensions may well lead to a higher order overall justice perception and are therefore valid (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005), it is important to note that this approach to measure overall justice rather than multiple dimensions of justice is by no means the only one being employed (Rupp et al., 2017), and it does not replace the individual justice constructs, but rather is an addition to them (Podsakoff et al., 2016). Scales of justice emerged in the mid-2000s, measuring generalized impressions of overall justice rather than differentiating individual dimensions (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt


33

& Shaw, 2005). Items included in overall justice scales query perceptions of justice as a whole, and specifically omit parsing data for the separate dimensions individually (Podsakoff et al., 2016). This singular focus results in scales that generally include a limited number of items. Perhaps the earliest of these was presented by Tansky (1993; as cited in Podsakoff et al., 2016). It employed just three items: “‘management in my organization treats me honestly and ethically,’ ‘overall my organization is fair,’ and ‘the programs and policies in my organization are fair’” (p. 9). Findings based on this scale generally predicted altruism, and findings specifically relating to leadership fairness predict both altruism and conscientiousness (Podsakoff et al., 2016) – the two extra-role behaviors first identified by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). More recently, Ambrose and Schminke (2009) established the Perceived Overall Justice (POJ) scale that employs six items: 1. Overall, I am treated fairly by my organization. 2. In general, I can count on this organization to be fair. 3. In general, the treatment I receive around here is fair. 4. Usually, the way things work in this organization are not fair (reverse scored). 5. For the most part, this organization treats its employees fairly. 6. Most of the people who work here would say they are often treated unfairly (reverse scored; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009, p. 493) The Perceived Overall Justice scale (POJ) developed by Ambrose and Schminke (2009) asks respondents to assess their own justice perceptions as they relate to how they experience an entity (supervisor, organization, etc.) overall, rather than to offer perceptions of justice judgments relating to a specific event (performance review, pay raise, layoffs, etc.). The sixitem POJ scale has three items designed to measure overall justice perceptions of the


34

organization, and three more to measure overall justice perceptions of the immediate leader. The measure employs a 7-point Likert response format using 1=strongly disagree through 7=strongly agree to collect data for analysis. Ambrose and Schminke (2009) document internal consistency to be excellent, reporting the Cronbach as .93, and external validity was confirmed by Lind’s (2001) call for a measurement for overall justice perceptions, as well as a recommendation for the same by Colquitt and Shaw (2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). In addition, they diligently compared the POJ against measures of each individual justice dimension – both the three (distributive, procedural, and interactional) and four factor (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) models, as well as against a composite of all those dimensions. They found that the overall justice measure provides explanation of justice perceptions beyond what is available by any individual or composite measure; this confirms the construct validity of overall justice. Additionally, the POJ content validity – confirmation that it measures what it says it will measure (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000) –was established by the fact that the results provided distinct and greater explanation of over the measure of other justice dimensions or the composite. Organizational citizenship behaviors. Organizational citizenship, organizational citizenship behaviors, OCBs, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, follower commitment, follower satisfaction. Bateman and Organ (1983) are credited with the development of the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) construct more than three decades ago in 1983. At that time, they established its roots in the concept of reciprocity stemming from social exchange theory. They contended that when employees are personally satisfied by what is perceived as extra, but non-manipulative, effort on the part of the organization, they seek to reciprocate (Bateman & Organ, 1983).


35

The scope of the resulting citizenship behaviors, initially defined as discretionary behaviors that are not required by the role (non-task) nor included in the formal rewards system, and which are performed by personal choice (Bateman & Organ, 1983), have since been amended to include behaviors included within the existing reward system (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). This extra-role behavior, labeled “supra-role” behavior by Bateman and Organ (1983, p. 588), is the form of exchange enacted by employees as reciprocal because these OCBs are generally within their loci of control (Bateman & Organ, 1983), and employees have more discretion in these areas than they do in their formal responsibilities (Smith et al., 1983). Today, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are defined as “beneficial actions by employees that are not always [emphasis added] formalized into work roles” (Podsakoff et al., 2016), meaning that they are extra role behaviors that exceed formalized expectations (Kumar, 2014), and contribute to the organization’s effective function (Chang, 2015). Alongside of justice theories, organizational citizenship behavior has been a constant presence in organizational research (Podsakoff et al., 2016). However, despite this longevity, the majority of articles on the topic have been published since the start of the 21 st century (Podsakoff et al., 2009). This implies increased interest in expanding the understanding of what fosters OCBs in organizations, and what are the antecedents of such behavior. Successful organizations have employees who go beyond their formal job responsibilities and freely give of their time and energy to succeed at the assigned job. Such altruism is neither prescribed nor required; yet it contributes to the smooth functioning of the organization. Organizations could not survive or prosper without their members


36

behaving as good citizens by engaging in all sorts of positive behaviors. (Jahangir, Akbar, & Haq, 2004, p. 75) Extra-role behaviors. The contemporary concept of extra-role behaviors, and the first list of those behaviors that relate to organizational effectiveness, can be traced back to Katz (1964). Among the relevant extra-role behaviors in that premier list were idea sharing, defense of the organization, and self-development (Katz, 1964). From there, Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) and Bateman and Organ (1983) took the reins, and although perhaps not seminal, their respective efforts are considered foundational to the field of study (Podsakoff et al., 2016). Smith et al. (1983) identified altruism and conscientiousness as two specific extra-role behaviors. They (Smith et al., 1983) also defined these wholly voluntarily behaviors as providing person-specific assistance, and providing general support and aid, respectively. These tenets remain central to research in the field today (Podsakoff et al., 2016). OCBs and justice. Despite the fact that organizational citizenship behaviors and justice are deeply entwined (Moorman & Byrne, 2005), justice was not a direct consideration in early efforts in the field of OCB (e.g. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). Regardless, much research has ensued in the time since those efforts, and justice has long been recognized as a predictor of OCBs (Podsakoff et al., 2016); in fact, research is consistent in reflecting a positive relationship between the two (Colquitt et al., 2013). The extra role behaviors that “lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly inhere [sic] in the usual notion of task performance” (Bateman & Organ, 1983, p. 588) contribute to organizational effectiveness (Katz, 1964; Rupp et al., 2017; Smith et al., 1983). Organizations benefit from organizational citizenship behaviors because they have been


37

shown to contribute to organizational success (Chang, 2015), and they are, therefore, important considerations for contemporary organizations (Al-Zu’bi, 2010). In addition to being related to organizational effectiveness, Podsakoff and colleagues (2009) have found that OCBs also have a negative correlation with undesirable behaviors, including turnover, turnover intention, and absenteeism, all of which can be costly (Chang, 2015). A recent meta-analytic effort (Chang, 2015) identified that all justice forms were negatively correlated with undesirable outcomes, or counterproductive work behavior. This meta-analysis also supported and confirmed earlier findings (Colquitt et al., 2001) that each of the individual dimensions of justice is positively correlated with OCBs (Chang, 2015). Research as far back as 25 years ago has found that justice and fairness perceptions are contributors to the presence of OCBs in organizations (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993), and since they have the potential to positively influence organizational outcomes, it is only logical to pursue identification of antecedents (Podsakoff et al., 2009). This is just one of the reasons that the present research on perceptions of overall justice in organizations is a worthwhile endeavor. OCBs and emotional intelligence in leaders. It has long been recognized that leader fairness is important to followers (Carter et al., 2014). Although Smith and colleagues (1983) posited more than 30 years ago that leader respect and consideration would predict the presence of extra-role behaviors, at that time there was not yet evidence to that effect. Eventually, the research supported the position, and today there is general acceptance that satisfaction drives OCBs (Podsakoff et al., 2016). Leader-follower relationship is a highly influential element in followers’ willingness to demonstrate extra role behaviors, and perceptions of fairness are recognized as a contributing factor to those behaviors (Kumar, 2014). Furthermore, where trust is fostered employees


38

perceive that their extra-role behaviors will be reciprocated even without formalized agreement (Xu et al., 2014). Conversely, when employees feel a need for formal safety nets, OCBs are much less likely to be present (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). Justice impressions also play into this as perceptions of fair treatment “may be a key source of information about the quality of the present relationship” with the supervisor or organization (Moorman & Byrne, 2005, p. 361). For this reason, contemporary organizations should be concerned with how organization citizenship behaviors are manifested and fostered in followers. Therefore, the present research relating to how follower perceptions of leader emotional intelligence and overall entity justice impressions impact OCBs should be compelling for organizations and for the leaders within them. Research Gaps and Opportunities While much is known about emotional intelligence in leaders, the influence leaders exert on followers, and the role of leadership in increasing organizational citizenship behaviors in followers, there remains a gap in the available knowledge. Despite an abundance of valuable research and meaningful outcomes associated with emotional intelligence in leadership, the majority of this work has focused on the leaders’ self-assessment, rather than on the followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence in the leader. Additionally, although organizational justice is a field of study that has been expanding in recent history, the correlation of followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence to their perception of fairness in the organization is yet to be investigated. Linking the two together represents an opportunity to bridge the gap that existing research has not studied. Finally, the call for additional research related to overall justice perceptions rather than perceptions of one dimension of justice or another present an opportunity to examine overall justice impressions in an organizational context. By examining the relatedness of leader


39

emotional intelligence based on follower perceptions and organizational justice as an overall justice perception, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by approaching these two crucial elements of leadership and organizational effectiveness from a novel perspective. Summary Organizations rely on the performance of members to generate effectiveness necessary for competitiveness and viability (Al-Zu’bi, 2010), and the relationship between employee and organization has long been a topic of interest both academically and practically (Tekleab et al., 2005). In fact, organizations have come to be dependent on the extra-role behaviors of employees to bridge the gap to effectiveness (Carter, 2016; Goldsmith et al., 2003; Kumar, 2014). Furthermore, it is evidenced that extra role performance in the form of organizational citizenship behaviors influences organizational effectiveness (Choudhry et al., 2011). Contemporary research has discovered that emotional intelligence in leaders can influence follower extra role performance (Law, Wong, Huang, & Li, 2008). In addition, there is a plethora of research that investigates the role of follower justice perceptions on the presence of organizational citizenship behaviors (Choudhry et al., 2011). However, despite these seemingly related understandings, there is a notable absence of research considering how follower perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence may influence their perceptions of justice in the organization. Therefore, it is an important contribution to the field of leadership to explore what relationship might exist between follower perceptions of leader emotional intelligence and their perceptions of organizational justice, and how these perceptions may manifest as extra role behavior. Due to its impact on organizational outcomes, organizational justice is relevant to contemporary organizations and a meaningful subject for research (Chang, 2015). Furthermore,


40

the approach employed in the present study is appropriate in that it looks at justice as an overall impression, which aligns with current recommendations (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt, & Shaw, 2005). In addition, because justice can drive OCBs and injustice can negatively impact the same (Chang, 2015), identifying correlations between leader emotional intelligence and perceptions of justice is relevant. Clearly there are many potential benefits to expanding the understanding of how to increase desirable extra-role behaviors, not the least of which is the opportunity to positively influence organizational success. Since OCBs are relied on by organizations to provide an “edge” and improve competitive positioning (Goldsmith et al., 2003; Kumar, 2014), considering how follower perceptions of leader emotional intelligence and overall justice influence the presence or absence of such behaviors should not be merely of interest to organizations, but of concern to both organizations and the leadership within them.


41

Chapter 3: Method of Research While the impact of emotional intelligence on organizational justice has been studied based on a leader’s self-perception, neglecting the workplace realities that result from follower perceptions limits how the findings inform about the relationship between the followers and the reality of their perceptions. Therefore, the present study employed quantitative measures to identify what, if any, correlation exists between followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence (EI) and their perception of organizational justice. While it did not purpose to establish causal relationships, this study employed a descriptive survey approach to examine two subjective measures among non-leader, full-time employees in large U.S. organizations (more than 500 employees) who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. Survey respondents assessed their perception of the direct leader’s emotional intelligence and of organizational justice, and the data were analyzed to identify and assess potential correlations between the two. As a means of accomplishing the research goals, this study employed a quantitative perspective and normative survey method to examine whether any correlation exists between the variables measured. The author of this research explored the following questions: RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and followers’ perception of overall justice? RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice?

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE Research Method & Design In order to best understand the potential relationship between follower perceptions of leader emotional intelligence and organizational justice, this research employed a quantitative, correlational approach with a normative survey design to collect and measure data that was then used to analyze the potential relationship between the two study variables. Qualitative options were considered, but ultimately were rejected as the most appropriate means of data collection. Qualitative data collection presents various means of examining the multifaceted, deeply detailed nature of relationships and human behavior (Maxwell, 2013), and is used to gather information about participants’ internal processing, including motivations and intentions (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). While this depth of data collection can be highly beneficial, the present study specifically sought to measure direct perceptions. Therefore, the quantitative method, which supports the use of existing instruments to measure follower perceptions and to examine any potential relationship between the variables, was deemed most appropriate. Quantitative research tests hypotheses related to specific variables, and correlational studies consider relationship(s) between those variables. “Correlational research is a type of nonexperimental [sic] research in which the researcher measures two variables and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables” (“Research Methods,” 2016, p. 136). This describes the goals of the present study, which measures two variables (emotional intelligence and organizational justice) and assesses the potential for relationship between them. It does not purport to identify nor prove causation between the two; neither does it attempt to constrain outside variables. These research parameters

42


43

support a correlational approach (Joyner, Rouse, & Glatthorn, 2013; “Research Methods,” 2016). Quantitative, correlational research methodology commonly employs inventories or surveys as a means of objective measurement, and then enacts statistical analysis to produce numerical representations of the collected data. From that analysis findings are interpreted and reported. Such is the case of the present study, which collected data using a normative survey employing items from two assessments. The emotional intelligence variable is measured using the Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI; Palmer et al., 2009), and the organizational justice variable was measured using the Perceived Overall Justice measure (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). The details of these inventories are presented under the heading Materials/Instruments. Participants This section reviews definitions, constraints, and other relating participant selection for the study. Population. The population for this study includes non-leader (“followers”), full-time employees in large U.S. organizations (more than 500 employees) who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. Based on the sheer size of this population, it cannot be studied in its entirety; therefore, sampling was used to generalize the research findings. Sample. Since generalizations drawn from samples are only valuable where the sample accurately represents the entirety of the population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013), careful attention is paid to defining the sample. Even so, probability sampling that affords equal chance of selection to every member is simply not feasible, nor is it practical to determine a specific subset of the population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Therefore, the present study applies the descriptive


44

research method of convenience sampling, which engages available and willing participants as respondents. It is important to note, however, that the use of nonprobability sampling presents a limitation in that there is no way to guarantee that every member of the population is represented by the data. Sample size. In survey-based research, sampling decisions are given careful consideration; in fact, the goal of sample estimation, and the common preference for large and random samples is that they “provide the most accurate estimates of what is true in the population (“Research Methods,” 2016). The total population of full-time, non-supervisory employees working in the United States for organizations with ≥500 members is quite large, far exceeding 5000, and according to some research guides this calls for a sample size of ≥1000 (“Research Methods,” 2016). However, there are others that assert a representative sample of ≥400 is adequate to generalize findings for very large populations (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Since the goal of sample estimation is to ensure that the study findings offer accurate generalization, a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size for the present study. A priori power analysis generates an understanding of the minimum sample size needed to mitigate Type II errors. Type II or β errors are those that reflect a false negative in study findings; in other words, the research fails to recognize a relationship where one truly does exist (Farrokhyar, Reddy, Poolman, & Bhandari, 2013; Statistics Solutions, 2017). Engaging the minimum sample size to achieve the goals of the study is an implementation of ethical research; it ensures that resources are not carelessly or unnecessarily expended, and that there is no burden on the participant population beyond what is necessary to exact the potential value of the study (Farrokhyar et al., 2013).


45

In order to determine sample size, a priori power analysis was conducted using the standard, although arbitrary (Farrokhyar et al., 2013) settings of power = 0.80, α = 0.05, and Cohen’s δ (effect) = 0.5 (medium). A power analysis for the one-tailed hypotheses in this study was calculated online (https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=47) and the resulting minimum total sample was set at 156. Recruitment strategy. To obtain the target sample size and maximize the benefits of the research, considerable attention was given to recruitment. The present study employed convenience sampling, engaging the most readily available and willing participants as respondents. To that end, an invitation to participate was extended to respondents sourced through Centiment, a third party online survey delivery service. Respondent characteristics. The respondent sourcing constraints include non-leader, full-time employees in large U.S. organizations (more than 500 employees) who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. Materials/Instruments This study measured and analyzed two variables: (1) followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s trait emotional intelligence, and (2) followers’ perceptions of organizational justice. Data were collected using validated questionnaires with documented reliability, which allows for consistent and objective collection of data. From this data and the ensuing analysis, a correlation between the variables was examined. Participants completed a survey created using instruments that have been validated and proven reliable in previous research. Two separate instruments were used


46

to measure each of the two variables. One was used to measure perceived emotional intelligence, and the other to measure organizational justice perceptions. Emotional intelligence. A review of the literature revealed performance-based measurement, self-report, and others-report as the three dominant methods of data collection for emotional intelligence. Performance-based measures, also known as ability measures use observation, and performance lab exercises to measure maximum performance. Arguably, the most well-known of these is the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Like other EI performance-based tests, the MSCEIT uses actual performance rather than beliefs about what performance would be (Mayer et al., 2000). “The MSCEIT is like an IQ test for emotions” (Caruso, 2015, para. 2); it measures actual performance rather than perception of capability. Self-report is a common measure for emotional intelligence in the workplace. This method calls for individuals to rate their own emotional intelligence using a questionnaire or other method of data collection (Mayer et al., 2000). However, self-report has been de-bunked as a 1:1 equivalent for performance-based measure because the self-report measures only how the individual perceives his or her performance, rather than the capability for performance (Gutiérrez-Moret, Aguilar-Moya, Ibáñez-Martínez, & Vidal-Infer, 2017). In addition, since selfreport requires individuals to rate their emotional intelligence based on memory, there is the problem of faulty recall (Tavris & Aronson, 2007; Tourangeau, 2000); “In general, information associated with positive affect is more easily remembered than that associated with negative affect” (Kihlstrom, Eich, Sandbrand, & Tobias, 2009, p. 82). Even so, as a measure of what the individual perceives, it is meaningful data.


47

The present study employs yet another option which calls for other-than-self ratings of an entity, also known as an others-report or informant method. While there is strong evidence that self-reporting of typical behaviors is a more effective approach than the maximum potential approach (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011), it is important to note that the informant method has specific limitations. Unlike the direct perceptions of self-report, informant reporting is based on perceptions from another party. Therefore, informant reporting is a step removed from the direct perception of the individual being rated, which is already one step from the actual ability of the individual being measured (Mayer et al., 2000). However, since the present study seeks to examine follower perceptions specifically, the informant method is not only most appropriate, but the only reasonable option. Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI). While some EI measures focus on maximal performance using fabricated scenarios and exercises to measure emotionally intelligent responses (Caruso, 2015; Palmer et al., 2009; Siegling et al., 2014), the Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI) was selected for use in the present study because it measures the exhibition and typicality of emotionally intelligent behaviors in the workplace, or stated differently, it measures the regularity with which an individual demonstrates relevant behaviors (Gignac, 2010). Originating as the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUIET; Palmer et al., 2009), the Genos EI is used in both academic and organizational contexts. It can be used to obtain ratings from individuals (self-report), as well as from those around the individual including leaders, colleagues, and followers. However, it cannot be categorized as a mixed model inventory because unlike Bar-On’s EQ-i (Bar-On, 2006) and others like it, the Genos EI does not mix emotional intelligence measures with other (non-EI) personality elements (Gignac,


48

2010). In fact, one of the unique aspects of the Genos EI is its rigorous constraint of measures relating only to psychological dimensions related to the “identification, utilization [sic] and/or management of emotions” (Gignac, 2010, p.11). According to the technical manual (Gignac, 2010), the full version is written at a reading grade level of 7.4 and is appropriate for adults but is not applicable to non-adults. This makes it an excellent option for workplace leadership research in general, and the option for others-rating makes it appropriate for the present study. The Genos EI is available in three versions: short (14 items), concise (31 items), and full (70 items). All three versions call for raters to respond using a 5-point Likert response format ranging from “Almost Never” to “Almost Always,” and completion of each requires 5, 10, and 20 minutes respectively. While the concise and short versions may have application relevance in organizational contexts, they meet only minimum research standards, and therefore the present research employs the full version, which exceeds that level in both validation and reliability as previously discussed. Genos EI dimensions and scales. In addition to a Total EI score, the Genos EI measures seven dimensions of emotionally intelligent behavior representing both self- and othersawareness. The seven dimensions, (1) Emotional Self-Awareness, (2) Emotional Expression, (3) Emotional Awareness of Others, (4) Emotional Reasoning, (5) Emotional Self-Management, (6) Emotional Management of Others, (7) Emotional Self-Control, represent the emotions-related psychological dimensions measured specifically in a workplace context. According to the technical manual (Gignac, 2010), the seven subscales measure frequency of demonstrable aspects of each dimension, as individually described below, and the total EI score represents a balanced composite of all seven.


49

1. Emotional Self-Awareness (ESA) measures the conscious awareness of one’s emotions and their influence on attitude and behavior. 2. Emotional Expression (EE) refers to the expression of both positive and negative emotions “the right way, at the right time, and to the right people” (p. 12). 3. Emotional Awareness of Others (EAO) includes awareness of both verbal and non-verbal expressions and their potential influence in the workplace. 4. Emotional Self-Management (ESM) relates to the successful self-management of mostly negative emotions or negatively charged emotional states, for example recovery and reset of emotions after a setback; ESM represents a proactive response to an emotional scenario. 5. Emotional Reasoning (ER) measures the use of pertinent information as an element of decision making, and the incorporation of both self- and othersawareness in problem solving. 6. Emotional Management of Others (EMO) measures the success of influencing others toward a more positive environment, and “modifying the emotions of others for their own personal betterment” (p. 13). 7. Emotional Self-Control (ESC) specifically measures the typicality of control amid strong emotions, and the ability to maintain work-related focus and productivity; ESC is the reactive counterpart of ESM. 8. Total EI is the composite score for the seven individual dimensions. It reflects the frequency of success in the full spectrum of EI behaviors measured by the subscales, including awareness of self- and others-emotions, application of reason to such awareness, and appropriate emotions management and self-control.


50

Genos EI validity. The Genos EI inventory is a second-generation of the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT; Palmer et al., 2009). Like any valid measure of emotional intelligence, it must effectively measure those elements that specifically contribute to emotional intelligence, and it must effectively measure what it says it will. Confirming that an inventory measures what it says it will is the very definition of content validity (Bar-On & Parker, 2000), and is therefore essential. The Genos EI normative sample of 4775 was established in 2007 across five westernized nations. It is comprised of adults with relative gender balance and is representative of an age range typical in workplace environments (18-76 years; Gignac, 2010). The internal consistency reliability across the subscales demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha reliability between .71 and .85 (Palmer et al., 2009), and the total EI score is reported as .96, which demonstrates that the Genos EI measures what it purports to measure. Additionally, the test-retest stability has proven sufficient, with two- and six-month correlations reflecting .83 and .72 respectively. Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis was supported not only for self-reporting, but for others-reporting (CFI=.962; Palmer et al., 2009), which is directly relevant to the present study. Organizational justice. In the present study, organizational justice is measured as overall justice, rather than as distinct dimensions of justice (procedural, distributive, interactional, informational), because there is evidence that overall justice perceptions may provide a more comprehensive understanding of justice concepts (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005). The Perceived Overall Justice (POJ) measures overall justice in a binary fashion, incorporating both entity judgments that relate to personal/direct experiences (Lind, 2001), as well as general perceptions of an entity as a whole that supersede specific experiences (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005).


51

Perceived Overall Justice Measure (POJ). The questionnaire employed in the present study is the Perceived Overall Justice measure, developed by Ambrose and Schminke (2009). This measure asks respondents to assess six items using a 7-point Likert response format. The six items are broken into two categories; three of the items (POJ1, POJ3, and POJ4) measure the respondent’s individual overall experience, and three (POJ2, POJ5, and POJ6) measure the respondent’s global perception of justice in the organization (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). The six items are: 

POJ1 – “Overall, I am treated fairly by my organization”



POJ2 – “Usually, the way things work in this organization are not fair” (reverse scored)



POJ3 – “In general, I can count on this organization to be fair”



POJ4 – “In general, the treatment I receive around here is fair”



POJ5 – “For the most part, this organization treats its employees fairly”



POJ6 – “Most of the people who work here would say they are often treated unfairly” (reverse scored)

POJ validity. The Perceived Overall Justice measure has a Cronbach α of 0.93 as measured by Ambrose and Schminke (2009). It has been measured against the justice inventories associated with individual justice dimensions, including procedural, distributive, interactional, and informational, as well as against a composite of the dimensions (Ambrose & Schminke, 2010). When compared with composite measures, the POJ demonstrates a greater explanation of justice-related attitudes versus the individual facets of justice, which confirms the content validity of the POJ and differentiates it from individual measures (Ambrose & Schminke, 2010). Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis concludes that the POJ measures overall

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE justice as distinct from other individual and composite measures (Ambrose & Schminke, 2010; McCleary & Cruise, 2012), which speaks to its content validity. Operational Definition of Variables This research purposes to identify whether, and the extent to which, two variables are related. Specifically, it seeks the possibility of correlation between direct leader emotional intelligence as perceived by followers (independent variable), and organizational justice as perceived by those same followers (dependent variable). The perception of direct leader emotional intelligence will be quantified using the Genos EI Inventory, and the perception of organizational justice will be quantified using the POJ measure, both of which have been demonstrated to have project acceptable levels of validity and reliability and are detailed under Materials/Instruments.

52

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE Table 3 Operational definitions of variables Research Variable

Operational Definition

Variable Measure

Follower perceptions of

This variable is based on self- 70 survey items

direct leader emotional

reported perceptions of non-

intelligence

leader employees reported via 1=never

(Independent Variable)

a Likert interval response

5-point scale

5=consistently

format

Follower perceptions of

This variable is based on self- 6 survey items

overall entity justice

reported perceptions of

7-point scale

(Dependent Variable)

overall justice in the

1=strongly disagree

organization and overall

7=strongly agree

leader justice (personal experiences) reported via Likert interval response format

Leader role level in the

Self-reported by respondents

1 survey item

organization

based on bivariate option

Bivariate option

(Mediating Variable)

Executive=presidents, vicepresidents, chief officers Non-executive=all others

53


54

Research Questions and Hypotheses RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and followers’ perception of overall justice? RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice? H10. There is no statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H1a There is a statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H20 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence. H2a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence. H30 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice. H3a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice. Data collection. Quantitative data collection was selected as the best means of scrutinizing any relationship or identifying a lack of relationship between the two study variables. Quantitative data were collected from a random sample of the study population via an


55

online normative survey. The survey employed items from both the Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI) and the Perceived Overall Justice (POJ) measure. The full version of the Genos EI was used to collect data relating to emotional intelligence (independent variable). The full version of this inventory employs 70 items to measure typical performance and has been demonstrated to be psychometrically sound (Gignac, 2010). The POJ, comprised of six items measuring overall justice, is the result of efforts by Ambrose and Schminke (2009) to answer the call for a measure to assess overall justice perceptions in organizations as a means of better understanding how facet justice perceptions are formed. Participants were introduced to the data collection by invitation through Centiment, a third-party survey administrator. Third party invitation was necessary to access a diverse and random sample for data collection that was otherwise unavailable to the researcher, and Centiment was selected based on their reported access to diverse and reliable respondents that increase the value of the data collected (“Our Approach,” n.d.). Respondents completed the survey on their own time via internet connection. The survey began by explaining the purpose and significance of the research project. Before the items were presented to participants, they provided informed consent electronically through their response to the initial prompt in the survey (see Appendix A), and they also indicated their suitability for the study based on their responses to several qualifying questions (see Appendix B). Those who provided informed response and indicated suitability to serve as a respondent were then presented with 5 prompts collecting demographic data, and a total of 76 variable data prompts representing the 70 Genos EI items and the 6 POJ items.


56

Data analysis. Quantitative research attempts to make sense of the world through numbers (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013), and the present study is no exception. The data collected from the survey responses is a representation of the non-physical experience (perception) of the respondents. Data analysis using SPSS software was conducted on the numeric data in search of answers to the research questions posed. Specifically, analysis of the collected data was made to measure the respondents’ perceptions of their direct leader’s EI, and its relationship to the respondents’ organizational justice perceptions. To accomplish this, each of the two data sets (EI and OJ) was analyzed independently and then compared. In an effort to ascertain as much as possible from the data, all conceivable discovery was sought during the analysis. However, only the information relevant to the present research is reported. The survey data were collected by and provided to the researcher in SPSS-compatible format by Centiment, the third-party respondent provider. Once uploaded into SPSS, the researcher will consider the data for each of the variables independently to determine how best to organize them for initial interpretation of the raw data for both the independent and dependent variables as well as the demographic data collected. The analysis includes the data collected for both the independent and dependent variables. Although considered, the present study omits the element of control variables from the analysis. There has been a flurry of literature addressing the overuse of control variables, and even calls for organizational scholars to be overly cautious and judicious in applying them to contemporary research (Becker, Atinc, Breaugh, Carlson, Edwards, & Spector, 2016). Becker and colleagues (2016) make several recommendations relating to the inclusion of control variables, and they assert that “if followed, would substantially enhance the quality of published research” (p. 158). Among those that are relevant to the present research is the call to omit


57

control variables in studies where “researchers are only interested in simple correlations among a small number of variables” (Becker et al., 2016, p. 159). The present research heeded this recommendation and therefore omitted control variables from the data analysis. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistics software. However, while statistical manipulation of the data is valuable to the process, it is not the end goal; the end goal of research is the interpretation of the data and the extraction of meaning and understanding from the analyzes (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Toward this end, the data itself drove some of the decisions around the statistical tests performed. At the same time, not surprisingly, standard statistical tests for correlational studies were conducted. General single sample estimations include summary statistics like means and standard deviation, as well as frequency distribution (Flynn, n.d.). The variables data collected for the present study were reviewed overall and by segment. For organizational justice (OJ) data, the overall data reflects global entity judgments based on follower perceptions. The two related segments are (a) the global entity judgment where entity = direct leader, and (b) the global entity judgment for entity = organization. For emotional intelligence (EI) data, the overall data reflects a general score of perceived emotional intelligence of the direct leader, as well as seven individual subscales measuring the two sides of EI as they relate to self and others. While only relevant statistical investigation and meaning discovery appears in the post-analysis reporting, nevertheless, the data were considered from every available angle. In addition to the general data overview via the standard single sample estimations just mentioned, a bivariate correlation analysis was performed to determine whether there exists a positive or negative correlation between the independent variable (EI) and the dependent variable


58

(OJ), or whether there is no correlation whatsoever. In addition to the existence of a relationship, analysis was conducted to reveal the size of the correlation coefficient, which illuminated the strength of any relationship identified. A perfect correlation would be identified by a score of +1.0 or –1.0, indicating a perfect positive correlation or perfect negative correlation respectively (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Of course, a perfect correlation is highly unlikely, and therefore degrees of correlation were considered. Findings close to one pole or the other (+ or –) indicate a strong positive or negative correlation, while findings closer to 0 reflect a weak relationship between the variables. At this point, it is worth repeating that even where a relationship between the two variables is present, such relationship by no means indicates causation (Flynn, n.d.; Joyner et al., 2013; Leedy & Ormrod, 2013; “Research Methods,” 2016), and that only experimental research could determine causal relationships (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). The data collected for the present study resulted from respondents’ ratings on a Likertlike scale using a Likert response format (5-item for OJ, and 7-item for EI). There is some debate about whether this data should be considered (and analyzed) as continuous and therefore parametric, or interval and so nonparametric (Grace-Martin, n.d.). Much of the debate appears to surround the varying definitions of “scale” and “response format” (Carifio & Perla, 2007). For the present research, this calls for a comprehensive approach to the analysis of the data collected. Although the parametric Pearson product moment correlation, or Pearson r is the most common of the statistics used to demonstrated correlation (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013), this is not sufficient justification for its use (Chan, 2012). Considering the ordinal nature of the (arguably) continuous data being collected, it was prudent to run both the Pearson r and a nonparametric equivalent in order to ascertain if the results are the same (Grace-Martin, n.d.). In this


59

Spearman’s rho (ρ) is elected over Kendall’s tau (τ), because in the present study, the expectation was for N>200. Delimitations and Limitations The proposed study seeks to extend previous research in a new direction, building on existing studies of the implications of emotional intelligence and of organizational justice perceptions. It explores whether a casual relationship, or correlation, exists between the two perceptions and if the level of leadership influences such relationship. It also sets the stage for future research to further the findings and move in the direction of application. The proposed study does not seek to establish the presence of a causal relationship; neither does it attempt to determine the absolute or factual measure of organizational justice nor quantify the impact of emotional intelligence on the perception of organizational justice. Furthermore, the proposed study does not endeavor to determine what developmental actions undertaken by a leader or organization would improve members’ perception of organizational justice. Assumptions. The study assumes that survey respondents comprehended the questionnaire items fully, and that that they were both honest and accurate in their responses. In addition, the assumption exists that respondents a) accurately represented their suitability for participation, and b) that they responded from the perspective of a follower who is assessing their own immediate/direct leader only. Delimitations. The participation pool was constrained to those followers who have been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. This mitigates the potential for overly optimistic – even hopeful – responses from followers who are experiencing a “honeymoon” state with a new leader. No attempt was made to filter for context, demographics, or any other constraint.


60

While the sample from which data were collected is adequate for the scope and purpose of this study, future efforts would benefit from targeting specific contexts and/or demographics. In addition, although the research methods employed for this study are appropriate to its intended purpose, the existence of a correlation does not offer insight into the causal nature of the relationship, and therefore it does not provide direction for the application of the findings. In order to direct such application, future work would need to identify the causal relationship and determine the value, if any, of changes in the variables. Limitations. It is important to note that both the Genos EI and the POJ measurement tools utilize informant ratings, which presents a limitation to the study data. As is also the case with self-reporting, the data collected via this type of informant ratings is necessarily skewed by perception, the lens through which the respondent views the context and players in it. Due to the human predisposition to distort memory based on emotion or recall, (Tavris & Aronson, 2007; Tourangeau, 2000), the data collected is subject to errors that result from subconscious or intentional distortions (Kihlstrom et al., 2000). Nevertheless, the present study specifically seeks to measure perceptions rather than actual experience, and so the limitation was unavoidable. Even so, it was mitigated to the extent possible through the qualifying questions at the start of the survey. The accuracy of respondent answers to qualifying items represents another limitation since the truthfulness and accuracy of the response provided is dependent on the respondent. This additional limitation was also mitigated to the extent possible by asking respondents to confirm their intent to provide accurate and honest responses to those and all survey items. The study sample is not drawn from a single organization or context, and this presents several limitations relating to participant eligibility. Participants are eligible when they are employed full time, when they are followers, but not themselves leaders (individual

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE contributors), and when they have been in the leader-follower relationship for a minimum of 6 months. Since the survey invitations were sent to a random sample and eligibility was selfreported by respondents, there is no way to confirm these eligibility requirements. However, these limitations were mitigated through elimination prompts that initiate the survey. The prompts called for respondents to confirm that the leader-follower relationship existed for minimum of six months. Ethical Assurances As with all research activity, the present study is obligated to ethical standards. To this end, there considerable effort was made to ensure the rights of participants, the authenticity of the procedures, and the ethical use of previous findings based on past research. Prior to undertaking the study, the present research was approved by the relevant institutional review board (IRB) as a means of protecting the people and knowledge associated with it; “The purpose of IRB review is to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in the research” (“Institutional Review Boards,” n.d., para. 2). However, the ethical implications do not end there. In addition to protecting the rights of participants, this research and the communication of its findings protects the intellectual rights of the researchers whose work supports, inspires, or otherwise drives this study. This was accomplished through the careful use of existing intellectual property, and the clear crediting of knowledge to those whose previous efforts have contributed to this study.

61

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE In addition to this, the study protected the participants directly through the employment of informed consent. Although the data were collected via the internet and anonymity was ensured by the use of a third-party data collection service, each respondent was provided the informed consent form (see Appendix A) prior to participation. The information provided therein includes: 

Participation is completely voluntary



Participants’ anonymity is protected



Respondents may exit the survey at any time



Researcher’s contact information



Contact information for institutional review board

Summary The preceding chapter presented the research methodology for the present study. It explained the selection of a quantitative, descriptive approach, described the study population (non-leader, full-time employees in large U.S. organizations [more than 500 employees] who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months), presented the priori power analysis outcomes that resulted in a target sample size of 156, and acknowledged the use of Centiment as a third-party respondent provider and data collection warehouse. Furthermore, the analysis of the data collected was outlined, including the use of both the Pearson r parametric correlation test and the Spearman ρ nonparametric correlation test to ensure accuracy. These quantitative measures and statistical examination of the data are crucial to the value of the present effort: unless a measurement is expressed numerically, the results remain theoretical (Colquitt & Rodell,

62

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE 2015). Since this research seeks to move beyond the theoretical through the application of a quantitative approach to the research questions it was deemed an appropriate approach to identifying whether any relationship exists between follower perceptions of direct leader emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perceptions of overall justice in the organization.

63


64

Chapter 4: Results The results explicated in this chapter relate to the present non-experimental quantitative study exploring the relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence in direct leaders and perceptions of overall justice in the organization. Data were collected in a single survey consisting of 81 total items that was implemented in March 2018 and completed by 156 respondents. Prior to analysis, the data collected was filtered to omit records where informed consent was absent or where responses disqualified the potential participant. This chapter restates the study context, provides response rates, and describes respondent demographics. Additionally, it presents a comprehensive narrative of the analyses conducted on the data collected from the Genos Emotional Intelligence inventory (Genos EI) and the Perceived Overall Justice scale (POJ), as well as the results of those analyses. An interpretation of the data is presented in Chapter 5 along with considerations for future research. Research Questions Using theories of emotional intelligence and organizational justice as a framework, a quantitative research approach was employed, and a sample of the previously defined population was surveyed as a means of data collection. Data analysis has been conducted and findings identified as a means of answering the research questions of this study. Although the research problem, questions, and hypotheses for the present study were presented in detail in the preceding chapters, they are included here to provide context for the data analysis and findings.


65

Research questions. The following questions guided the research study and are answered by the data analysis and findings. RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of overall justice? RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice? Research hypotheses. From the stated research questions, the following hypotheses were derived, and these are accepted or rejected as a result of the data analysis conducted. H10 There is no statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H1a There is a statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H20 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence. H2a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence. H30 Based on follower perception, there is no statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and overall justice.


66

H3a Based on follower perception, there is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and overall justice. Emotional Intelligence Inventory The data collection survey employed the 70-item Genos Emotional Intelligence (Genos EI) inventory to identify follower perceptions of direct leader emotional intelligence. This measure was selected because it is specifically designed to measure “how often individuals are perceived [emphasis added] to demonstrate emotionally intelligence workplace behavior” (Gignac, 2010, p. xiii), which is the premise of the present research. The Genos EI has been employed in five separate nationalities, including American, Australian, South African, Indian, and Asian (Palmer et al., 2009), and has been used for both identification of development opportunity and practical application in the workplace (Gignac, 2010), both of which lend themselves to the value of the present study. The Genos EI inventory offers eight scores measuring dimensions of emotional intelligence. Scores include total EI and scores for seven subscales, which are all based on data collected via 5-item Likert response format. The inventory has been validated in American contexts and is therefore relevant to the present study. The internal consistency (represented as Cronbach α) in the American context reflects acceptable levels for research. The total EI α = .97, and the seven subscales range from α = .76 to α = .88, with a mean of α = .83 (Gignac, 2010). Organizational Justice Inventory Data collection for overall justice in the organization was accomplished using Ambrose and Schminke’s (2009) six-item Perceived Overall Justice (POJ) scale. This scale was selected because it specifically asks respondents to assess generalized justice perceptions, which have been found to provide an explanation of justice perceptions beyond what is available through


67

individual or composite measures (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). To this end, responses to the POJ items reflect how a participant experiences their leader (personal) and their organization (general) as an entity (overall), rather than how they experienced a specific performance review, a change to benefits, or some other isolated event. The POJ scale uses three items designed to measure overall justice perceptions of the organization, and three more to measure overall justice perceptions of the immediate leader. Participants respond to each of the six items using a 7-point Likert response format. This measure is a valid selection for both what it measures and for its internal consistency (α = .93), which is at a level considered excellent for research (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Respondents A third-party vendor, Centiment, administered the data collection survey. This vendor does not send out invitations to participants. Instead, potential participants select the surveys they will participate in from a catalog of open surveys, and either qualify or do not based on the survey constraints. Respondents self-qualified for the study by establishing that they were fulltime employees in non-leader, non-supervisory roles in U.S. organizations of more than 500 employees, and that they had been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. They further confirmed their qualification by attesting that they had been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. The final qualification item required respondents to make a commitment to respond to the 70 emotional intelligence items solely considering their direct leader and to respond to the six justice items keeping in mind only their experience in the organization where they and their direct leader are employed. Response rate. The survey was not sent, but rather open to self-invitation based on the vendor’s processes. Without access to the number of potential participants who were aware of


68

the opportunity to participate, a response rate cannot be calculated. For this reason, the response rate for the research survey is unavailable. However, despite not knowing how many individuals were aware of the opportunity to respond to the survey and chose not to participate, it is verified that there were 213 potential participants who chose to initiate the survey. Of these, there were 57 potential participants who either refused informed consent or did not meet the qualification requirements. Despite this, the remaining 156 respondents met the sample size set by the priori power analysis, and these 156 completed the entire 81-item survey. It is the data provided by this sample that is presented in this chapter and discussed in the next. Demographics. There was no single employer/organization identified for this research. Participants in the study were qualified or eliminated from participation through selfidentification. To qualify, potential participants were required to provide informed consent and to verify five constraints for the study. Qualified respondents verified within the survey that they were (1) employed full time, (2) an individual contributor, not a supervisor or leader, (3) employed in a U.S. organization with (4) more than 500 employees, and (5) reporting to the direct leader being assessed for at least six months. Having 213 potential participants enter the survey and 156 of them completing all 85 items, a completion rate of 73% is established, and disqualification is 27%. Tables 4 through 8 illustrate the demographic information collected from 156 respondents in the categories of age, race, and education, as well as their direct leader’s rolelevel in the organization and the duration of the leader-follower relationship. By inadvertent omission, gender data were not collected. Tables 4 through 8 describe the demographic data in detail.


69

Age. In an effort to align any potential value of the present study’s findings to the existing data for the Genos EI inventory, the researcher elected to match the age classifications that were used in other studies. For that reason, there are 10 separate age categories ranging from 18 years to 64 years and over. The self-reported age data reflects that 82% of the respondents are between the ages of 18 and 58. The youngest bracket (18 to 23) represented the smallest respondent group (1.3%), and the largest percentage was among 54 to 58-year-olds (21%). Table 4 Respondents by age bracket Age Bracket

Frequency Percentage

18 – 23

2

1.3 %

24 – 28

17

10.9 %

29 – 33

20

12.8 %

34 – 38

15

9.6 %

39 – 43

13

8.3 %

44 – 48

13

8.3 %

49 – 53

15

9.6 %

54 – 58

32

20.5 %

59 – 63

14

9.0 %

64 +

15

9.6 %

Note. N=156 Race. While the survey provided an option to decline a response for race information, Table 4 illustrates that all 156 respondents elected to respond. Eighty-two percent of respondents self-reported as White/Caucasian; the remaining 18% reported among non-White


70

options. The second largest race group reported as Asian/Pacific Islander (7%) and all other groups were below 5% representing as few as one and as many as seven respondents. Table 5 Respondents by race Race


White/Caucasian

128

82.1 %

Asian/Pacific Islander

11

7.1 %

Black/African American

7

4.5 %

Hispanic/Latino

7

4.5 %

Multiracial

2

1.3 %

Native American/American Indian

1

0.6 %

Note. N=156 Education. Education level data collected from all 156 survey respondents indicates that the sample is generally well-educated. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents reported having at least some college education (with or without a degree), and 17% report advanced degrees. All of the respondents have a high school degree (12th grade).


71

Table 6 Respondents by education level Education Level


Doctorate

7

4.5 %

Master’s degree

20

12.8 %

Bachelor’s degree

60

38.5 %

Some college

52

33.3 %

High school graduate (12th grade)

17

10.9 %

No high school degree

0

0.0 %

Note. N=156 Direct leader level. Respondents were asked to identify whether their direct leader was an executive (chief officers, presidents, vice presidents, directors) or non-executive (all others). Only a small percentage of respondents indicated that their direct leader is an executive as defined in the survey. The overwhelming majority (85%) reported that they report to (and therefore would be assessing) a non-executive leader. Table 7 Role level of respondent’s direct leader Direct Leader Role-Level


Executive

23

14.7 %

Non-executive

133

85.3 %

Note. N=156 Duration of leader-follower relationship. Finally, because perceptions of emotional intelligence in others develop over time, other-reports (not self-reported) can be misrepresented when the reporting party does not have adequate experience with the person they are assessing


72

(Gignac, 2010). For this reason, the present research required respondents to have been reporting to their direct leader for at least six months. The survey qualifier asked participants to confirm that they had been reporting to their direct leader for at least six months, and where they indicated otherwise, they were excluded from participation. Even so, the survey item collecting this information included three options for reporting the duration of the follower-leader relationship: (1) Less than 6 months, (2) 6 months to 1 year, and (3) More than 1 year. More than 96% of the survey respondents indicated that they have been reporting to their direct leader for more than six months, and 77% indicated the reporting duration is more than one year. Gignac (2010) asserts that this duration is valid for assessing perceptions of emotional intelligence using the Genos EI inventory. Table 8 Duration of follower-leader workplace relationship Relationship Duration


0 to 6 months

7

4.5 %

6 months to 1 year

29

18.6 %

More than 1 year

120

76.9 %

Note. N=156 A general definition of the respondent pool emerges from the participant qualification in the survey and the demographic data presented in the tables above. Responses to participant qualifiers in the survey confirm that all members of the respondent pool are non-leader, full-time employees in large U.S. organizations (more than 500 employees) who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months. The demographic data collected from respondents who were qualified contributes to the definition of the final respondent pool. The


73

data contributes information including that the respondent pool is mostly between age 24 and 64 and up, which implies a reasonable sampling of generations currently in the workforce. Additionally, the majority of respondents have at least some college education, and none are without a high school degree (12th grade). Furthermore, the data show that the respondent pool is mostly White/Caucasian. While 10.8% of the respondents are non-White/Caucasian, this underrepresentation of the other races may indicate that individual non-White/Caucasian races may not be accurately represented by the data. Finally, the demographic data shows that most respondents have a non-executive direct leader with whom they have had a follower-leader relationship for six months or more. Quantitative Data Analysis The quantitative data collected via survey were analyzed to determine if there is a correlation of statistical significance between followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence, and their perception of overall justice in the organization. Furthermore, if there is a correlation of significance, what is the direction and strength of that correlation, and how does the direct leader’s role level in the organization influence that correlation, if at all. To examine the potential correlation, data from two inventories was collected, compiled, and scored. The survey data includes 76 data elements for each of the respondent records (70 from the Genos EI and six from the POJ). Other than informed consent, and the qualification and demographic items, all responses are Likert response formats (a five-point scale for EI and a seven-point scale for justice). The data for these items was collected as string data. Once collected, the data were transformed to numeric data for more efficient and varied analysis. During transformation, the 22 survey items requiring reverse scoring (20 in the emotional intelligence inventory and two in the justice scale) were adjusted accordingly.


74

Once the data were transformed, they were also aggregated according to each inventory’s scoring method; the aggregation of elements resulted in eight data sets related to emotional intelligence and three data sets related to overall justice. Each of the resulting 11 sets of data was examined for normality using skewness and kurtosis statistics. Since normal univariate distribution of data are restricted to skewness and kurtosis values of -2/2 (George & Mallery, 2010), results within this range are considered acceptably symmetrical for the purposes of the present study. In addition to the normality analyses, further descriptive analyses were conducted to identify the minimum and maximum scores in each data set, and to determine mean (M) and median scores, along with the related standard error of mean (SEM) and standard deviation (SD). Genos EI data analysis. The Genos Emotional Intelligence (Genos EI) inventory is comprised of 70 items that are scored based on responses using a five-point Likert format. The responses are compiled to produce a score for seven subscales and those scores are then summed to produce an overall or Total EI score. These raw scores are valuable for data analysis; however, the interpretation of the scores is done by percentile, which makes that data point of interest in the interpretation of results for the present study (see Table 9). The subscales are equally weighted, each incorporating ten unique items from the inventory. The specific items associated with each subscale are found in Appendix F. With ten items on a five-point scale, each subscale has maximum possible score of 50.00 (10 x 5.00). Summation of the seven subscales results in a Total EI score with a maximum possible value of 350.00 (70 x 5.00).


75

Table 9 Genos EI scores as percentiles Scale/Subscale

Mean Score

Percentile Range

Categorization

Total EI

262.47

41-60

Average

ESA

37.58

41-60

Average

EE

38.05

41-60

Average

EAO

37.08

41-60

Average

ER

35.81

21-40

Low

ESM

37.48

41-60

Average

EMO

37.69

41-60

Average

ESC

38.78

41-60

Average

Note. N=156, Each of the subscales is comprised of 10 inventory items (see Appendix F), Percentile Range and definitions are from Genos EI Technical Manual (Gignac, 2010, p. 24), ESA=Emotional Self-Awareness, EE=Emotional Expression, EAO=Emotional Awareness of Others, ER=Emotional Reasoning, ESM=Emotional Self-Management, EMO=Emotional Management of Others’, ESC=Emotional Self-Control. Total EI and subscales. The data set for Total EI results from the sum of all 70 items of the Genos EI inventory for N=156. The results of the descriptive data analyses for the perception-based scores for Total EI and each of the seven subscales are aggregated in Table 10. Analysis of this data reflects a mean score of 262.48 (SE = 4.00), while the median score was slightly higher at 271.50 (SD = 49.90). The individual scores were wide ranging from a low of 82.00 to 344.00 at the top of the range. Despite being somewhat skewed (-.995) and moderately kurtotic (1.27), both statistics fall within acceptable levels; therefore, it is appropriate to describe the Total EI score data as having relative normality. The mean Total EI of 262.48 falls in the Average category (percentile range of 41-60), which indicates that the present sample reported their direct leaders’ frequency of demonstrating EI behaviors to be average. For Genos EI


76

interpretation, scores in the percentiles associated with “Average” (41-60) are neither very high (very high frequency) nor very low (very low frequency; Gignac, 2010). The categorization and descriptions for all percentile groupings is found in Appendix G. The seven EI subscales each consist of 10 unique items from the Genos EI full inventory. Each subscale score represents the sum of the corresponding 10 items for that subscale within the inventory. Descriptive analysis of the data for the seven subscales is detailed in the aggregation in Table 9. For six of the seven subscales, the minimum scores ranged from a low of 10.00 to the maximum possible score of 50.00. However, Emotional Reasoning (ER) afforded slightly different results, presenting minimum and maximum scores of 16.00 and 49.00 respectively. The ER subscale presented the highest value among the low scores (16.00) and the lowest value of all the high scores (49.00). The ER subscale also reflects the lowest mean (35.81) and median (37.00) scores among all seven. Conversely, among the seven subscales, the highest mean score (38.78) is in Emotional Self-Control (ESC), which also has the highest median score (41.00). However, while the lowest mean and median scores and the highest mean and median scores belong to the same pair of subscales (ER and ESC respectively), the remaining five subscales do not rank in the same manner by both mean and median scores. In analyzing the seven subscales for normal univariate distribution of data, it is observed that the seven subscales all had skewness levels within the acceptable range for normality. The statistics showed a range between -.72 and -1.20 for skewness. Kurtosis is also within acceptability for six of the seven subscales. Notably, Emotional Self-Management (ESM) is leptokurtic at 2.16.


77

Table 10 Aggregated data analysis results for Genos Emotional Intelligence inventory. Total EI

ESA

EE

EAO

ER

ESM

EMO

ESC

Minimum

82.00

13.00

10.00

10.00

16.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

Maximum

344.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

49.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

Mean

262.47

37.58

38.05

37.08

35.81

37.48

37.69

38.78

SE

4.00

0.58

0.59

0.70

0.53

0.59

0.69

0.63

Median

271.50

39.00

39.00

39.00

37.00

38.00

40.00

41.00

SD

49.90

7.19

7.27

8.67

6.64

7.38

8.56

7.83

Skewness

-0.99

-0.78

-1.02

-0.81

-0.72

-1.08

-0.97

-1.20

Kurtosis

1.27

0.98

1.66

0.35

0.33

2.16

0.74

1.63

Note. N=156, ESA=Emotional Self-Awareness, EE=Emotional Expression, EAO=Emotional Awareness of Others, ER=Emotional Reasoning, ESM=Emotional Self-Management, EMO=Emotional Management of Others’, ESC=Emotional Self-Control. Additional results. Based on the five-item Likert response format, the following results of the Genos EI are discussed as perceptions of leaders’ exhibition of EI behaviors frequently or infrequently. Frequency is determined by the respondents’ responses, where Almost Always and Usually indicate a perception of behaviors being exhibited frequently, and where Seldom and Almost Never indicate that the perception is that the behaviors are exhibited infrequently. In addition to these four responses, the median response (Sometimes) indicates the occasional exhibition of EI behaviors. Across the 70 items surveyed, 66% of the 156 respondents reported perceptions that their direct leader exhibits the measured EI behaviors frequently. An additional 21% describe the frequency using the median response, sometimes. From this it can be stated that 87% of the respondents indicate that their leader exhibits the surveyed EI behaviors not infrequently.


78

Considering the seven subscales individually, there is considerable consistency across the board. Responses that describe frequently (Almost Always, Usually) ranged from a low 60% (Emotional Reasoning) to a high of 69% (both Emotional Expression and Emotional SelfControl). The median response of Sometimes (neither frequently nor infrequently) ranged from 18% (Emotional Self-Control) to 27% (Emotional Reasoning). When considered together, these three responses (Almost Always, Usually, Sometimes) have a very limited range between 85% and 88%. The data shows that the majority of respondents perceive EI behaviors frequently in their direct leaders, and well over three quarters of the responses indicate not infrequently (frequently + Sometimes). Justice data analysis. The Perceived Overall Justice scale (POJ) has a total of six items that measure entity justice perceptions. Three of the items measure justice perceptions related to personal but not event-specific experiences (leader as entity; POJ1, POJ3, POJ4) and three measure justice perceptions relate to the organization in general (organization as entity; POJ2, POJ5, POJ6). Responses were made using a seven-item Likert response format and the reverse scored items (POJ2 and POJ6) were adjusted accordingly. The results are discussed as positive perceptions (above neutral) and negative perceptions (below neutral), with “Neutral” being the mid-point response from the Likert response format. The positive perception responses are those where respondents answered Strongly Agree (reverse scored = Strongly Disagree), Agree (reverse scored = Disagree), and Somewhat Agree (reverse scored = Somewhat Disagree). The responses across each of the six items range from 64% (POJ2) to 82% (POJ1). Additionally, the positive perception response mean is 75% across all six items. In addition to the positive perception responses, the seven-item response format offers a median response of "Neutral" (indicating neither positive nor negative perception).


79

Neutral perception responses range from 4% (POJ4) to 15% (POJ6). The mean neutral score is 10%. POJ subscales. The two subscales of the Overall Perceived Justice inventory measure justice perceptions for two different entities: leader (personal experience perceptions) and organization (general perceptions). The data relating to personal experience perceptions illustrate a mean positive perception of 80% based on personal experience. Furthermore, the neutral response mean is an additional 8%. From these results, it can be stated that the data shows a mean non-negative response of 88% for leader entity justice perceptions. In the same manner, looking at the data reported for general perceptions of organizational justice, the data are averaged to present mean percentages. The perceptions of general organizational justice are decidedly less positive with a mean positive perception of 69% (compared to 88% for the other subscale). However, the mean neutral response is 12%, which brings the mean non-negative perception to 82%. This is less divergent than the positive perception response mean considered on its own. POJ overall. The overall justice measure is comprised of all six POJ items. Therefore, the overall data encompasses both the leader (personal experience) entity subscale and the organization (general organization experience) entity. Based on the results just discussed, it is accurate to report that between 74% - 92% of the respondents had a non-negative perception of overall justice (all six items). The mean positive perception of overall justice for the sample is 75% with an additional mean neutral response of 10%. Thusly, the complete six item scale for overall justice reflects a mean non-negative perception of 85% for this sample. Detailed results of the descriptive data analyses for the total overall justice (all six items) and both subscales (3 items each) are aggregated in Table 11.


80

Table 11 Aggregated data analysis results for Perceived Overall Justice scale items. Overall Justice

Personal Experience

Organization in General

(All 6 POJ Items)

(POJ1, POJ3, POJ4)

(POJ2R, POJ5, POJ6R)

Minimum

6.00

3.00

3.00

Maximum

42.00

21.00

21.00

Mean

31.28

16.12

15.1538

SEM

0.608

0.332

0.32994

Median

32.00

17.00

15.0000

SD

7.592

4.148

4.12100

Skewness

– .873

– 1.216

– .623

Kurtosis

.543

1.147

– .211

Note. N=156, See Appendix D for specific POJ items, R indicates reverse scoring. Correlation analysis. Once the data for the two variables was amassed, and descriptive statistics were performed to elucidate the details previously discussed, additional analysis was initiated to test the two hypotheses that presented as potential answers to the research questions under study. The first hypothesis relates to whether or not there is a correlation between direct leader emotional intelligence and overall justice based on follower perceptions (H1 0 = there is no statistically significant correlation, H1a = there is a statistically significant correlation). The second hypothesis relates to whether or not leader level in the organization is related to perceptions of emotional intelligence (H20 = there is no statistically significant correlation, H2a = there is a statistically significant correlation). The third and final hypothesis looks at leader level in potential correlation with perceptions of overall justice (H3 0 = there is no statistically significant correlation, H3a = there is a statistically significant correlation).


81

With these questions and hypotheses in mind, the examination of a potential correlation between the variables was initiated. Correlation is an indication of relationship. It identifies that variables are indeed related, and it even reveals the direction and strength of the relationship between them, but it does not serve as an indication of causation (George & Mallery, 2010; Huck, 2012; Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Although both parametric and non-parametric analyses were considered, since the research question surrounds correlation and the data were all interval in nature and of normal distribution, the Pearson product moment correlation (Pearson PMC) was selected. The most common of the statistics used to identify correlation; the Pearson product moment correlation is bivariate and used to measure strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables (Huck, 2012). A positive correlation is indicated when both variables increase or decrease together, while a negative correlation is expressed when an increase in one variable results in a decrease in the other (George & Mallery, 2010). The Pearson correlation is valuable because it identifies both the direction and strength of any potential correlation between the variables. The result of a Pearson PMC (sometimes referred to as a Pearson r) is called a correlation coefficient, and it reveals both the strength and direction of the relationship. The resulting coefficient, or r value, will have a value of -1/1 (George & Mallery, 2010). This value represents the strength of the correlation; the closer the value falls to either end of the range (-1 or 1), the stronger the relationship. Values closer to zero on either side indicate a weak correlation, and where r value = 0 there is no correlation identified at all. However, regardless of the actual value within that range, it is the sign preceding the value that exposes the direction of the correlation. The negative sign is used to report a negative


82

correlation; that is, a correlation where an increase in one variable results in a decrease in the other. The positive sign is used to report a positive relationship in this relationship, when one variable increases so does the other. While the direction of the relationship is reported by the sign (negative or positive), the strength of the relationship is indicated by the value. Therefore, strong positive correlations will result in values closer to 1 and strong negative relationships will result in values closer to -1 (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). After establishing a positive linear trend in the data, Pearson correlations were performed to test the three hypotheses in search of answers to the research questions posed in the present study. Results were obtained for three separate analyses; the first to test for relevant correlation between emotional intelligence and overall justice (as stated in H1 0 and H1a), the second to test for relevant correlation between leader level and emotional intelligence (as stated in H2 0 and H2a), and a third to test for relevant correlation between leader level and overall justice (as stated in H30 and H3a). The results of these analyses are detailed for each research question and relation RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of overall justice? From this research question, the first hypothesis emerged. Hypotheses H10 and H1a were tested by correlational analysis, and then considered for predictability beyond the study sample. This analysis was conducted with the data collected for the independent variable (measured as a total perceived EI score) and the data collected for the dependent variable (measured as a total perception of overall justice score). A Pearson PMC and a two-tailed test for significance were conducted on the data. The results reflect the linear correlation coefficient r = .552. Additionally, a two-tailed test of


83

significance was performed. This test, which defines the correlation as significant at 0.01, returned p = 0.001. Finally, controlling for leader level, the results change only slightly (r = .553, p = 0.001). These results demonstrate a strong positive relationship between the Total EI score and the overall justice measure. To predict the correlation for the defined study population (non-leader, full-time employees in large U.S. organizations [more than 500 employees] who have also been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months), the r value was squared. From R2 = .305 it is identified that while 30.5% of the variability in overall justice perceptions (Y) can be explained by perceptions of emotional intelligence (X), 69.5% of the variability are in the residuals and would have to be explained by something other than emotional intelligence perceptions; the residuals are not explained by the model. Even so, the existence of a strong and significant correlation between the two variables calls for the null hypothesis to be rejected and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis.

Figure 2: Scatter plot of emotional intelligence and overall justice perceptions. Note. N=156, Perceived Overall Justice = Sum of POJ Scale items (Total POJ), Emotional Intelligence = Total Genos EI score.


84

In addition to the total EI score, correlation and predictive analyses were performed on the seven subscale scores to identify both the correlations to total overall justice perceptions (sum of POJ items), and the prediction (R2) of replicability across the complete population (beyond the study sample). The results are reflected in Table 12. They show that the correlations of the individual subscales, which range from r = .404 to r = .563, do not diverge from the correlation results of overall justice with the Total EI score. That said, it is worth noting that Emotional Awareness of Others (.563) represents a stronger correlation with overall justice than the Total EI score (.552). Table 12 Pearson correlations (r values) Correlates

ESA

EE

EAO

ER

ESM

EMO

ESC

Total POJ

.458

.536

.563

.504

.492

.551

.483

Experience (Personal)

.436

.488

.503

.438

.452

.502

.447

Organization (General)

.404

.495

.531

.488

.451

.509

.439

Note. N=156, sig (2-tailed) = .001 for all seven subscales, ESA=Emotional Self-Awareness, EE=Emotional Expression, EAO=Emotional Awareness of Others, ER=Emotional Reasoning, ESM=Emotional Self-Management, EMO=Emotional Management of Others’, ESC=Emotional Self-Control. RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice? From this second research question, the remaining hypotheses developed. Hypotheses H2 0 and H2a (leader level, perceived emotional intelligence) were tested by correlational analysis, and then considered for predictability across the study population in its entirety. The same analyses were conducted to examine relationships associated with H3 0 and H3a (leader level, perceived overall justice). All analyses were conducted with the data collected for leader’s level in the organization (executive = president, chief officer, vice president, director, non-executive = all


85

others). For H20 and H2a, the analyses included all eight dimensions of the Genos EI inventory, and for H30 and H3a the analyses included data from the three dimensions for justice from the Perceived Overall Justice scale. A point biserial correlation was considered for these analyses. This is because the leader level data are a nominal, artificially created dichotomous variable while the emotional intelligence and overall justice data are interval. Although this results in a special case for correlational analysis, the analysis capabilities of the SPSS software negate the need for special case handling (Point-biserial correlations in SPSS, n.d.), and therefore the Pearson PMC remains the most applicable test for relationship, along with a two-tailed test for significance. The results of these tests for the leader’s level in the organization being related to follower perceptions of leader’s emotional intelligence indicate a very weak positive relationship (r = .015) of no meaningful significance (p = .850). Results for the potential relationship between the leader’s level in the organization being related to follower perceptions of overall justice were similar but presented a weak negative relationship (r = –.030) of no meaningful significance (p = .708). Summary This study considered the importance of leader emotional intelligence and overall justice as it relates to followers in U.S. organizations. The significance of the study is to make a contribution to the understanding of leadership by examining the relationship between leader emotional intelligence and overall justice based on the perceptions of followers. To this end, data were collected by survey from a sample of 156 respondents. A quantitative approach was taken, and the data were examined using descriptive analyses. Data analysis was conducted to both understand the data and to investigate the potential for relationship between the independent variable (emotional intelligence) and the dependent variable (overall justice).


86

A review of the data established that the follower perceptions reported by this sample reflect that the vast majority had “not negative” perceptions of overall justice in their organizations and perceived that their direct leader demonstrated measured EI behaviors “not infrequently.” Additionally, statistical analysis of the data identified a mostly normal distribution. The correlational tests identified that there is a statistically significant correlation (p = .001) between the study variables, and the coefficient confirmed a strong positive correlation (r = .552). The existence of a statistically significant correlation between the variables results in rejection of the null hypothesis and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis. The next chapter presents the research findings, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.


87

Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications The present study pursues understanding of how leaders and organizations can expose follower perceptions and seek opportunities to generate authentic motivation of highly desirable organizational citizenship behaviors. Identifying the relationship between leader emotional intelligence and overall justice in the organization has the potential to illuminate those opportunities to increase OCBs, and to drive valuable competitive advantage from the increase in those extra-role, beyond-the-job-description behaviors. The present study sets a foundation for these future possibilities, and this final chapter presents findings based on the data analysis discussed in Chapter 4. It also discloses limitations of the study and presents implications for future research. Introduction Leaders have a great deal of influence over followers in the workplace (Deschamps et al., 2016; Kotter, 2012). Existing research has established that leader emotional intelligence plays an important role in organizational success (Bolman & Deal, 2013; Goleman et al., 2013), and is essential in contemporary leadership (Carroll, 2017; Goldsmith et al., 2003; Goleman, 2015). It is widely agreed that followers respond productively to leaders they perceive as caring and authentic (Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Rodin, 2010), and that these leaders are not only more adept at navigating the complex dynamics of social interactions (Bolman & Deal, 2013) but more likely to wield their influence more effectively (Goleman et al., 2013). Similarly, existing research in the field of justice has found that justice perceptions in the workplace influence organizational outcomes (Simons & Roberson, 2003). This is important because if it is to be competitive the contemporary organization needs more than just the formal, performance review-able actions from its workforce; it relies on the discretionary contribution of


88

extra-role behaviors. These behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) include job satisfaction, commitment, and productivity, and they produce voluntary efforts that go beyond the role description (Banerjee & Banerjee, 2011; Miao et al., 2017). Not only does leadership influence the presence and frequency of these OCBs, but justice perceptions also motivate OCBs and influence the degree to which they are exhibited (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2007). For these reasons, the examination of potential correlation between of leader emotional intelligence and of justice in organizations is germane and valuable to leaders and to organizations. The present research poses questions that seek to uncover new understanding for the field of leadership by considering followers’ perceptions of leader emotional intelligence and their perceptions of overall justice in the organization. Correlation between these two is relevant to leadership and organizational studies, and therefore regardless of the outcomes the present research represents a worthwhile undertaking. Study purpose. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence and their perceptions of overall justice in their organization. From this examination the study sought to determine the presence or absence of a correlation between the two variables. Identification of a correlation, its direction, and its strength would establish the presence of a casual relationship between the study variables. And, while uncovering a correlation between the two is meaningful, it is essential that such correlation is not interpreted as being indicative of a causal relationship. The data used to test for correlates was collected via a random sample of full-time, nonleaders who had been reporting to their direct leader for a minimum of six months in U.S. organizations of more than 500 employees. The 156 respondents were surveyed with the Genos


89

Emotional Intelligence inventory and the Perceived Overall Justice scale, both of which have been proven valid and reliable measures of their respective content, as discussed in Chapter 3. The data collected was analyzed using descriptive analytics and the Pearson product moment correlation. Research questions. The questions guiding this research are: RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of overall justice? RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice? Findings “Statistical manipulation of the data is not, in and of itself, research. Research goes one step further and demands interpretation of the data” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013, p. 290). Therefore, if the data are to be meaningful, it must be considered against the research questions and the hypotheses posed by the study. The following presents findings of the present study relative to the hypotheses posed herein. RQ1. To what extent, if any, is there a statistically significant difference between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of overall justice? Response to RQ1. The analysis of the research data established a statistically significant and strong positive correlation (r = .552, p = .001).


90

H10. There is no statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H10 conclusion. The null hypothesis is rejected. There is a statistically significant correlation between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H1a There is a statistically significant correlation found between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. H1a conclusion. The alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a statistically significant correlation between followers’ perception of direct leader’s emotional intelligence and those same followers’ perception of organizational justice. RQ2. To what extent, if any, does the leader’s level in the organization influence any relationship between follower perceptions of emotional intelligence and of overall justice? Response to RQ2. Analysis of the research data failed to identify a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence (r = .015, p = .850). In addition, the Pearson’s coefficient indicated a weak negative relationship between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice. This precludes a significant correlation between the two (r = .030, p = .708). H20 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence.


91

H20 conclusion. The null hypothesis is accepted. Analysis of the research data failed to identify a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence (r = .015, p = .850). H2a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence. H2a conclusion. The alternative hypothesis is rejected. Analysis of the research data failed to identify a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence (r = .015, p = .850). H30 There is no statistically significant correlation found between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice in the organization. H30 conclusion. The null hypothesis is accepted. Correlation analysis indicated a weak negative relationship (r = .030, p = .708) ruling out a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice in the organization. H3a There is a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice in the organization. H3a conclusion. The alternative hypothesis is rejected. Correlation analysis indicated a weak negative relationship (r = .030, p = .708) ruling out a statistically significant correlation between the leader’s level in the organization and followers’ perceptions of overall justice in the organization. Based on the results of the analyses conducted, a statistically significant correlation exists between followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence and their


92

perceptions of overall justice in the organization (r = .552, p = .001). Therefore, the null hypothesis H10 is rejected, while H1a is affirmed. Additionally, analysis failed to identify a statistically significant correlation between leader level in the organization (executive, nonexecutive) and followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence (r = .015, p = .850). For this reason, the null hypothesis H2 0 is accepted, while the alternative H2a is rejected. Finally, because there was no statistically significant correlation found between leader level in the organization (executive, non-executive) and followers’ perceptions of overall justice in the organization (r = .030, p = .708), the null hypothesis H30 is accepted and the H3a is rejected. Limitations The use of nonprobability sampling presents a limitation in that there is no way to guarantee that every member of the population is represented by the data. Additionally, the study sample was limited to the potential participants made available by the third-party survey administrator (Centiment). The survey link was only available to potential participants registered with Centiment, and therefore excluded many qualified respondents. Additionally, qualification for the survey was accomplished through participant self-disclosure and is therefore subject to error (intentional or accidental). Finally, although the present study specifically examines perceptions, because the data collected is based on the recollection of respondents, it is subject to errors that result from subconscious or intentional distortions (Kihlstrom et al., 2000). Implications for Future Research The present study establishes a foundation for future research that would seek to confirm and further explain the correlation between followers’ perceptions of leader emotional intelligence and their perceptions of overall justice in the organization. With limited resources


93

and a single researcher, the present study was necessarily constrained to generalized and rudimentary examination of the relationship between the variables. Future research would benefit from bi-directional expansion. Expansion of the research to include a broader sample with potentially greater predictability of fit for results would be highly beneficial. In the same manner, expansion of the research toward a tighter focus to illuminate the details of the correlation and factors that influence it would likely prove valuable. For example, studies with access to a wider respondent pool (beyond Centiment’s registered participants) would shed light on the validity of the findings in the present study. Additionally, future research conducted within single organizations would address some of the limitations of the present study, including but not limited to the accuracy of qualifying respondents. This organization-specific approach would also allow for additional consideration of potential moderators, and a comparison of data paired for follower perceptions and leader selfreporting on emotional intelligence. Also, organization-specific study findings would contribute to the confirmation or refutation of the present study’s findings. Coefficients based on stronger and more homogenous (intra-organization) samples which are found to be similar to or substantially different from the present study’s findings may afford the opportunity for regression testing as a means of predicting fit beyond the limitations of the present sample. Such generalization of the results across the larger study population of full-time, non-leaders with a minimum reporting relationship of six months in U.S. organizations of more than 500 employees would be advantageous. Finally, as the present study did not collect gender data, the inclusion of gender demographics in data collection would present the opportunity to examine whether gender


94

moderates the correlation between followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence and their perceptions of overall justice in the organization. Conclusion Contemporary organizations face more challenges than ever (Liao & Chuang, 2007). In the effort to drive innovation and creativity toward greater competitive advantage, contemporary organizations are challenged to leverage dynamic change (Conner, 1992; Goldsmith et al., 2003; Kotter, 2012), as well as increasingly complex models of individual and group communication and collaboration (Tsai, 2011). These same organizations are in fierce competition to attract and retain essential human resources (Kotter, 2012), which makes OCBs like job satisfaction and commitment to the organization valuable to organizations and the leaders within them. The fact that leadership plays a critical role is well defined, and the impact of emotional intelligence on follower perceptions of leader effectiveness has long been a topic of discussion (Goleman, 2015; Goleman et al., 2013; Kouzes & Posner, 2012). The mastery of emotional intelligence competencies positions leaders to establish and maintain an environment of trust and fairness (Goleman, 2015); “the research is pretty clear: EI and social intelligence differentiate great leaders from average ones” (McKee, 2015, p. 42). Organizations that hope to compete must consider how leaders can wield that influence to foster desirable organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) while mitigating attitudes and actions that are detrimental to organizational outcomes. Perceptions of fairness in the workplace have also been identified as influential and the subject of much study (Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1987; Karriker et al., 2017). Research on organizational justice as a perception of fairness has illustrated that the presence or absence of such justice directly impacts organizational outcomes (Simons & Roberson, 2003), and therefore


95

is a functional necessity (Greenberg, 1990). The existence of relationships between organizational justice and those essential extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors, including commitment to the organization (turnover intention), job satisfaction, trust, and performance are well established (Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). For these reasons, there is increasing value in understanding the roles that emotional intelligence and justice play in leveraging people relationships as they relate to organizational outcomes like innovation and collaboration. As organizations seek to improve their competitive position, consideration of how follower perceptions of leader EI influence overall justice perceptions is critical; identifying triggers for the much-sought-after OCBs including motivation, satisfaction, and commitment is becoming pivotal. Despite this, a search of the existing research available to this researcher failed to identify a single study that explored the relationship between leader emotional intelligence and overall justice in the organization that were based on follower perceptions. Therefore, the present research has both academic and organizational purpose, and its benefits include the identification of a strong positive correlation between followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence and their perceptions of overall justice in the organization. Initially instigated by the researcher’s observation that studies in both EI and in organizational justice were identifying OCBs as influencers of organizational outcomes, the present research has added to the body of knowledge in the fields of emotional intelligence and organizational justice. Additionally, from this research there is established a foundation upon which future research can build, which contributes to academic efforts. Organizationally, it provides understanding that can support leadership efforts to measure and analyze the extent to which


96

followers’ perceptions of their direct leader’s emotional intelligence and followers’ overall justice perceptions are related in their own specific organization. Such internal efforts have the potential to increase the presence of those discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors upon which organizations rely, and ultimately to improve outcomes for the success of the organization and the people that contribute to it.


97

References Akanbi, P. A., & Ofoegbu, O. E. (2013). Impact of perceived organizational justice on organizational commitment of a food and beverage firm in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(14), 207-218. Al-Zu’bi, H. A. (2010). A Study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), 102-109. Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013203 Ambrose, M. L. & Schminke, M. (2010). Measuring justice: An examination of indirect, direct and overall justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, QC. Anjum, Z. (2014). Effects of perceived distributive justice on organizational commitment: Mediating role of perceived organizational support. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(10), 65-76. Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job satisfaction and organization commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(9), 145-154. Banerjee, R., & Banerjee, S. (2013), A study of perceived organizational justice, trust, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), 36-43.


98

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 13-25. Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship". Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587– 595. https://doi.org/10.2307/255908 Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, & leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA: TalentSmart. Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116 Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2017). Leading to stimulate employees' ideas: A quantitative review of leader-member exchange, employee voice,


99

creativity, and innovative behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(4), 517-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12102 Carroll, W. E. (2017). Leadership and emotional intelligence: Ability-based and mixed models of emotional intelligence as predictors of leadership performance across manager levels (Dissertation). Capella University. Carter, S. E. (2016). Encouraging employees to look beyond their own personal interest for the benefit of their organization: Evaluating a central premise of transformational leadership theory (Dissertation). Capella University. Carter, M. Z., Mossholder, K. W., Feild, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2014). Transformational Leadership, Interactional Justice, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 691–719. doi: 10.1177/1059601114551605 Caruso, D. R. (2015). A practical guide to the Mayer--Salovey--Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT). Retrieved from ImpetusNLP website: https://impetusnlp.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/a-practical-guide-to-the-mayer-saloveycaruso-emotional-intelligence-test-msceit/ Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Yearsley, A. (2017). The Downsides of Being Very Emotionally Intelligent. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2-5. Chan, P. (2012). SPSS for newbies: Pearson's zero-order correlation - getting output only. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIFVo4kRoOo&list=PLe0nS0mZ7vGFbQEGVla5cd IFomg8bWChm&index=2 Chang, C. S. (2015). Relationships of organizational justice and organizational constraints with performance. A meta analysis (Doctoral Dissertation). Bowling Green State University,


100

Ohio. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1699306790?accountid=165104 Cherniss, C. (2000). Social and emotional competence in the workplace. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 433-458). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 239-245. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_4 Choudhry, N., Philip, P. J., & Kumar, R. (2011). Impact of organizational justice on organizational effectiveness. Industrial Engineering Letters, 1(3), 18-24. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425 Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the justice-performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1037/a0025208 Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In R. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 187–202). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113–154). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


101

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757 Colquitt, J. A., & Zipay, K. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 75–99. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111457 Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books. Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Retrieved from http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~walker/research/Taxonomy%20of%20Lit%20Reviews.pdf Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.). (1997). International review of industrial and organizational psychology New York: John Wiley & Sons. Côté, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2014(1), 459-488. doi: 10.1146/annurevorgpsych-031413-091233 Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1970. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.27895338


102

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.. De Gieter, S., De Cooman, R., Hofmans, J., Pepermans, R., & Jegers, M. (2012). Pay-level satisfaction and psychological reward satisfaction as mediators of the organizational justice-turnover intention relationship. International Studies of Management and Organization, 42(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825420103 De Weerdt, M. & Rossi, G. (2012). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Evaluation of Psychometric Aspects in the Dutch Speaking Part of Belgium, In Psychology - Selected Papers, Dr. Gina Rossi (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0587-9, InTech, Retrieved from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/psychology-selected-papers/the-baron-emotional-quotient-inventory-eq-i-evaluation-of-psychometric-aspects-in-a-flemishpopulat Demirtas, O. (2015). Ethical leadership influence at organizations: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1950-5 Department of Justice. (2004). United States of America vs. Gardner, Powanda, et al. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/archive/dag/cftf/chargingdocs/peregrine.pdf Deschamps, C., Rinfret, N., Lagacé, M. C., & Privé, C. (2016). Transformational leadership and change: How leaders influence their followers' motivation through organizational justice. Journal of Healthcare Management, 61(3), 194-212. Devonish, D., & Greenidge, D. (2010). The effect of organizational justice on contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and task performance: Investigating the


103

moderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence [Abstract]. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 18(1), 75-86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00490.x DiFabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012). Organizational justice: Personality traits or emotional intelligence? An empirical study in an Italian hospital context. Journal of Employment Counseling, 49(1), 31-42. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00004.x Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.42 Emmerling, R. J., & Goleman, D. (2005). Leading with emotion. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 22(7), 9-10. Farrokhyar, F., Reddy, D., Poolman, R. W., & Bhandari, M. (2013). Why perform a priori sample size calculation? Canadian Journal of Surgery, 56(3), 207-000. doi: 10.1503/cjs.018012 Fiori, M., Antonietti, J.-P., Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Hansenne, M., & Rossier, J. (2014). What is the Ability Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) good for? An evaluation using Item Response Theory. PloS one, 9(6), e98827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098827 Flynn, D. (n.d.). Student guide to SPSS. Retrieved from: https://barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/student_user_guide_for_spss.pdf Furnham, A., & Rosen, A. (2016). The dark side of emotional intelligence. Psychology, 7(3), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.73035 Ganaie, M.Y., & Mudasir, H. (2015). A study of social intelligence & academic achievement of college students of District Srinagar. Journal of American Science, 11(3), 23-27.


104

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.) Boston: Pearson. Gignac, G. E. (2010). Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory: Technical manual. Retrieved from https://www.genosinternational.com/emotional-intelligence/download-technicalmanual/ Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C. L., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global leadership: The next generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (2015). HBR’s 10 must reads on emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. doi: 10.1177/014920639001600208 Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business Review. Grace-Martin, K. (n.d.). Can Likert scale data ever be continuous? Retrieved from https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/can-likert-scale-data-ever-be-continuous/ Graham, H. E. (2017). Who is the fairest of them all: The development and validation of the just leader measure (Dissertation). University of Texas at Arlingtion, Texas. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1920065131?accountid=165104 Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22.


105

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. Greenberg, J. (2001). Setting the justice agenda: Seven unanswered questions about “What, why, and how”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1792 Gutiérrez-Moret, M., Aguilar-Moya, R., Ibáñez-Martínez, R., & Vidal-Infer, A. (2017). Ability vs. self-perception in emotional intelligence: Do we measure the same thing? The new educational review, 48(2), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2017.48.2.20 Hayibor, S. (2017). Is fair treatment enough? Augmenting the fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2665-6 Heidari, M., Rajaeepoor, S., Davoodi, S. M. R., & Bozorgzadeh, N. (2012). Investigating the relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and organizations citizenship behavior among teachers of Abadeh. World Applied Sciences Journal, 18(1), 113-122. doi:10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.18.01.197 Hosmer, L. T. & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67-91. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Hyter, M. C., & Tapia, A. (2015). Can you teach emotional intelligence? Chief Learning Officer, 14(1), 34-37. Institutional review boards frequently asked questions information sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126420.htm#IRBOrg


106

Johnson, C. E. (2009). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: The formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1025– 1051. Joyner, R. L., Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A. A. (2013) Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Karriker, J. H., Williams, M. L., & Williams, L. J. (2017). Direct and indirect assessments of organizational justice: Homogeneity or harmony? Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 52–68. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090206 Kelly, P. T., & Earley, C. E. (2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Lessons learned from Arthur Andersen. Accounting & The Public Interest, 9, 129-147. Kihlstrom, J. F., Eich, E., Sandbrand, D. & Tobias, J. A. (2000). Emotion and memory: Implications for self-report. In A. A. Stone, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V.S. Cain (Eds.). The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. (5th ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley And Sons.


107

Kumar, Y. L. N. (2014). Importance of organizational citizenship behaviors in enhancing customer service indicators: A review. IUP Journal of Management Research, 13(1), 17– 28. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Huang, G. E., & Li, X. (2008). The effects of emotional intelligence on job performance and life satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(1), 51–69. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1006-1019. doi: 10.1037/00219010.92.4.1006 Lind, E. A. (2001). Thinking Critically about Justice Judgments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1793 Malik, M. E., & Naeem, B. (2011). Impacat of perceived organizational justice on organizational commitment of faculty: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(9), 92-98. Maul, A. (2012). The validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence. Emotion Review, 4(4), 394-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445811 Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.


108

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? The American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.63.6.503 Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2012). The Validity of the MSCEIT: Additional Analyses and Evidence. Emotion Review, 4(4), 403-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445815 Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion Review, 3(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97 McGill, A. R. (2003). Business ethics reality stunned Americans as Enron, others misled investors and employees. In N. M. Tichy & A. R. McGill (Eds.), Ethical challenge: How to lead with unyielding integrity (University of Michigan Business School management series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McKee, A. (2015). Learning, talent, & leadership development: Evolution or revolution?. Talent Development, 69(3), 38-43.


109

Meisler, G. (2013). Empirical exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence, perceived organizational justice and turnover intentions [Abstract]. Employee Relations, 35(4), 441-455. doi:10.1108/ER-05-2012-0041 Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). Are the emotionally intelligent good citizens or counterproductive? A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and its relationships with organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.015 Mirmohhamdi, S. M., & Marefat, A. (2014). The effet of perceived justice and organizational silence on organizational commitment. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(3), 1773-1789. Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect organizational citizenship behavior. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). Handbook of organizaitonal justice. New York: Psychology Press. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556. https://doi.org/10.2307/256591 O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.714 Ohana, M. (2014). A multilevel study of the relationship between organizational justice and affective commitment. Personnel Review, 43(5), 654–671. doi: 2610.1108/PR-05-2013-0073 Our approach. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.centiment.co/surveys/our-approach/


110

Ouyang, Z., Sang, J., Li, P., & Peng, J. p. (2015). Organizational justice and job insecurity as mediators of the effect of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction: A study from China [Abstract]. Personality & Individual Differences, 7(6), 147-152. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.004 Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Harmer, R., & Gignac, G. (2009). The Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory: A measure designed specifically for workplace applications. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The Springer series on human exceptionality. Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 103-116). New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_6 Passer, J. D. (2014). Moderating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between emotional intelligence and employee organizational justice perceptions (Dissertation). Capella University, Minnesota. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1640912635?accountid=165104 Petrides, K. V. (2001). A psychometric investigation into the construct of emotional intelligence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University College London. Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbooks of personality and individual differences (pp. 656–678). Wiley-Blackwell. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57. Petrides, K. V., Siegling, A. B., & Saklofske, D. H. (2016). Theory and measurement of trait emotional intelligence. In U. Kumar (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of personality assessment


111

(pp. 90–103). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119173489.ch7 Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., Cropanzano, R. S., Rupp, D. E., Thornton, M. A., & Shao, R. (2016). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship. In P. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie, & N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219000.013.19 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 Point-biserial correlations in SPSS. (n.d.). In IBM Support. Retrieved from http://www01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21476004 Ponnu, C. H., & Chuah, C. C. (2010). Organizational commitment, organizational justice and employe turnover in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), 26762692. Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Research methods in psychology. (2016). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Libraries. Retrieved from http://open.lib.umn.edu/psychologyresearchmethods/ Rodin, R. S. (2010). The steward leader: Transforming people, organizations and communities. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, D. L., Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., & Shao, R. (2017). A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for


112

reassessment? Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919-959. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0051 Ryan, A. (Ed.). (1993). Justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence [Internet document]. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/EIAssets/EmotionalIntelligenceProper/EI199 0%20Emotional%20Intelligence.pdf Siegling, A. B., Saklofske, D. H., & Petrides, K. V. (2016). Measures of ability and trait emotional intelligence. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 381–414). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organzational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 432-443. Sjahruddin, H. & Armanu, A. S., & Normijati (2013). Organizational justice, organizational commitment and trust in manager as predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(12), 133-141. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.3.434 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Solberg, E., & Dysvik, A. (2015). Employees' perceptions of HR investment and their efforts to remain internally employable: Testing the exchange-based mechanisms of the new


113

psychological contract. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(9), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1045008 Statistics Solutions. (2017). Statistical power analysis. Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/statistical-power-analysis/ Stutzman, M. (2016). Leadership success or failure. Understanding the difference between leadership career success and true leadership effectiveness (Dissertation). Northcentral University. Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made but not by me: Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. New York: Harcourt. Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993162 Thomas, P., & Nagalingappa, G. (2012). Consequences of perceived organizational justice: An empirical study of white-collar employees. Researchers World, 3(3), 54–63. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227–235. Tourangeau, R. (2000). Remembering what happened: Memory errors and survey reports. In A. A. Stone, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V.S. Cain (Eds.). The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC health services research, 11(98), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/14726963-11-98


114

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analyic evaluation of relationship with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193-203. Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership of folderol? Academy Of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 45-59. doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.59198449 Wheelen, T. L. & Hunger, J. D. (2012). Strategic management and business policiy: Toward global sustainability. (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Whitney, C. M. (2007). The application of path goal theory of leadership to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance: An investigation within small public corporations (Dissertation). Capella University. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Ngo, H.-y. (2016). Ethical leadership behavior and employee justice perceptions: The mediating role of trust in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2457-4 Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It's not fair…or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675–697. shttps://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.1110


115

Appendix A Informed Consent Form Title of the study: Leadership Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Justice: A Correlational Study of Follower Perceptions in American Organizations Researcher: Mrs. Chelle Annette (CA) Islas Dissertation Chair: Nicole Lowes, Ph.D. Location of Study: School of Leadership, Piedmont International University Invitation to Participate: I am invited to participate in the above-mentioned research study conducted by CA Islas and supervised by Dissertation Chair Dr. Nicole Lowes. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the study is to identify whether a correlation exists between followers’ perceptions of direct leader emotional intelligence (EI) and organizational justice. Participation: My participation will consist essentially of completing an online survey taking approximately 30 minutes during which I will be answering questions based on a 5-point and 7-point Likert response format with options like “almost always,” “sometimes,” and “almost never.” The questionnaire is deployed completely online and can be taken at my convenience prior to the stated deadline. Risks: Although there are no known risks, my participation in this study will entail that I volunteer my personal opinions and time. The researcher has provided assurance that the data are collected electronically, and anonymity is ensured by the third-party data collection service, thus maintaining the confidentiality of my responses/opinions. Benefits: My participation in this study can help identify and bring to light new understandings of the relationship between leaders’ emotional intelligence and organizational justice as perceived by organization members. The information and results discovered in this study could potentially contribute to the body of knowledge about leadership and leader-follower relations, as well as to the understanding of how justice perceptions are influenced by the perceived emotional intelligence of leaders. Confidentiality and Anonymity: I have received assurance from the researcher that the information I share will remain strictly confidential to the extent allowed by the law. I understand that the contents will be used solely for data collection and the research purposed, and that the absence of specific personalized information such as name, location, phone number, and leader identification will protect my anonymity and the confidentiality of my responses. Conservation of Data: I understand that the data collected through the online questionnaire will be kept in a secure manner and password protected. Not even the researcher will have access to identifying information about individual participants. Voluntary Participation: I am under no obligation to participate. If I choose to participate I may withdraw from the study at any time and/or refuse to answer any questions, without suffering any negative consequences. If I choose to withdraw, all data gathered until the time of withdrawal will be safely discarded.


116

Rights as a Research Participant: I am fully aware that should I have questions about my rights as a research participant or complaints about the research, researcher, or participation experience, I may directly contact the researcher and/or supervising chairperson as previously. Furthermore, if I prefer to talk to someone outside the study team, I may contact Piedmont International University Institutional Review Board at [email protected] Acceptance: I, ______________________ (name of participant), agree to participate in the above research study conducted by Chelle Annette Islas of the School of Leadership at Piedmont University, which is under the supervision of Dr. Nicole Lowes. If I have any questions about the study, I may contact the researcher or supervisor using the contact information below. Researcher: Chelle Annette (CA) Islas Tel: 619.508.7064 Email: [email protected] Chair: Dr. Nicole Lowes Tel: 434.386.7033 Email: [email protected] By clicking the NEXT button in this survey, I am providing my electronic signature which indicates agreement to the above criteria represented on this form.


117

Appendix B Qualifying Questions for Participants 1. Are you currently employed in a non-leadership, non-supervisory role at your organization? a. If yes, “Continue” [moves respondent to qualifying question #2] b. If no, “Thank you for your time. This concludes your participation.” 2. Have you been reporting to your current direct leader for a minimum of six months? a. If yes, “Continue” [moves respondent to qualifying question #3] b. If no, “Thank you for your time. This concludes your participation.” 3. Will you commit to responding to the survey items considering only your current leader and organization, and with no other leader or organization in mind? a. If yes, “Continue” [moves respondent to demographic prompts] b. If no, “Thank you for your time. This concludes your participation.”


118

Appendix C Respondent Demographic Data Points 

Age – grouped to match Genos EI normative sample



Race – using standard census groupings



Education level – doctorate, master’s, bachelor’s, some college (no degree), high school graduate, no high school degree



Current leader’s level – executive, or non-executive o Executive = chief officers, presidents, vice-presidents, directors o Non-executive = all others



Time reporting to leader rated in this survey o Less than 6 months o 6 months to 1 year o More than 1 year

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE Appendix D Perceived Overall Justice Scale 

POJ1 – Overall, I am treated fairly by my organization



POJ2 – Usually, the way things work in this organization are not fair (reverse scored)



POJ3 – In general, I can count on this organization to be fair



POJ4 – In general, the treatment I receive around here is fair



POJ5 – For the most part, this organization treats its employees fairly



POJ6 – Most of the people who work here would say they are often treated unfairly (reverse scored)

119


120

Appendix E Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory Items 1. My direct leader is aware of things that upset him/her at work. 2. My direct leader effectively expresses how he/she feels about issues at work. 3. My direct leader is aware of the things that make colleagues feel satisfied at work. 4. My direct leader asks others how they feel about different solutions when problem solving at work. 5. My direct leader takes criticism from colleagues personally (reverse scored). 6. My direct leader creates a positive working environment for others. 7. My direct leader demonstrates enthusiasm appropriately at work. 8. My direct leader is aware when he/she is feeling negative at work. 9. My direct leader finds it difficult to identify the things that motivate people at work (reverse scored). 10. My direct leader demonstrates to colleagues that he/she has considered others' feelings in decisions he/she makes at work. 11. My direct leader expresses how he/she feels to the wrong people at work (reverse scored). 12. My direct leader fails to get colleagues to cooperate (reverse scored). 13. My direct leader motivates others toward work related goals. 14. My direct leader remains focused when anxious about something at work. 15. My direct leader is aware of how his/her feelings influence the way he/she responds to colleagues.


121

16. My direct leader expresses positive emotions he/she experiences at work inappropriately (reverse scored). 17. My direct leader fails to identify the way people respond to him/her when building rapport (reverse scored). 18. My direct leader considers the organizations’ values when making important decisions. 19. My direct leader engages in activities that make him/her feel positive at work. 20. My direct leader effectively demonstrates empathy to colleagues when necessary. 21. My direct leader behaves inappropriately when angry at work (reverse scored). 22. My direct leader is aware of his/her body language at work. 23. My direct leader expresses how he/she feels at the appropriate time. 24. My direct leader understands the things that cause others to feel engaged at work. 25. My direct leader demonstrates to others that he/she has considered his/her own feelings when making decisions at work. 26. My direct leader ruminates about things that anger him/her at work (reverse scored). 27. My direct leader is effective in helping others feel positive at work. 28. My direct leader demonstrates excitement at work appropriately. 29. My direct leader is aware of his/her mood state at work. 30. When under stress, my direct leader becomes impulsive (reverse scored). 31. My direct leader demonstrates an understanding of others' feelings at work.


122

32. My direct leader communicates decisions at work in a way that captures others' attention. 33. My direct leader effectively deals with things that annoy him/her at work. 34. My direct leader helps people find effective ways of responding to upsetting events. 35. My direct leader fails to control his/her temper at work (reverse scored). 36. My direct leader is aware of the tone of voice he/she uses to communicate with others at work. 37. My direct leader provides positive feedback to colleagues. 38. My direct leader fails to recognize when colleagues' emotional reactions are inappropriate (reverse scored). 39. My direct leader gains stakeholders commitment to decisions he/she makes at work. 40. My direct leader appropriately responds to colleagues who frustrate him/her at work. 41. When colleagues are disappointed about something, my direct leader helps them feel differently about the situation. 42. My direct leader holds back his/her initial reaction when something upsets him/her at work. 43. My direct leader fails to recognize how his/her feelings drive his/her behavior at work (reverse scored). 44. When happy at work, my direct leader expresses how he/she feels effectively.


123

45. My direct leader identifies others' non-verbal emotional cues (e.g., body language). 46. My direct leader communicates decisions to stakeholders appropriately. 47. My direct leader demonstrates positive moods and emotions at work. 48. My direct leader helps people deal with issues that cause them frustration at work. 49. My direct leader is impatient when things don't get done as planned at work (reverse scored). 50. My direct leader is aware of how his/her feelings influence the decisions he/she makes at work. 51. My direct leader expresses his/her feelings effectively when someone upsets him/her at work. 52. My direct leader understands the things that make people feel optimistic at work. 53. My direct leader considers the way others may react to decisions when communicating them. 54. My direct leader quickly adjusts to new conditions at work. 55. My direct leader doesn't know what to do or say when colleagues get upset at work (reverse scored). 56. My direct leader still thinks clearly when upset at work. 57. My direct leader finds it difficult to identify his/her feelings on issues at work (reverse scored). 58. My direct leader effectively expresses optimism at work. 59. My direct leader understands what makes people feel valued at work.


124

60. My direct leader takes into account both technical information and the way he/she feels about different choices when making decisions at work. 61. My direct leader fails to handle stressful situations at work effectively (reverse scored). 62. My direct leader responds to events that frustrate him/her at work effectively. 63. My direct leader is aware of things that make him/her feel positive at work. 64. My direct leader fails to resolve emotional situations at work effectively (reverse scored). 65. My direct leader has trouble finding the right words to express how he/she feels at work (reverse scored). 66. My direct leader identifies the way people feel about issues at work. 67. My direct leader focuses solely on facts and technical information related to problems when trying to derive a solution (reverse scored). 68. My direct leader fails to keep calm in difficult situations at work (reverse scored). 69. My direct leader explores the causes of things that upset him/her at work. 70. My direct leader discusses his/her frustration appropriately.


125

Appendix F Genos EI Inventory Subscales The item numbers found below correspond to the numbered inventory items in Appendix E. 

Emotional Self-Awareness (ESA) Items: 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57, 63



Emotional Expression (EE) Items: 2, 11, 16, 23, 37, 44, 51, 58, 65, 70



Emotional Awareness of Others’ (EAO): 3, 9, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 66



Emotional Reasoning (ER) Items: 4, 10, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60, 67



Emotional Self-Management (ESM) Items: 5, 19, 26, 33, 40, 47, 54, 61, 62, 69



Emotional Management of Others (EMO) Items: 6, 12, 13, 20, 27, 34, 41, 48, 55, 64



Emotional Self-Control (ESC) Items: 7, 14, 21, 28, 30, 35, 42, 49, 56, 68


126

Appendix G Genos EI Scoring Categories The following list, drawn from the technical manual (Gignac, 2010, p. 24) presents the Genos EI scoring categories. The categories are determined by percentile ranges that were drawn from the normative sample for the inventory (Gignac, 2010). 

Percentile Range 80 – 99 o Category: Very High o Description: Very high level of frequency in exhibiting EI behaviors.



Percentile Range 61 – 79 o Category: High o Description: High level of frequency in exhibiting EI behaviors.



Percentile Range 41 – 60 o Category: Average o Description: Average frequency in exhibiting EI behaviors.



Percentile Range 21 – 40 o Category: Low o Description: Low level of frequency in exhibiting EI behaviors.



Percentile Range 21 – 40 o Category: Very Low o Description: Very low level of frequency in exhibiting EI behaviors.