Studiu Ie Satisfactie

7/28/2019 Studiu Ie Satisfactie

1/93

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGER EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

AND JOB SATISFACTION: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY

OF CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES

by

David T. Stoneback

FRANK DECARO, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

DAVID BALCH, PhD, Committee Member

LUIS RIVERA, PhD, Committee Member

William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

November, 2011


2/93

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3482835

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

UMI Number: 3482835


3/93

David T. Stoneback, 2011


4/93

Abstract

Like many employers, call centers are searching for ways to attract and retain

talented individuals who can meet the needs of their customers. This quantitative

study examined an identified problem in addressing the job satisfaction of employees

in call centers (N = 49). It was hypothesized that the level of emotional intelligence

(EI) in managers (N = 10) may have an impact on employee satisfaction. This

problem and the hypothesis led to a series of questions concerning whether any of the

four branches of emotional intelligence impact employee satisfaction.

Many of the studies within the existing body of knowledge focused on EI and

other factors such as bottom line results, employee engagement, and leadership

effectiveness. What was known at the time of the study was that attrition in call

centers is high and that there must be a series of factors related to this fact. Employee

satisfaction was identified as a potential factor.

To measure employee satisfaction, the Job Satisfaction Survey tool was used

while the MSCEIT tool was used to measure manager emotional intelligence. The

results of the MSCEIT for each manager were tested against the JSS results for their

employees that participated in the study. The outcomes found that for each of the four

branches (perceive use, understand, and manage) there was no statistically significant

link. The study concluded that there was no discernable impact of managers EI on

the satisfaction of their employees. However, there was a relationship found between

employee satisfaction and gender of manager.

The conclusion of these results suggests that there is further opportunity to

develop knowledge in this field. Further research should be developed to understand


5/93

the relationship manager gender plays in employee satisfaction. It is suggested that

additional variables be added to future studies and that the scope of future studies

extend beyond internal factors and look at macro factors external to the workplace.

Additionally, it is suggested that the body of knowledge may benefit from a

longitudinal study that examines and tracks results for manager EI and employee

satisfaction over time.


6/93

iv

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my family whose love drives me to succeed every single

day. My three boys are my motivation and I thank them for understanding when Daddy

has school and for their patience in sharing me with my work.

To my wife, Sue. You are the greatest gift anyone could ask for. I love you and

thank you for your support and encouragement as I worked toward my goal. I am forever

grateful.


7/93

v

Acknowledgments

First I would like to thank my mentor and dissertation chair, Dr. Frank DeCaro for

his guidance along this journey. From our initial conversation I knew that I would be in

good hands as I worked through the greatest challenge of my educational career. Im

extremely grateful for your help at each stage and for helping me through the more

challenging times.

I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Luis Rivera and Dr. David

Balch for their thoughtful questions and critiques along the way. You made me think

differently and I believe my work is better for it.

I would also like to acknowledge the impact of the work of Dr. David Caruso in

the field of emotional intelligence and thank him for the many hours spent working with

me to better understand emotional intelligence and the MSCEIT tool. He is a leading

thinker in the field of emotional intelligence, yet took the time to correspond with me

throughout the process. His support is greatly appreciated.


8/93

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments v

List of Tables ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Employee Engagement Factors in Call Center Operations 1

Background & Purpose of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 4

Conceptual Framework 5

Overview of Constructs 7

Research Questions 8

Significance of the Study 9

Definition of Terms 10

Assumptions, Limitations, and Bias 11

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 12

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 14

Emotional Intelligence as a Construct 14

Chronology of Theoretical Development 14

Models of Emotional Intelligence 18

Validity of Emotional Intelligence 24

Bias in Emotional Intelligence Research 28

Measures of Emotional Intelligence 29

Employee Satisfaction as a Construct 34


9/93

vii

Methodologies in Existing Research in Emotional Intelligence 36

Methodologies in Existing Research in Employee Engagement 41

Chapter Summary 44

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 45

Research Design 46

Sample 47

Research Question and Hypothesis 49

Instruments 49

Data Collection Procedures 52

Data Analysis 53

Expected Findings 55

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 57

Research Question 1 60




Additional Findings 62

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64

Summary of Findings 64

Synthesis of the Literature 65

Implications and Practitioner Recommendations 68

Recommendations for Future Research 70


10/93

viii

REFERENCES 74

APPENDIX A. JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY 81


11/93

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Frequency Counts for Selected Variables (N = 49) 58

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables (N = 49) 59

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables (N = 10) 60

Table 4. Spearman Correlations for Selected Emotional Intelligence

Scores with Employee Job Satisfaction (N = 49) 62

Table 5. Prediction of Total Job Satisfaction Based on Selected

Variables. Backward Elimination Regression (N = 49) 63


12/93

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Employee Engagement Factors in Call Center Operations

In high turnover industries such as call centers, employers are searching for ways

to attract and retain talented individuals who can meet the needs of their customers. A

call center is an organization dedicated to the purpose of answering phone inquiries,

resolution or problems, order taking/insurance claim receipt, or other elements of

customer service (Rath, 2005). The nature of work in a call center usually involves

handling a high volume of customer complaints, questions, and/or concerns (Rath, 2005).

Additionally, the operating model of a call center controls expenses by focusing on key

metrics such as call handle time and wait time of the customer. These metrics require the

call center employees to resolve issues as quickly as possible, adding to the stress levels

of the job.

In order to help offset some of these stressors, of special interest to employers

may be the level of Emotional Intelligence (EI) held by the folks who are responsible for

managing these employees on the front line. These front line associates often encounter

the most direct contact with customers. Due to the customer facing nature of the call

center employees role, it is imperative that there is a high level of job satisfaction and

engagement that is visible to the customer (Rath, 2005). With this relationship, there is a

need to further develop the existing body of research to understand what the impact is of

a managers emotional intelligence on employee engagement (Heindel, 2009).

The purpose of this research focused on the components of the problem and the

intricacies relationships between the variables. Components of the problem include:


13/93

2

understanding emotional intelligence in managers (perceive, use, understand, and manage

emotions), understanding the components of employee engagement (job satisfaction,

engagement, empowerment, and satisfaction with manager), as well as measurements for

each.

Background & Purpose of the Study

In order to better understand how managers EI contributes to the job satisfaction

of employees, it is important to understand the makeup of EI. According to Goleman

(1995), there are five elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation,

empathy, and social skills. Salovey and Mayer (1990) divide these into four branches that

were used for purposes of this study: perceive, use, understand, and manage). Due to the

complexity of organizational change and the role emotions play in changes such as global

expansion, job eliminations, leadership changes, as well as stressors of day to day

responsibilities, the EI of managers and how they manage their associates is an element

that leadership needs to consider while moving their organizations forward.

Emotional intelligence connects a leaders cognitive abilities with their emotional

state (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The ability for a leader to recognize the impact of their

own emotions on their decision making is paramount if that leader is to make sound

decisions based on the best interests of the organization. Additionally, a leader must be

able to read emotions in their peers and employees in order to be as effective as possible.

Stogdill (1969) originated this notion with linkages of leader personality and control over

emotions to employee perception of leader effectiveness.


14/93

3

High turnover organizations such as call centers have an even more heightened

need for management of employee satisfaction (Weiss, 2002). Due to the importance of

emotional intelligence in leader effectiveness (Stogdill, 1969), several leadership theories

are explored throughout the literature with regard to EI. EI is a common thread linking

the Five-factor Personality Model, Contingency Theory, and Situational Leadership

Theory. All five personality factors in the Five-factor Model impact a leaders EI. EI also

plays a role in connecting Fiedlers (1972) contingency theory, particularly the focus on

leader personality to leader effectiveness. Situational Leadership is also greatly impacted

by the EI of the leader. External threats, stress, and organizational culture are contributing

factors influencing situational leader behavior (Barrow, 1977). As such, EI is an

important factor for effective leadership as stressful situations present themselves

(Heindel, 2009).

Fiedler (1972) described EI as an element of leadership training in the

contingency model. He postulated that in order to improve the overall performance of a

workgroup, leader behavior had a significant impact. He wrote the two best ways of

accomplishing this was to focus on leader motivations (EI) or find the best situation to

match to the leaders abilities (Situational Theory). Fiedler went on to describe how

training and experience are actually means of changing a situation to best fit the needs of

a leader. In order for this to take effect, a leader must possess a high level of emotional

intelligence to recognize and support weakness. While the organization can provide the

requisite training, it is still the onus of the leader to convert training into knowledge and


15/93

4

action. Fiedler (1972) referred to his contingency theory as the marriage of the

motivational, personality concept to the output of the workgroup.

Muyia and Kacirek (2009) examined leadership development and how it is

impacted by EI. The purpose of Muyia and Kacireks 2009 study was to better

understand how EI is impacted by training. Research has produced mixed results and

Muyia and Kacirek found no statistically significant differences between pre and post test

scores of their research participants. Emotional intelligence abilities contribute to team

effectiveness, better decision making, stress tolerance, interpersonal facilitation, and

overall performance (Muyia & Kacirek, 2009, p. 705). As a result of these factors,

leaders must recognize the importance of emotional intelligence.

Statement of the Problem

There is an opportunity within the call center operations industry to realize the

connection between the five core elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation,

motivation, empathy, and social skills (Goleman, 1995) and the three elements of

employee engagement: job satisfaction, empowerment, and manager satisfaction (Weiss,

2002). Heindel (2009) concluded that there is opportunity for additional research to

recognize the critical success factors that impact employee engagement and satisfaction

(p. 61). Recognizing this connection may help companies with the attraction and

retention of top talent.

The conceptual framework outlines the critical components of emotional

intelligence and employee engagement referenced above intersecting at the

manager/employee relationship. This study aims to provide a blueprint for leaders to


16/93

5

develop action plans designed to drive success in their organizations through successfully

engaging employees.

This study builds upon Heindels (2009) dissertation which addressed four

questions relating EI to job satisfaction, employee engagement, empowerment, and

manager satisfaction. This study focused on answering four similar questions to

understand if there is a link between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. In order

to understand this connection, data was collected from managers as well as their

employees. Identifiers used to make the connection between the data sets was stripped

prior to publication of the data in order to maintain anonymity. Like Heindels (2009)

study, this study will be a correlational, quantitative study. The purpose of the study built

on Heindels (2009) work and validates the results.

Conceptual Framework

Talent acquisition and retention are critical issues that are requiring organizations

to take a fresh look at how EI may be affecting morale and satisfaction of their

employees. In many cases, followers take their cues from the workgroup leader (Bass,

1990, Hui, Chiu, Yu, Cheng, & Tse, 2007). These cues, explicit or otherwise, ultimately

affect the outcome of workgroup performance in relation to goals. Going beyond the

Situational Theory, leadership behavior and skill set can alter workgroup performance

independent of situation. Berlew (1974) described the two-factor managerial model

which focuses on a custodial (rudimentary) leadership approach and a managerial

(participative) focus.


17/93

6

Followers take their cues from their leadership and sometimes do this

unconsciously. Leaders set the tone with their work ethic, urgency, and quality of output.

Followers, in turn, follow. A leader must recognize the role of their leadership personality

in this process and the subordinate-leader relationship as an impact to the end state

(Durand & Nord, 1976). Again, Fiedlers (1972) contingency model supports the entry of

leader personality as a critical success factor.

The theoretical foundation of EI lies in the work of Bar-On who pioneered the

concept of EI as early as 1980 (Heindel, 2009), Salovey and Mayer (1990), and Goleman

(1995). Bar-On (1997) viewed EI from a trait perspective. His work examined personal

characteristics of individuals and measures EI using his EQ-i model. Salovey and Mayer

(1990) viewed EI as an element of an individuals overall intelligence. They measure EI

by using the MSCEIT scale. Finally, Golemans (1995) work focused on understanding

the specific leadership competencies that impact EI. Goleman uses the emotional

competence inventory to measure EI.

The theoretical foundation of employee engagement is separated into the three

elements: job satisfaction, empowerment, and manager satisfaction. Job satisfaction has

been studied by using the two-factor method (Fraser, 1983). The two-factor method

compares the perceived cost of doing a particular job to the perceived benefit from the

employees perspective. Bass (1990) is a leading thinker regarding employee

empowerment in terms of the leader-follower relationship. Bass (1990) research on

Transformational Leadership instructs that employee-manager trust is a key driver of

employee empowerment.


18/93

7

Overview of Constructs

Emotional Intelligence

The concept of emotional intelligence is a relatively new area of interest within

organizations. As organizations are faced with greater challenges as a result of

globalization, high competition for talent, and restricted budgets, it is very important that

management has a keen understanding of what makes their employees happy and

effective in their work. In order to understand individuals at their emotional core, it is

helpful to take inventory of the levels of emotional intelligence their employees and

managers possess.

The definition of EI has changed over time and has even conflicted itself within

some studies (Muyia, 2009). The application of contingency theory by Fiedler (1972) and

Blanchards (1985) Situational Theory has exemplified this conundrum among

researchers. As organizations look to train their leaders on this concept it is imperative

that they recognize these changes and update their programs accordingly. Like any

concept, training programs must keep pace with the new research that is developed as

scholars build on the work of Bar-On, Goleman, and Salovey and Mayer.

Employee Engagement

There are three components of employee engagement: job satisfaction,

empowerment, and manager satisfaction (Weiss, 2002). According to Transformational

Leadership theory, employee engagement is an important factor in helping managers

understand how to retain employees (Bass, 1990). It follows then, that in high turnover

industries such as call centers the need is heightened. As such, it is beneficial for the


19/93

8

leadership of firms in these industries to better understand how they can positively impact

the engagement of their employees in order to improve retention and potentially lower

their expenses associated with acquisition and training as well drive satisfaction with

customers as a result of a more tenured and engaged representative contact.

Job satisfaction is described by Futrell (1979) in terms of the employees personal

feelings of accomplishment, meaningful contribution, and contentment with their job

responsibilities. Fraser (1983) defined job satisfaction in terms of the perceived

relationship between the value an employee extracts from their work against the effort

and mindshare exerted to achieve results. Empowerment focuses on the level of

ownership an employee feels over their own work while satisfaction with the manager

focuses on the level of satisfaction an employee has with the manager-subordinate

relationship (Durand & Nord, 1976).

Research Questions

In order to understand the impact of managers EI on employee engagement, the

following four research questions were asked:

1. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient(EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's

job satisfaction.

2. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient(EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level

of job satisfaction.


20/93

9

3. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient(EI) score for the Understand branch of MSCEIT and their direct

report's level of job satisfaction.

4. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient(EI) score for the Manage branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's

level of job satisfaction.

Emotional intelligence scores for each of the four branches (perceive, use,

understand, and manage) are the independent variables for the study. This is measured for

managers within the sample by using the MSCEIT test (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The

dependent variable for the study is the job satisfaction score as measured by the Job

Satisfaction Survey (JSS). This quantitative study focused on understanding any

relationship between the managers EI scores for each branch and each of the job

satisfaction scores. The sample was taken from a call center of 1000 employees and 108

managers in the insurance industry and represented 5% of employees (49) and 10% of the

management team (10).

Significance of the Study

The gap in the literature surrounds the role of emotions in affecting employee job

satisfaction specific to call centers. McKenzie (2010) indicated that managers have a role

in eliminating the concerns of employees and creating an atmosphere of communication

and inclusion when working through change. The outcome of this study may assist

leaders in attracting and retaining the talent necessary to compete within their industry

through focusing on the employee engagement factors driven by the managers EI.


21/93

10

Additionally, Heindels (2009) work indicates there is an opportunity for further research

in understanding the critical success factors relating leader emotional intelligence to

employee engagement factors.

Definition of Terms

Call Centeris the organization of individuals who are responsible for fielding the

phone calls from customers with inquiries, complaints or other concerns regarding a

product or service they have purchased (Rath, 2005).

Emotional intelligence is defined by Goleman (1995) as the ability to recognize

and control emotions in oneself as well as recognize and interpret emotions in others.

Emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) is a measurement of the emotional

intelligence of an individual. Similar to the IQ measurement, EQ focuses on emotion

rather than intellectual intelligence. Bar-On (1997) developed the Bar-On scale for

measuring EI with his EQ-I test.

Employee engagementdescribes the psychology of an employees attitude toward

their current situation in their workplace. Macey and Schneider (2008) describes three

facets of employee engagement: psychological, behavioral, and trait.

Front line manageris the manager level individual responsible for the front line

associates who deal directly with customers (Frunzi & Savini, 1997). Front line managers

represent the level of management closest to the customer and presumably have the

greatest potential impact on customer satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is defined by Allen and Wilburn (2002) as a measure of an

employees happiness in their current job and future prospects within their role.


22/93

11

Additionally, they make the link between an employees job satisfaction and customer

satisfaction. The mantra is that a satisfied employee will make a satisfied customer.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Bias

There were four essential assumptions made in this study. First, it is assumed that

the participants surveyed are representative of the population. Second, it is assumed that

the emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) is an accurate measure of emotional intelligence.

Third, it is assumed that the self-assessment tool is accurate. Finally, there is an

assumption that the job satisfaction scores reported are representative of a general sample

and not driven by a recent outlier event.

Among the limitations of this study is the fact that it is limited only to the call

centers, with their high turnover rates which may place generalizability into question for

industries with normal or low turnover. Another limitation is that, in general, EQ is a

relatively weak measurement (Muyia & Kacirek, 2009). Finally, the results may be

impacted by an outlier stress level among those sampled on the day they complete the

survey.

Biases in either design or outcomes of the study are components that were

considered as part of this research. There were three potential areas for bias in this study:

researcher, participant, and method bias. Each of these potentials areas were addressed

throughout the study.

Researcher bias comes in many forms. Boyd and Westfall (1955) found that

researcher personality characteristics may bias both the design and results of a study.

Bailar, Bailey, and Stevens (1977) found a link between response rates and the


23/93

12

researchers attitude toward the subject matter. Singer, Frankel, and Glassman (1983) and

Phillips and Dipboye (1989) took the argument a step further through their finding that

outcomes often skew toward confirming the researchers initial perspectives and

preconceived notions regarding the subject. For this study, each of the above risks for

bias was monitored throughout the research process.

The second area of concern for biases hat may have impacted the results of the

study concerns participants. Building from the potential for researcher personality to

affect research outcomes, so too may the participants in the study affect outcomes

through their disposition (Phillips & Dipboye, 1989). A second potential for bias

concerns the Hawthorne effect which describes a propensity to respond to a survey with

answers the participants think appropriate to the content instead of providing an honest

assessment (Denova, 1968).

Data collection method bias has manifested itself in each of the methods of

collecting data. Albaum (1987) found bias in mail surveys although the bias was less

obvious that in interviews. Because this survey was conducted via online survey, there is

less likelihood of bias manifesting itself in the outcomes (Evans, Garcia, Garcia, &

Baron, 2003) but it must be accounted for in analyzing results.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The following chapters review the body of literature on the subject of emotional

intelligence. The leading thinkers on the subject are reviewed along with their preferred

methods of measurement of the construct. Additionally, an overview of the job


24/93

13

satisfaction construct is provided in order to understand both main components of this

study.

Methodology is also discussed. This study was correlational in nature and

reviewed the emotional intelligence measurements of the front line managers in the

sample and the correlation of those results to the job satisfaction and employee

engagement scores of the line employees in the sample.

Chapter 4 describes the results of the study and addresses the research questions

that were asked. Outcomes were determined in relation to the samples selected and the

relationship, if any between emotional intelligence and the elements of employee

engagement. Summary and recommended future studies on the topic complete the study

and provide suggested framework for future researchers to continue to build upon this

study and the existing body of knowledge.


25/93

14

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Emotional Intelligence as a Construct

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has been developed over time as a

complimentary intelligence to intellect and social intelligence, among others. The

research has evolved over time, and spans mid century work in behavioral science to

more recent works focusing specifically on the study of emotional intelligence. From the

work or Thorndike (1920) and Weschler (1958) through modern day EI academics such

as Goleman (1995), Gardner (1983), Mayer and Salovey (1993), and Bar-On (1997), EI

has found its way into the lexicon of academia and business alike.

Emotional intelligence is a relatively new measure of intelligence, having really

been developed over the last thirty years. Over this time the idea has evolved and has

taken on the form of innate abilities, personality traits, emotional and intellectual

capabilities, and as a developed ability (Mayer & Salovey, 1990). The evolution of EI as

a construct has led to great debate about its place among the previously recognized

intelligences. Weschlers (1958) concept of multiple intelligences forms the basis for the

idea that EI is not a measure of an element of IQ, but rather an intelligence that can stand

on its own, independent of intellect, social intelligence, and other measures of intellectual

abilities.

Chronology of Theoretical Development

The concept of emotional intelligence is often credited as stemming from the

work of Thorndike (1920), Wechsler (1958), and (Fancher, 1985). These early thinkers

laid the foundation from which emotional intelligence was eventually born. Thorndike


26/93

15

(1920) studied social intelligence which he defined as the ability to act rationally and

intelligently while managing relationships with others. Weschler (1958) built his

theoretical work from the foundation of Thorndikes work and began to separate personal

and social intelligence from innate intellectual abilities. This separation eventually led to

divergent fields including EI.

The early works of Thorndike (1920) and Weschler (1958) provided a foundation

for the development of emotional intelligence as an independent intelligence. However, it

took many years between their research and the research of Gardner (1983). The

evolution from behaviorist psychology to cognitive research in the second half of the 20

th

century (Hunt, 1993) helped to build a foundation for the study of EI which is both

behaviorist and cognitive in nature. This shift in the focus of the psychology field was

instrumental in spurring the concept of EI.

Perhaps spearheading the emotional intelligence research field was Gardner

(1983) whose concept of multiple intelligences implicitly recognized the potential for an

emotional state of intelligence. Intelligence had primarily been thought of in terms of

intellectual or social intelligence. His theories of personal intelligence including

intrapersonal (understanding ones internal feelings) and interpersonal (recognizing the

feelings of others) provided a supporting framework for the subsequent research on the

concept of EI.

Although the term emotional intelligence was not yet a part of the lexicon of

academia, Gardners (1983) work was in the space that would eventually be termed

emotional intelligence research. Gardner (1983) studied interpersonal and intrapersonal


27/93

16

intelligence as they related to the capability to understand emotions, intentions, and

motivations in oneself and others. Inter and intrapersonal intelligences combined provide

a framework or foundation for Salovey and Mayers (1990) landmark evaluation of

emotional intelligence.

The field of psychology began to focus on how emotions and thought interact

with one another. Bower (1981) and Mayer and Bremer (1985) studied mood and the

impact on thought processes. Coupled with the work of Gardner (1983), the 1980s

produced significant research in the realm of emotional connection to cognitive

processes. The shift in thinking in some parts of the scientific community paved the way

for later thinkers such as Mayer and Salovey (1990) to begin publishing articles focused

on the concept of emotional intelligence and the term was coined.

As leading thinkers in the study of EI, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2004) defined

EI as the capacity to recognize, manage, and leverage emotions to improve self and

relationship management. The term emotional intelligence was coined by Salovey &

Mayer (1990) through their research which stemmed from the efforts of Thorndike,

Weschler, Gardner, and others as they formalized the definition of EI. This early

definition was limited to the ability to read, understand, and recognize emotions in

oneself and others. Later their definition expanded to perceiving and understanding

emotions in others as well as managing and harnessing emotions in oneself (Salovey &

Grewal, 2005; Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

As academic research became more popular in professional and academic

journals, author Daniel Goleman took the concept to the masses. His (1995) book


28/93

17

Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ brought the concept of EI into

popular culture. This mainstream recognition of EI as a leadership competency led to

many more research opportunities as well as practitioner applications in institutes of

higher education as well as in corporations. Golemans view of EI is a mixed model

focused on both ability and personality. His research has led to a perspective that an

individual may use EI to their advantage by effectively managing relationships and by

increased self-motivation which is related to high levels of EI. Goleman (1995) views EI

as a skill that can be honed through learning and practice.

Another leading thinker in the study of emotional intelligence is Bar-on (1997).

Bar-On (1997) developed a model of EI that focuses on emotional intelligence as a

coping mechanism. He describes emotional intelligence as a development of the

emotional core that allows an individual to think clearly in the face of emotions and act

rationally in relationships and other acts of daily life.

Bar-On (2004) further developed the body of knowledge concerning EI through

his analysis of the shared elements of emotional and social intelligence. The social side of

intelligence makes up half of the four elements of EI. The relationship management and

management of other emotions elements of EI have a social component and thus provide

synergy with the study of social intelligence. However, not all researchers are convinced

the social and emotional intelligence overlap is warranted including Mayer and Salovey

(1997) who described EI in ways that separates EI from other aspects of social

intelligence such as personality characteristics.


29/93

18

Mayer and Salovey (1997) built upon the continuum of the emotional intelligence

literature including their own, while recognizing the work particularly of Goleman (1995)

and Bar-On (1997) and viewed EI as distinguished from traits and talents. Their focus

and expanded definition of EI represents characteristics outside of the realm of the

definition of intelligence. This focus, particularly in separating EI from traditional

definition of intelligence, may have come in response to a building coalition against the

concept of EI being recognized as intelligence at all by some researchers who view the

concept as a personality trait more than intelligence similar to intellectual intelligence

(Landy, 2005). This backlash in the academic community has been a hurdle for emotional

intelligence researchers who continue to build the argument for a separate and distinct

form of intelligence represented by EI through various models and schools of thought.

Models of Emotional Intelligence

As researchers have looked to develop the study of emotional intelligence, the

study has branched into three general models. Muyia (2009) attempted to bucket the

definitions and models of EI into three categories: ability model, personality model, and a

mixed model. The ability model implies that EI is a competency that can be learned,

developed and maintain as individuals focus on the elements of the construct of EI.

Goleman (1995) is recognized as a leader in the research and positioning of EI as an

ability. Golemans studies represent EI as an ability akin to athletic ability that can be

trained to become more efficient and effective in any given individual.

Other researchers have utilized a personality model to describe and research EI.

Bar-On (1997) focused his research on EI as a personality trait. His measure of EI (EQ-i)


30/93

19

has been compared to a personality trait assessment (Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews,

2001). Bar-Ons (2004) argument was that personality plays an important role in how

other perceive an individuals emotions or motivations in a social setting. The thinking is

that internal emotions and the external manifestation of emotions (perceived as

personality) are inextricably linked (Bar-On, 2004).

Finally, Mayer et al. (2004) view EI from a mixed model perspective. Perhaps

using the best arguments from both Goleman (1995) and Bar-On (2004), Mayer et al.

(2004) agree that EI is an innate ability, perhaps part of an individuals personality make-

up as well as a skill that can be further developed. They view EI as both a competency

that can be developed as well as an innate ability, something that an individual enjoys

from birth forward which may be more akin to an example of athleticism whereby an

individual may be born with given talents (personality in the case of EI) but has the

opportunity to further develop those talents (or allow the talents to whither) which

follows the ability models thinking.

EI as a Competency That Can Be Developed

Goleman (1995) measures EI via the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI).

Golemans research (Goleman, 2005; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002) supports the

notion that EI may be learned and practiced. The ECI is a measurement that allows an

individual to self-report elements of EI that ultimately allows the participant to then focus

on those areas that may need further development and make an impact to their EI growth.

With this in mind, leadership development programs have begun to focus training

managers and executives in the elements of emotional intelligence and how to develop


31/93

20

their competencies in this area. Goleman et al. (2002) focused particularly on the concept

of EI as a critical competency in effective leadership and have been able to link EI

competencies to positive employee morale as well as linking EI to improved financial

performance of organizations where leaders have practiced and exhibited strong EI

competencies. This provides a monetary gain for employers who recognize EI not as an

element of personality, but rather a construct that individuals can learn to enhance over

time.

The ability model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1995, 1997;

Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000a) consists of an accurate understanding of ones own

emotions, use of emotions to enhance intellectual intelligence, understanding emotions,

and regulation of emotions. The ability model views EI as a competency and is specific

about the four main areas of focus to enhance emotional intelligence. These four are

presented in a continuum from understanding emotions (and triggers) and regulating or

harnessing these emotions to leverage as strengths. Mayer et al. (2000a) described

understanding ones own emotions as monitoring internal thoughts and feelings.

Understanding emotions in others is viewed as identifying these emotions through

physical states, spoken word, and other outward verbal and non-verbal actions others may

take during an interaction (Mayer et al., 2000a).

The use of emotions to enhance intellectual intelligence is the ability to

understand multiple perspectives of intelligence and correlate internal emotions with

emotions of others to better understand and react to certain situations (Izard, 2001). The

ability to understand emotion recognizes the outcomes of emotions and provides a


32/93

21

framework and reference point for future reactions to the same emotions in a given

context (Frijda, 1988). The foundation for this is understanding what may trigger an

emotion- whether it is positive or negative- in order to act more intelligently upon that

emotion, deciding how to best leverage the emotion within the context of the situation.

Regulation of emotions is an offshoot of understanding emotion; this is the

foundation of the ability model of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

Regulation includes the moderation of emotions, judging and acting on the usefulness of

a given emotion- i.e. when and where to use anger as an advantage in a situation. This

may include displaying angry emotions in situations that require renewed focus from

others or when to display eagerness and hopefulness in promoting a positive environment

for success.

EI as a Personality Trait/Characteristic

Emotional intelligence is viewed by some as a personality trait or a characteristic

that individuals are born with. Bar-Ons (1997) EQ-i model focuses on measuring items

such as resilience and ability to manage stressors as critical components of EI. The traits

measured with Bar-Ons model cross into the big five personality factors of

extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to

experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.1). Bar-On recognized personality as a significant

component of emotional intelligence in individuals. However, this idea has contributed to

some of the major criticisms of EI concerning the grey area between which components

of personality constitute true EI and which are simply personality traits. The EQ-i model

attempts to separate the difference between the two.


33/93

22

The EQ-i model was designed with an eye toward both emotional and social

intelligence. Bar-Ons (1997) focus was on how an individual uses an understanding of

their emotions and the emotions of others to navigate through social situations. This

model aims to measure effectiveness in this endeavor. Viewing EI in this manner (as a

characteristic of personality) has lent itself to criticism from academia including from

pioneers in the research of EI, Salovey and Mayer (1990) who decried Bar-Ons method

as lacking the necessary correlating properties linking emotions to intelligence.

Overall, the research recognizes that personality is a component of EI, the

differences between research models lies in how big of an impact does personality have

on the measure of EI. The question may lie in asking whether personality is the sole

component, a contributing component or simply an ancillary characteristic that has no

bearing on an individuals level of emotional intelligence.

EI as a Distinct Intelligence/ Innate Ability

Mayer, DiPaolo, and Saloveys (1990) critique of Bar-Ons take on the EI

construct lies at the heart of their model of EI itself. The viewpoint of EI as a distinct

intelligence that individuals are prone to hold through innate ability differs significantly

from the viewpoint of EI as a personality trait. It is this viewpoint that specifically ties EI

to something more similar to intellectual intelligence, a characteristic independent of

ones personality, yet something that contributes to an individuals overall being.

Mayer et al. (2004) described EI as the ability to perceive, utilize, manage, and

understand emotions through self-management and self-awareness. Their four branch

model is similar to models advanced by Bradberry and Greaves (2009) and focuses on


34/93

23

self-awareness, self-management, relationship management, and social awareness. To

link these four branches back to the big five personality factors that are so linked to Bar-

Ons model, it is apparent that each of the branches is more inward looking, more

reflective then the personality factors which are more expressive in nature. Perhaps this

distinction best illustrates the difference between the personality model and the ability

model. Bar-Ons (1997) personality model is expressive in nature and focuses on outward

expression of emotions, categorizing emotions into areas similar to personality factors.

Mayer et al. (2004) focus on the understanding and use of emotions as an internal

exercise, something that can be understood and enhanced over time and separate and

distinct from personality.

The models built by Bar-On (1997), Goleman (1995), and Mayer and Salovey

(1997), while different in many ways, are also linked by several components. Bar-On

(1997) breaks EI down into interpersonal skills, stress management skills, mood, and

adaptability skills (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000b). Goleman (1995) focuses on

similar elements of subsystems of personality including: self-motivation, relationships,

understanding emotion in oneself, understanding emotion in others, and managing

emotions (Mayer et al., 2000b). As Mayer et al. (2000b) reflected on the models of their

colleagues, they determined that the focus of emotional and intellectual interactions in

their model were most similar to that of Goleman. Their construct of EI is four pronged

and concerns perception or emotion, facilitating emotion, understanding emotion, and

regulating emotion (Mayer et al., 2000b). These concepts are well-aligned with

Golemans (1995) descriptions of the elements of EI.


35/93

24

Finally, the view of emotional intelligence is broken into two components, those

that satisfy internal needs, and those that are externally focused. Much of the distinction

is found in constructs such as perception versus expression of emotion (Mayer et al.,

2000b). Expression of emotion can be considered an external element of EI, how one

interacts with the outside world. Perception of emotion on the other hand may be

considered internally facing. Perception of the emotion in oneself or others focuses on a

satisfaction of the internal needs of the individual to better understand the world. Other

constructs such as Golemans (1995) recognizing emotion in others and understanding

ones own emotions also represent the division between internal and external forces that

make up the models of EI.

Validity of Emotional Intelligence

Understanding the validity of emotional intelligence has proven difficult for

researchers for a variety of reasons. Cherniss (2010) outlines the two obstacles to

effectively measuring EI. Ever changing and sometimes conflicting definitions and

models of EI is the first obstacle. This is played out in the model descriptions above and

the varied approaches to modeling EI practiced by the greatest thinkers in this space.

Researchers have attempted to mitigate this apparent conflict by clearly stating the

definition of EI as it relates to their individual research and acknowledging the model

used in their research- ability, personality/trait, or mixed.. However, this has not helped

ease concerns within the overall body of work on this concept and there is more work to

be done to validate the concept as the body of knowledge deepens.


36/93

25

The second concern presented by Cherniss (2010) is the limitations and

questionable validity of the measurement instruments for EI. Muyia (2009) attempted to

reconcile the validity of the instruments by taking the bucketed models addressed above

(ability, personality, and mixed models) to create three approaches to measuring EI:

specific ability, integrative model, and mixed model approach. Specific ability

conceptualizes EI as developing over time, similar to cognitive intelligence (Muyia,

2009). The integrative and mixed model approaches focus on non-cognitive learning. In

each of the models and approaches to measuring EI, there are significant limitations that

have not yet been fully mitigated. These include questions such as whether EI can stand

on its own as a separate intelligence and whether EI is simply a component of social

intelligence.

Finally there is concern with the use of self-report measures to understand EI in

individuals. Because self-reporting may be influenced by how an individual feels on a

given day and not representative of true feelings, EI results may be skewed. Additionally,

inherent in self-reporting mechanisms is the skewing of data related to an individuals

awareness that their responses are being tracked. As such, responses may be embellished

or falsified to meet the percepted expectations of a researcher. The introduction of tactics

such as 360 degree feedback help mitigate this risk by triangulating self-reported results

with results as reported by third parties who have had interactions with the participants.

EI as Standalone Intelligence

As the concept of emotional intelligence has grown, a common question is

whether EI is strong enough to stand on its own as a separate intelligence. Salovey &


37/93

26

Mayer (1990) define EI in terms of cognitive abilities, innate to an individual

contributing to rational thought. This set of cognitive abilities is viewed as set apart from

established intelligences such as intellect and social intelligence. Due to the specific

nature of the elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, relationship management,

and the ability to read emotion in others, EI maintains components much different from

those associated with other measures of intelligence. Additionally, some argue that EI is

not an intelligence at all, rather simply a set of personality traits (Muyia, 2009). Overall,

the prevailing viewpoint of the scholars who study EI is that EI is one element of a

holistic intelligence within an individual.

Emotion and intellect have been linked as early as Thorndike (1920). Its the

relationship between the two that constitutes emotional intelligence. Ketelaar and Clore

(1997) viewed EI as focused on the functional relationship between emotive and

cognitive capabilities. Their viewpoint connects EI to intellect, but in a way that the two

are complimentary, indicating that EI must be a separate entity from intellect altogether.

This viewpoint supports the notion that EI represents a part of intelligence that combined

with cognitive abilities, presents a more rounded individual in terms of competencies and

abilities.

Is EI Simply an Element of Social Intelligence?

Another perspective taken by some scholars is that EI may simply be an element

of social intelligence given some of the similar properties between the two. Leading the

counter charge to this argument are Mayer et al. (1990). Mayer et al. (1990) describe EI

as a combination of two elements that when meshed are more powerful intellectual tools


38/93

27

than when standing alone. Similar to the description of the cognitive relationship with EI

above, this combination describes social intelligence as a complimentary intelligence to

EI. Social intelligence represents the ability of an individual to interact in social settings

whereas EI measures a level of awareness an individual has while in social settings or

within oneself. The continuum could be described as an individual who holds high

emotional intelligence may also, then, demonstrate a high level of social intelligence.

Supporting the notion of a complimentary relationship between social and

emotional intelligence is the work of Bar-On (2004). He described awareness, expression,

understanding, and controlling emotions and their relation to managing change,

generating self-motivation, and affecting positive interpersonal relationships as

connecting social and emotional intelligence. This connection supports the work of

Mayer et al. (1990) in describing the relationship between emotional and social

intelligence as complimentary, a continuum of learning rather than EI simply being a

component of the umbrella of social intelligence.

Can EI Be Measured Accurately?

The importance of self-reporting to the measurement of EI has been presented as

a significant concern in the literature and has in some cases threatened the validity of EI

as intelligence separate from other, more established elements of intelligence. Davies,

Stankov, and Roberts (1998) discussed the limitations of self-reporting to include the

blurring of emotional intelligence factors with personality assessment. An ongoing

struggle with the establishment of EI as an accredited measure of intelligence, the

crossover into personality trait assessment has caused problems with validation.


39/93

28

The clear connection between personality factors, social interactions, and

emotional intelligence factors contributes to the blurring of the lines between each, but

researchers in the field, especially Mayer et al. (1990), Goleman (1995), Bar-On (2004)

create clear distinctions between the three components. The arguments presented by each

author, although differing in model and approach, generally support the notion that each

stand on its own, while offering complimentary features. The three elements- personality

traits, social intelligence, and emotional intelligence, when combined with intellectual

intelligence does not threaten validity, but rather, strengthens validity of the concept of EI

(Ryback, 1998).

Bias in Emotional Intelligence Research

Throughout the work of Mayer and Salovey (1993), Goleman (1995), and Bar-On

(1997) the issue of bias has been raised. The primary concern is method bias. Because of

the nature of the research that is done to support EI, self-reporting provides the greatest

opportunity for bias (Spector, 2006). Spector (2006) focuses primarily on the method bias

while using mixed method research favored by Bar-On (1997). The mixed method bias

may be mitigated by using an ability based model (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006).

Golemans (1995) EQ Test was developed as ability model research and thus limits the

method bias inherent in EI research.

The emotional competence inventory (ECI), a method created by Goleman et al.

(2002) utilized 360 degree feedback. However, potential biases exist primarily with

regard to how employers perceive employees or impressions (true or false) that others

may have for the individual in question. These perceptions may color the research and


40/93

29

create biased results. Mitigation for this variable was provided by generating feedback

from many individuals in order to filter the biases and provide an accurate picture on an

individuals EI.

The triangulation created by combining 360 degree feedback with self-reporting

helps mitigate mono-method bias. This is created when self reporting mechanisms and

results are not supported by anything else. Additionally, inflated results from self

reporting (Jackson, Stillman, Burke, & Englert, 2007) may further influence bias in

research. Again, this is mitigated by a triangulation approach or by using other methods

besides self-reporting to gather information from a respondent.

Measures of Emotional Intelligence

There are many tools available today to measure EI in individuals. A few will be

discussed in more detail below. Many are theoretically sound; some are not but most

measure similar components of emotional intelligence to arrive at an Emotional Quotient

(EQ) similar to that of IQ. The tools referenced below are those that are found to be most

useful for this research. Although each has been criticized by some academics for a

variety of reasons, most notably the close link to personality assessments, each is a good

barometer of the EI competency of the respondent. The tools reviewed have been

developed by some of the leading thinkers in the field of emotional intelligence. Those

reviewed are: the EQ test developed by Daniel Goleman (1995), the ECI developed by

Goleman and Boyatzis (Sala, 2000), EQ-i developed by Bar-On (1997), the SSEIT

created by Schutte et al. (1998), and MSCEIT crafted by Mayer et al. (2002).


41/93

30

EQ Test

Developed by Daniel Goleman (1995), the EQ Test, like most other measures of

EI, is a self-report test. This test focuses on the use of ones own emotions and the

emotions of others. The test is administered as a scenario analysis where respondents are

asked to choose alternative actions to ten scenarios. Because Golemans stance is that EI

is a competency that can be developed, it is assumed that respondents may improve their

results on subsequent tests as they work to hone their competencies. As with other EI

tests, academics have questioned the validity of the tool, primarily due to the self-report

nature of the test.

The EQ test differs from the other measures discussed because of the use of

scenarios. The scenarios allow the respondent to put themselves in a situation and

respond according to how they would react. This response over a series of vignettes

allows the test to yield a score for EQ (emotional quotient) which is used as an output of

emotional intelligence rated on a scale similar to IQ.

Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI)

The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) (Sala, 2000) links personality to

performance. The ECI builds on Golemans (1995) previous work as well as that of

Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002). While this measure is also a self-reporting tool, it

also leverages 360 degree feedback and thus includes measurables based on the

perceptions of EI competencies from others. This triangular approach strengthens the

models, although there are still validity gaps due to the subjective nature of both internal

and external feedback mechanisms.


42/93

31

The ECI differs from the other tools primarily with its use of the 360 degree

feedback. In this sense, the validity questions regarding self-reporting are somewhat

mitigated by taking into account the perceptions of others. Useful participants in 360

degree feedback usually include family members, peer level coworkers, subordinate as

well as managers of the respondents.

The use of 360 degree feedback (Sala, 2000) strengthens the potential weakness

of self-reporting mechanisms, however, there are risks concerning the size of the gap

between outside perception and internal perception of ones level of EI. There is risk that

the size of the gap may deter from the validity of the results of the survey. It is for this

reason that outliers may be pulled from consideration when analyzing the results.

EQ-i

Bar-Ons (1997) EQ-i model is a 133 item assessment. The tool is a mixed model

assessment (traits and abilities) measuring interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress

management, adaptability, and general mood of the respondents. Validity studies are

concerned with the disconnect from traditional intellectual intelligence tests which pushes

emotional intelligence out as a less valid component of overall intelligence (Bar-On,

2004). Much research exists that generally considers mixed model approaches to EI as

invalid in one form or another due to the over-reliance on self-reporting (Brown and

Moshavi, 2005).

Roberts, Zeidner, and Matthews (2001)took a critical eye of the EQ-i tool as a

measurement of EI intimating that this measurement is over reliant on the individuals

self-awareness to measure their full range of EI. Thus, as with many EI measurements,


43/93

32

the hurdle remains that as self-reporting measures, these tools are not as scientific in

nature as measurements for other realms of intelligence such as IQ.

The EQ-i differs from other tests in its focus on traits in addition to abilities. Bar-

On (1997) recognized two components of EI which include personality and traits and

thus tailored his measurement tool to account for both. His research supports the notion

that truly developed EI is represented on both fronts.

SSEIT

The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT) (Schutte et al.,

1998) was designed to be a tool which is simple to administer and interpret as a means to

measure EI. Schutte et al. (1998) designed the SSEIT based on the theoretical and

practical work of Salovey and Mayer (1990). Salovey and Mayer (1990) described four

elements of EI. They included: recognizing emotions in oneself, expression of emotion,

emotional regulation, and leveraging emotions to solve problems, each of which are

accounted for within the development of the SSEIT tool. Schutte et al. (1998) focused on

taking a deeper viewpoint of the respondent within each of the elements of EI in order to

provide a holistic overview of the measurement of emotional intelligence in the

individual.

The SSEIT shares weaknesses of the other tests with regard to self-reporting.

However, this tool differentiates itself from the other measurement instruments by

focusing on four specific components of EI. The continuum from emotional recognition

and expression (internal) to regulation and emotional leverage (external) allows for a full

spectrum analysis of EI in the individual.


44/93

33

MSCEIT

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is a 141 item

assessment tool that assesses the ability based model of EI (Mayer et al., 2002). MSCEIT

focuses on the ability of the individual to recognize and react to emotions generated

within vignettes and viewed in illustrations of facial characteristics. Support for this test

academically comes from the realization that the ability model avoids some of the pitfalls

associated with emotional intelligence tests that seemingly cross over too far into the

realm of personality assessments (Brackett & Mayer, 2001). Additionally, Van Rooy and

Viswesvaran (2004) correlate MSCEIT results with general intelligence tests, further

supporting the validity to this tool.

This tool differs from others in its use of the visual clues of emotions in others.

An important element of EI is recognizes emotions not only in oneself, but in others. One

of the most useful ways to accomplish this is by having the skill (ability) to read

underlying emotions through facial expression. The MSCEIT allows the respondent to try

their skill in this regard to compliment the rest of the survey outcomes to gain a rounded

understanding of the individuals EI.

The MSCEIT was the tool used to measure manager EI for this research. The

variety of the construction of the questions, including visuals provided a unique

perspective into the EI of the managers that were studied. Additionally, the use of the

ability model provides for an appropriate framework in understanding the abilities of

managers to develop and display emotional intelligence in the workplace and did not

limit the results or influence the results of this study by illuminating personality factors


45/93

34

that contribute either to the self-reporting of results or the perceptions of EI in the

managers that were studied.

Employee Satisfaction as a Construct

Goleman et al. (2002) found that the level of a leaders EI is correlated to the

positive mood of their employees which then leads to higher revenues through improved

customer satisfaction scores, particularly in service industries. In linking EI to their

concept of primal leadership, Goleman et al. (2002) found that employees who work for a

leader that is actively working on their EI competencies will be positively impacted and

thus perform more strongly and experience an increase in their own satisfaction at work.

The importance of EI as a leadership competency has been described as executive

intelligence (Ryback, 1998). Executive intelligence includes EI as a significant

contributor to the ability of a leader to relate to his organization, make more informed

decisions, and increase the output as well as loyalty of the employees in the organization.

The executive intelligence concept contemplates EI as driving employee satisfaction with

a correlation to bottom line results and thus Ryback (1998) has been able to formulate a

business case for EI.

However, there are limitations to the connection between EI and effective

leadership (Cherniss, 2010). Muyia and Kacirek (2009) found Cherniss (2010) concerns

around the linkages of EI to leadership to be true as they worked through their research

and determined EI had little, if any impact on a leaders job performance. Cherniss

(2010) reiterated the importance of the situational factors as much as the EI factors in


46/93

35

determining outcome in a given situation. Situational theory supports this notion, with EI

being just another element that may embellish a situation.

It can be surmised that EI is simply one of many contributing factors within a

given situation that allows for successful governorship. However, Ryback (1998) asserts

that any situation, given a dose of EI from the leadership post will yield better results

than those situations absent of any element of strong EI represented from leadership.

Followers within an organization look to leaders for guidance not only in day to day

responsibilities but also in how to react to a crises or otherwise negative situation.

Ryback (1998) researched the connection a leader who is strong in his EI competencies

and the reactions of employees and thus influences the outcome of such an event.

Employee satisfaction represents a condition of feeling about ones positive or

negative work environment, inclusive of relationships, culture, and physical environment

(Fraser, 1983). The EI of management and coworkers can contribute to the overall

experience of an employee and influence how they rate their own satisfaction on the job

(Goleman et al., 2002). Again, the leader sets the tone emotionally and a leader strong in

his own EI will influence others, implicitly or explicitly, to develop their own emotional

intelligence and thus react to situations with more control. A feeling of control emotional

may also contribute to a higher satisfaction on the job (Ryback, 1998).

Employee satisfaction has followed theoretical models such as the two-factor

theory (Fraser, 1983) and Stamps and Piedmontes (1986) model consisting of five

viewpoints. Frasers model looks at both the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of an

employee on the job. These factors are modeled from the employees perspective and are


47/93

36

related to the level of motivation and ownership (engagement) in ones job

responsibilities with a correlation to levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Stamps and Piedmonte (1986) explored employee satisfaction more broadly in

their five factors. They view satisfaction as a conglomeration of: personal fulfillment,

views of expectations gap, impact of their work output, relative contribution, and Frasers

two-factor model. These five viewpoints encompass each of the factors that may

influence an employees view of their job but what is not explicitly outlined is the impact

of leadership EI as a construct of employee satisfaction.

Employee satisfaction, like emotional intelligence relies heavily on self-reporting

as a measure of the levels of satisfaction in the individual. The results of any given

survey may be influenced by the particular feelings at the time of the survey. Therefore,

there is risk inherent ion a heavy reliance on self-report measures to definitely entertain

results of any given survey. However, it is the entirety of the body of research on

employee engagement and job satisfaction that normalizes for any gaps or deficiencies in

any given study.

Methodologies in Existing Research in Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence has been studied primarily using variations quantitative

research. Because emotional intelligence is recognized by some researchers as a hard

intelligence similar to IQ, and the mainstream measures of EI are survey based (ie

MSCEIT, EQ-I, etc), it is appropriate that the quantitative methods of research are

applied (Mayer & Salovey, 1990). Four such studies are explored to better understand

some of the common methodologies employed by researchers seeking better understand


48/93

37

EI and the relation to various variables. The relevance to this study is that the study is

quantitative in nature and the methodology is similar to that of the existing body of work

in the field.

Day and Carroll (2008) sought to further understand a perceived gap in the

emotional intelligence research that deals with the limitations of self-reporting to

measuring EI. Their study was quantitative and measured the same sample taking both

Bar-Ons (1997) EQ-I test and the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2004) in two separate sessions

to determine if either was more susceptible to participant misrepresentation.

Their method measured results of the same sample separated by two weeks. The

sample was set in two separate functions each week. In week one they were set in an

applicant situation where the participant was responding to the test based on their

applying for a job. The second scenario placed the sample participants in a different

scenario as a non-applicant, they simply instructed to complete the test as participants in

a research study. Participants were asked to complete both the MSCEIT and EQ-I tests in

each session (Day & Carroll, 2008).

To understand the results of their study, Day and Carroll (2008) used descriptive

statistics to determine the correlation between the applicant and non-applicant results of

the two instruments. The correlation was stronger and negatively positioned for the EQ-I

test. Reported measures t-tests were used to analyze this data. Chi-square analysis was

used as part of a control dataset taking all of the test results and treating them as if they

were all results from different applicants versus duplicate results for each member of the

sample. The results of the Chi-square found the proportion of different responses


49/93

38

(indicated distorted responses) can from the EQ-I dataset whereas MSCEIT results were

generally constant (Day & Carroll, 2008).

The outcome of their research determined that the EQ-I test was more susceptible

to distortion when compared to the MSCEIT (Day & Carroll, 2008). This is relevant to

this study because the mechanism for measuring EI in the sample selected is the

MSCEIT. Because Day and Carroll (2008) have supported the notion that, although still

somewhat limited by the nature of self-report testing, MSCEIT limits participant

distortion due to the nature and construct of the instrument.

Another study on EI was performed by Rahim and Malik (2010). Their study was

presented as a case study designed to better understand the effect of demographics on EI.

In particular there was a focus on age, educational, and gender differences. Surveys and

questionnaires were used to collect data. Because this was not a correlational study, but

rather a study of independent variables, the independent sample t-test was used to

understand gender differences in measure of EI. Their results showed that there was a

difference and that the women in the sample showed higher EI measurements than the

men in the sample.

Regression analysis was used for all variables and the finding was that

demographic variables or level of education and gender were found to have a positive

relationship with EI. Coefficient of determination was used to determine variation in the

results (Rahim & Malik, 2010). Variation was found to be minimal and supported the

quality of the control group.


50/93

39

With regard to the relationship between age and EI, the mean responses were

almost identical throughout the distribution of the age brackets. Using a 5-point Likert

scale, each of the age brackets mean results was in the 3.8 range with a significant drop

off of 2.8 over the age of 41. The authors postulate that this decline is a result of the

experiences over the career of someone in this age bracket as well as the level of

responsibility differences as the sample study progressed through their career (Rahim &

Malik, 2010).

Rode et al. (2007) used the MSCEIT to test the effect of the model on individual

performance. This study considered four hypotheses: Emotional intelligence is

positively related to interpersonal effectiveness (Rode et al., 2007, p. 402), Emotional

intelligence is positively related to academic performance (Rode et al., 2007, p. 403),

conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence

and interpersonal effectiveness, such that the relationship between emotional intelligence

and interpersonal effectiveness is stronger for high versus low levels of

conscientiousness (Rode et al., 2007, p. 404), and Conscientiousness positively

moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance,

such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance is

stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness (Rode et al., 2007, p. 404).

Each hypothesis was tested for direct and indirect effects using descriptive statistics for

analysis.

Their findings supported weak correlation between EI and group behavior

effectiveness, public speaking, and GPA of the participants. The correlation factors were


51/93

40

r = .17, .15, and .16 respectively. These findings failed to support the notion that EI is

most correlated with acts of two way communication, whereas public speaking and GPA

are relatively solitary acts where it may be expected the EI has weak correlation. The

authors were surprised by the low correlation between EI and group behavior

effectiveness but postulated that this may have been due to the artificial environment

within which group behavior was moderated compared to the real world environment

within which GPA was collected (Rode et al., 2007).

A fourth study on EI sought to understand the relationship between EI and social

intelligence variables. Morand (2001) used the construct validity of facial recognition to

measure against measures of social intelligence including personality type, empathy, and

leader consideration. Morand (2001) used validated testing instruments to measure the

social intelligence measures and a facial recognition tool to correlate results. The test was

administered to MBA students with a sample size of 41.

The study found the average correlation between facial emotion recognition and

empathy (.33) and personality type (.36) both using a one tail test. Leader consideration

on the other hand was determined to not have a significant correlation to the facial

recognition test results (.20). The author concluded that the weak correlation of leader

consideration was related to weakness in the study design related to this measurement

(Morand, 2001).

Similar to other studies, Morand (2001) found that females scored higher than

males in facial recognition. He used descriptive statistics (t-test) to come to this


52/93

41

conclusion. The use of descriptive statistics in understanding elements of EI using

various measures to test is common within the research on this construct.

The quantitative nature of the studies reviewed here as well as the tools used in

testing EI helped shape the construct of the present study. The importance of the use of

an ability based model influenced the decision to use the MSCEIT test for EI. The studies

reviewed are primarily correlational studies seeking to understand correlation between

measures of EI and various elements of social intelligence, demographics, and other

indicators. This study took a similar approach and attempted to better understand the

correlation between the emotional intelligence specific to front line managers with the

employee engagement factors of employees. In that regard, this study takes a similar

approach as the studies reviewed here to build on the existing body of knowledge in the

realm of emotional intelligence.

Methodologies in Existing Research in Employee Engagement

In a study focused on understanding the relationship between dysfunctional

leaders and employee engagement, Leary (2010) used the Hogan Development Survey

(HDS) (Hogan & Hogan, 2009) and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (WES) to

measure employee engagement. The HDS is a self-report mechanism tracking three

different categories of employee engagement: moving away, moving against, and moving

toward engagement (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). The internal consistency reliability

coefficients is .67. Standard deviation ratio is .84/.98 indicating reliability of the

instrument (Leary, 2010). The use of the self-report mechanism HDS is consistent with

the use of the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) which was used in this study. Both HDS and


53/93

42

JSS are self-report mechanisms that measure various elements of employee engagement.

In order to understand empowerment, engagement, job satisfaction, and manager

satisfaction. HDS is a 168- item test and is thus longer than the JSS. The brevity of the

JSS tool was the main driver for the choice for this study over other tools such as HDS

and WES.

The WES measures employee engagement on three scales: vigor, dedication, and

absorption. The internal consistency measure for the WES is in excess of .70 for all three

criterion. This indicates strong internal consistency and thus promotes WES as a useful

tool in understanding employee engagement (Leary, 2010). To analyze the data collected

via WES and HDS, Leary (2010) used multiple regression analysis and ANOVA. One

key finding of Learys (2010) research was the negative correlation between

dysfunctional employee disposition and employee engagement. Although this study

compared the disposition and employee engagement levels of the same individual, it is

relevant to the present study that compared the disposition (emotional intelligence) of

managers with the employee engagement levels of employees.

In another study focused on personality and employee engagement, Wildermuth

(2008) used the five factor model and Job Engagement Survey (JES) (Rich, 2006) to

measure personality and employee engagement. Similar to Learys (2010) study,

Wildermuth (2008) used an email survey to collect data using these instruments.

Wildermuth (2008) found that extraversion was highly correlated to engagement levels.

Because emotional intelligence contains elements of personality, the present study

concerns an element of comparison between personality and engagement. Wildermuths


54/93

43

(2008) provides a framework for this understanding. Like the present study, Wildermuth

(2008) contributed to the further development and validation of the tools that were used.

The collection of data using an individual tool contributes to the overall body of

knowledge produced by that tool.

The JES (Rich, 2006) is an 18-item survey. Similar to the JSS tool that was used

in the present study, the completion of the survey can be done by participants in 5-10

minutes. Thus participation was increased as a result. Rich (2006) measured validity of

the tool in a comparison with Schaufeli and Bakkers (2004) test UWES. Rich (2006)

found the two to be strongly correlated.

Wildermuth (2008) asked four questions in the study each focused on the strength

and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between: personality factors and

employee engagement, differences in employee engagement across each organization,

differences within demographics, and how best to determine predictability of engagement

using personality test scores. T-tests, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analysis,

and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. Wildermuths (2008) findings indicated a

strong relationship between extraversion and engagement and indicated that personality

factors can be strong predictors of engagement.

The employee engagement studies referenced provide a framework for how to

approach future employee engagement studies. In conjunction with the review of

emotional intelligence studies, the research describes the importance and effectiveness of

the quantitative approach to correlation of these concepts. Additionally, the examples of

research provide additional insight into the various tools available to research and


55/93

44

understand elements of EI and job satisfaction. The present study contributes further to

the existing body of research in both areas of study.

Chapter Summary

There is significant research available in the realm of both emotional intelligence

and job satisfaction. These constructs have been studied separately as well as together to

understand correlation. There are many tools available to measure these elements in

individuals, however most rely on self-reporting. There have been steps to mitigate the

relative weaknesses in self-reporting such as the use of 360 degree feedback, but there

remains the concern around the necessity for an individual to be the expert in expressing

how they feel as an individual.

The research reviewed has shown correlation between emotional intelligence and

other factors such as demographics, employee or workgroup performance, and job

satisfaction. Additionally, it has been shown that there are changes in EI over time in

studies of the same sample separated by time and circumstance. Research in the field of

job satisfaction has shown correlation with manager dysfunction, behavior, and

personality.


56/93

45

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship, if any, between

manager emotional intelligence and job satisfaction of employee

Documents

Studiu Ie Satisfactie