relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

13
Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb 0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.003 Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance Thomas Sy ¤ , Susanna Tram, Linda A. O’Hara Department of Management and HRM, College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 BellXower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA Received 19 May 2005 Available online 19 January 2006 Abstract This study examined the relationships among employees’ emotional intelligence, their manager’s emotional intelligence, employees’ job satisfaction, and performance for 187 food service employees from nine diVerent locations of the same restaurant franchise. We predicted and found that employ- ees’ emotional intelligence was positively associated with job satisfaction and performance. In addi- tion, manager’s emotional intelligence had a more positive correlation with job satisfaction for employees with low emotional intelligence than for those with high emotional intelligence. These Wndings remain signiWcant after controlling for personality factors. A similar pattern was found for job performance; however, the eVect did not meet traditional standards of signiWcance. Applied implications of the results are discussed. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Leadership; Emotion; Intelligence; Satisfaction; Performance 1. Introduction Emotional intelligence (EI) can play a signiWcant role in the work environment (George, 2000; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Sy & Cote, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). SpeciWcally, researchers assert that employees’ EI can predict work * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Sy).

Upload: thomas-sy

Post on 09-Sep-2016

221 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

Thomas Sy ¤, Susanna Tram, Linda A. O’Hara

Department of Management and HRM, College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 BellXower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA

Received 19 May 2005Available online 19 January 2006

Abstract

This study examined the relationships among employees’ emotional intelligence, their manager’semotional intelligence, employees’ job satisfaction, and performance for 187 food service employeesfrom nine diVerent locations of the same restaurant franchise. We predicted and found that employ-ees’ emotional intelligence was positively associated with job satisfaction and performance. In addi-tion, manager’s emotional intelligence had a more positive correlation with job satisfaction foremployees with low emotional intelligence than for those with high emotional intelligence. TheseWndings remain signiWcant after controlling for personality factors. A similar pattern was found forjob performance; however, the eVect did not meet traditional standards of signiWcance. Appliedimplications of the results are discussed.© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Leadership; Emotion; Intelligence; Satisfaction; Performance

1. Introduction

Emotional intelligence (EI) can play a signiWcant role in the work environment (George,2000; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Sy & Cote, 2004;Wong & Law, 2002). SpeciWcally, researchers assert that employees’ EI can predict work

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Sy).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.003

Page 2: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

462 T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and job performance (Bachman, Stein, Camp-bell, & Sitarenios, 2000; Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003; Wong & Law,2002). Furthermore, theorists posit that managers’ EI can signiWcantly impact these workoutcomes (e.g., George, 2000; Goleman et al., 2002). However, the empirical evidence isscant (Day & Carroll, 2004; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004) and no study has exam-ined the interaction eVect of managers’ EI and employees’ EI on job satisfaction and jobperformance. As such, the goals of this study are to examine the impact of employees’ EIon job satisfaction and job performance, as well as the eVect of the interaction betweenmanagers’ EI and employees’ EI on job satisfaction and job performance.

1.1. Job satisfaction

Employees with high EI are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction becausethey are more adept at appraising and regulating their own emotions than are employeeswith low EI. For example, employees with high EI may be better at identifying feelings offrustration and stress, and subsequently, regulating those emotions to reduce stress.Employees with high EI are more resilient because they are able to understand the causesof stress and develop strategies and perseverance to deal with the negative consequences ofstress (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Conversely, employees with low EI are likely to be lessaware of their emotions and possess fewer abilities to cope with their emotions when facedwith diYcult situations, thereby, exacerbating their level of stress and decreasing their levelof job satisfaction.

Furthermore, employees with high EI are likely to experience high levels of job satisfac-tion because they can utilize their ability to appraise and manage emotions in others. Thisskill becomes signiWcant in group settings where employees with high EI can use their skillsto foster positive interactions that help boost their own morale, as well as the morale of thegroup, and contribute positively to the experience of job satisfaction for all (Shimazu,Shimazu, & Odahara, 2004). Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose:

Hypothesis 1. Employees’ emotional intelligence associates positively with their jobsatisfaction.

1.2. Job performance

Some researchers (e.g., George & Brief, 1996) have theorized that job performance isinXuenced by employees’ ability to use emotions to facilitate performance, one of the fourdeWning dimensions of EI. Employees could use both positive and negative emotions totheir advantage to improve performance. For example, positive emotions, such as excite-ment or enthusiasm, could stimulate employees to provide better customer service, com-plete their work assignments, or contribute to the organization. Conversely, negativeemotions, such as anxiety, could facilitate employees’ ability to focus on their work tasks.Employees with high emotional intelligence should be more adept at regulating their ownemotions and managing others’ emotions to foster more positive interactions, which couldlead to more organizational citizenship behaviors that contribute to performance (Moss-holder, Bedian, & Armenakis, 1981; Wong & Law, 2002). As such, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Employees’ emotional intelligence associates positively with their jobperformance.

Page 3: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 463

2. The inXuence of managers’ EI on employees’ work related outcomes

Recent research has shown that managers with high EI produce positive work attitudesand altruistic behaviors (Carmeli, 2003) and that their employees enjoy higher job satisfac-tion and performance (Wong & Law, 2002). Managers with high EI can facilitate the per-formance of their employees by managing employees’ emotions that foster more creativity,resilience, and the conWdence that enables employees to act (Fredrickson, 2003; Zhou &George, 2003). Furthermore, managers with high EI should be more adept at nurturingmore positive interactions between employees that could foster more cooperation(Barsade, 2002), coordination (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005), and organizational citizenshipbehaviors that contribute to performance (Mossholder et al., 1981; Wong & Law, 2002).While there is some research examining the direct relationship between managers’ EI andemployee work outcomes, there are no published studies examining the interactionbetween managers’ EI and employees’ EI and their work outcomes.

2.1. Interaction of manager’s emotional intelligence and employee’s emotional intelligence on job satisfaction

As previously discussed, we predict the higher the employees’ EI is, the higher their jobsatisfaction will be because they are more adept at appraising and regulating their ownemotions. Similarly, the higher the manager’s EI is, the higher the employees’ job satisfac-tion will be. However, given that employees with high EI may already possess high levels ofjob satisfaction, the additional contribution of managers’ EI to employees’ job satisfactionis limited. That is, employees with high EI are already adept at appraising and regulatingtheir emotions that contribute to job satisfaction. They require less managerial interven-tion to help them manage their emotions or to buVer negative events that diminish job sat-isfaction. However, employees with low EI are less adept at appraising and regulating theiremotions. Accordingly, managers’ EI can have a greater impact on these employees’ jobsatisfaction levels by helping them manage their emotions and buVering them from nega-tive events that diminish job satisfaction. Based on this rationale, we propose:

Hypothesis 3. Managers’ EI associates more positively with job satisfaction for employeeswith low EI than for employees with high EI.

2.2. Interaction of manager’s emotional intelligence and employee’s emotional intelligence on job performance

As discussed, job performance should associate positively with employees’ EI becauseemployees with high EI should be more adept at appraising and regulating their ownemotions that lead to a higher sense of conWdence and control, resulting in increasedmotivation to take proactive actions that lead to high performance. Similar to the predic-tion for job satisfaction, we propose that managers’ EI will have a more positive impacton job performance for employees with low EI than for employees with high EI. That is,employees with high EI should already be adept at appraising and regulating the emo-tions that contribute to job performance and require less managerial intervention;whereas, employees with low EI may be less adept at appraising and regulating theiremotions. Therefore, employees with low EI should beneWt more from managerial

Page 4: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

464 T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

interventions that help them better manage the emotions and expectations that lead tomore conWdence, sense of control, creativity, resilience, cooperation, coordination, orga-nizational citizenship behaviors, and positive interactions that translate to higher perfor-mance. As such, we propose:

Hypothesis 4. Managers’ EI associates more positively with job performance for employeeswith low EI than for employees with high EI.

3. Method

3.1. Procedure

This project was part of a larger study conducted with a national restaurant chain.Owners of nine franchise locations granted permission for the research because they wouldbeneWt from the research Wndings. Surveys were provided to restaurant managers who sub-sequently distributed them to their employees. Employees were informed they were partici-pating in a voluntary study on team eVectiveness and were permitted to complete thesurvey during working hours. Employees completed a survey that included measures ofdemographics, personality, emotional intelligence, and job satisfaction. Upon completionof the survey, employees sealed their responses in a preaddressed stamped envelope.Employees were given the option of mailing the envelope directly to the researchers ordepositing their responses in a sealed container onsite. Managers completed a separate sur-vey containing demographics, the EI measure that assessed their own EI, and a form torate their employees’ job performance. Managers rated job performance for an average ofthree employees, with a range of two to four employees. Twelve managers rated twoemployees, 37 managers rated three employees, and 13 managers rated four employees.Managers returned their surveys by the same methods. Given ample support for the studyfrom the owners and managers of the restaurants, the average response rate for all fran-chise units was 83%.

3.2. Participants

Participants were 187 food service workers and their 62 managers at nine diVerent loca-tions of the same restaurant franchise. In the sample, 61% of the employees were female,and employee age ranged from 18 to 42 years, with an average of 21 years. Ethnicity of thesample was diverse: 43% Caucasians, 27% Asian Americans, 14% Latinos, 9% AfricanAmericans, and 7% who indicated “Other.” Employees were primarily high school gradu-ates (58%), some having taken some college level courses (31%), some non-high schoolgraduates (9%), and some college graduates (2%). Employee tenure ranged from 1 to 8years, with an average of 2.5 years. On average, employees worked 33 h, with a range from20 to 40 h. The sample of managers was 66% female, and manager age ranged from 18 to55 years, with an average of 32 years. Managers were primarily Caucasians (56%), with theremainder consisting of Asian Americans (29%), Latinos (7%), African Americans (3%),and “Other” (5%). Most managers have taken some college level courses (56%), with theremainder consisting of high school (28%) and college graduates (16%). Manager tenureranged from 1 to 14 years, with an average of 5.8 years. On average, managers worked 45 h,with a range from 30 to 50 h.

Page 5: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 465

3.3. Measures

3.3.1. Emotional intelligenceParticipants responded to a sixteen item self-report measure of EI (Law et al., 2004;

Wong & Law, 2002). The measure is consistent with Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) deWnitionof EI, as well as Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) synthesis of the EI literature. Previ-ous studies support the scale’s factor structure, internal consistency, convergent, and dis-criminant validity (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). For example, the EI measure ispositively related to life satisfaction, negatively related to powerlessness, distinct from theBig Five personality factors, and correlated positively with other EI-related measures (e.g.,EQ-i, Trait Meta-Mood). Furthermore, multitrait-multimethod analyses indicate moder-ate correlations between self, peer, and supervisor assessments of EI (Law et al., 2004;Wong & Law, 2002). The scale consists of four dimensions with four items in each dimen-sion. The SEA dimension (Self-Emotion Appraisal) relates to individuals’ ability to under-stand and express their emotions (e.g., “I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings”).The OEA dimension (Others’ Emotion Appraisal) relates to individuals’ ability to perceiveand understand the emotions of others (e.g., “I always know my friends’ emotions fromtheir behavior”). The ROE dimension (Regulation of Emotion) relates to individuals’ abil-ity to regulate their own emotions (e.g., “I am able to control my temper and handle diY-culties rationally”). The UOE dimension (Use of Emotion) relates to individuals’ ability tomake use of their own emotions by channeling them toward constructive activities to facil-itate performance (e.g., “I would always encourage myself to try my best”). Participants inthe current study responded to each item using a seven-point Likert-type response scaleranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Cronbach’s � reliability coeYcients forSEA (.78), OEA (.76), ROE (.84), and UOE (.89) were considered acceptable. Relying onprevious studies’ conWrmatory factor analyses indicating reasonably good Wt for a second-order model with the four dimensions loading on an underlying EI latent factor (Law et al.,2004; Wong & Law, 2002), we combined the dimensions into a single EI measure becausewe were interested in the overall EI construct, rather than the individual dimensions. Cron-bach’s � reliability coeYcient (.88) for all 16 items was deemed acceptable.

3.3.2. Personality measureAlthough recent evidence indicates that EI is distinct from and has additional predictive

power above that of personality (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002), given the debateconcerning its distinctiveness (e.g., Davies et al., 1998; Law et al., 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, &Matthews, 2001), we use personality as a control variable when examining the relationshipbetween EI and the outcome variables.

We assessed the Big Five personality factors (BFI) with a 44-item scale developed byJohn, Donahue, and Kentle (1991). We selected this speciWc measure of personality for itsbrevity, content coverage, and good psychometric properties. Across US and Canadiansamples, � reliabilities typically range from .75 to .90, three month test–retest reliabilitiesrange from .75 to .90, and this measure is highly correlated (.75 and .80, respectively) withCosta and McCrae’s (1992) and Goldberg’s (1992) personality measures indicating conver-gent validity. The BFI has also been used in a variety of published research (for a review,see Benet-Martinez & John, 1998).

The extroversion factor was assessed with eight items (e.g., “I see myself as someonewho is talkative”). The agreeableness factor was assessed with nine items (e.g., I see myself

Page 6: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

466 T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

as someone who is helpful and unselWsh with others). The conscientiousness factor wasassessed with nine items (e.g., I see myself as someone who does a thorough job). The neu-roticism factor was assessed with eight items (e.g., I see myself as someone who isdepressed, blue). The openness factor was assessed with 10 items (e.g., I see myself as some-one who is original, comes up with new ideas). Participants responded to each item by indi-cating the level of agreement on a Wve-point Likert-type scale. Respective Cronbach �’s of.86, .82, .87, .85, and .75 for extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, andopenness were deemed acceptable.

3.3.3. Job satisfactionJob satisfaction was measured with three items from the Michigan Organizational

Assessment Questionnaire (Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982). The three itemsinclude: (1) In general, I like working at (company X), (2) In general, I do not like my job,and (3) All in all, I am satisWed with my job. Employees reported their responses using aseven-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Item 2 wasreverse-coded. Cronbach’s � of .91 for the three items was considered acceptable.

3.3.4. Job performanceWe adopted three items from an instrument developed by Heilman, Block, and Lucas

(1992) and used by Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck (2002): (1) this employee is very compe-tent, (2) this employee gets his or her work done very eVectively, and (3) this employee hasperformed his/her job well. The immediate supervisors were asked to assess the perfor-mance of each employee using a Wve-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly agree. Cronbach’s � of .88 for the three items was considered acceptable.

4. Results

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables. Correlationsin Table 1 indicating that employees’ EI is correlated positively with job satisfaction provideinitial support for Hypothesis 1. Similar to past studies (e.g., Law et al., 2004), we tested therelationship between EI and job satisfaction while controlling for personality factorsbecause of concerns with the limited evidence regarding the distinctiveness of EI from per-sonality. Accordingly, we further test the association of EI and job satisfaction using hierar-chical regression. Following Cohen and Cohen (1983), we entered the Big Five personalityfactors in step 1, and employees’ EI as the main eVect in step 2. Hierarchical regression anal-yses in Table 2 indicate that employees’ EI is predictive of job satisfaction after controllingfor the Big Five personality factors, �R2D .06, p < .001. Hypothesis 1 is fully supported.

Correlations in Table 1 indicating that employees’ EI is correlated positively with jobperformance provide initial support for Hypothesis 2. Like job satisfaction, we further testthe relationship between EI and job performance by controlling for personality factorsusing hierarchical regression. Hierarchical regression analyses in Table 3 indicate thatemployees’ EI positively predicts job performance after controlling for the Big Five per-sonality factors, �R2D .03, p < .05. Hypothesis 2 is fully supported.

To test Hypothesis 3, which states that managers’ EI associates more positively with jobsatisfaction for employees with low EI than for employees with high EI, we entered the BigFive personality factors in step 1 of a hierarchical regression analysis, followed by employ-ees’ EI in step 2, manager’s EI in step 3, and the cross-product of employees’ EI and man-

Page 7: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 467

ager’s EI as the interaction term in step 4. As reported in Table 4, the interaction term wassigniWcant with an incremental change in R2 of .02, p < .05. To illustrate the nature of theinteraction eVect, we followed Aiken and West’s (1991) simple slope procedure. We exam-ined the relationship between employee EI and job satisfaction at a high level of managerEI (one standard deviation above the mean) and at a low level of manager EI (one stan-dard deviation below the mean). The slopes shown in Fig. 1 illustrate the interaction:Managers’ EI associates more positively with job satisfaction for employees with low EIthan for employees with high EI. Hypothesis 3 is fully supported.

Table 1Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables

Note. ND 187. EI, emotional intelligence.a Gender was coded as 1, male and 2, female.b Education was coded 1, some high school; 2, high school graduate; 3, some college; and 4, college graduate.¤ p < .05.

¤¤ p < .01.¤¤¤ p < .001.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Gendera 1.61 .492. Age 20.71 3.62 ¡.123. Educationb 2.27 .65 .03 .27¤¤

4. Tenure 2.47 1.56 .04 ¡.01 .17¤

5. Hours per week 33.41 7.62 ¡.02 .13 .06 ¡.046. Agreeableness 3.39 .69 .05 .09 .07 .11 .077. Extroversion 3.48 .75 .02 ¡.08 ¡.06 .03 ¡.01 .18¤¤

8. Openness 3.21 .65 ¡.03 .15¤ .08 .21¤¤ .16¤ .22¤¤ .109. Conscientiousness 3.19 .94 ¡.03 ¡.05 .01 ¡.03 .14¤ ¡.08 ¡.16¤ .06

10. Neuroticism 2.48 .83 .04 ¡.19¤ ¡.05 ¡.13 ¡.10 ¡.01 .12 ¡.25¤¤ ¡.0311. Employee EI 3.84 1.10 ¡.01 .02 .03 .11 .04 .13 .35¤¤¤ .02 .10 .0212. Managers’ EI 3.36 1.34 ¡.08 .03 .02 ¡.00 .05 .16¤ .17¤ .11 .02 ¡.08 .30¤¤

13. Job satisfaction 3.93 1.85 ¡.03 .07 .03 .05 .04 .27¤¤ .17¤ .18¤ .01 ¡.10 .30¤¤ .35¤¤

14. Job performance 3.76 1.16 .06 .08 .06 ¡.04 .02 .20¤¤ .32¤¤ .01 ¡.09 ¡.03 .28¤¤ .18¤¤ .20¤

Table 2Hierarchical regression results for employees’ EI and job satisfaction controlling for personality factors

Note. EI, emotional intelligence.¤¤ p < .01.¤¤¤ p < .001.

Predictor variable Job satisfaction

B �R2

Step 1 .11¤¤

Conscientiousness .01Openness .29Neuroticism ¡.18Agreeableness .55¤¤

Extroversion .10

Step 2 .06¤¤¤

Employee EI .44¤¤

Overall F for equation 5.89¤¤¤

Page 8: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

468 T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

We tested Hypothesis 4, which states that managers’ EI associates more positively withjob performance for employees with low EI than for employees with high EI, using thesame procedures as the test for Hypothesis 3 regarding job satisfaction, i.e., Big Five per-sonality factors in step 1; employees’ EI in step 2; managers’ EI in step 3; and the cross-product of the employee’s EI and manager’s EI as the interaction term in step 4. Asreported in Table 5, the incremental change in R2 for the interaction term was .02, pD .07.Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Table 3Hierarchical regression results for employees’ EI and job performance controlling for personality factors

Note. EI, emotional intelligence.¤ p < .05.

¤¤ p < .01.¤¤¤ p < .001.

Predictor variable Job performance

B �R2

Step 1 .13¤¤¤

Conscientiousness ¡.07Openness ¡.11Neuroticism ¡.11Agreeableness .24¤

Extroversion .36¤¤

Step 2 .03¤

Employee EI .20¤

Overall F for equation 5.91¤¤¤

Table 4Hierarchical regression results for interaction between employee and manager EI and job satisfaction controllingfor personality

Note. EI, emotional intelligence.¤ p < .05.

¤¤ p < .01.¤¤¤ p < .001.

Predictor variable Job satisfaction

B �R2

Step 1 .11¤¤

Conscientiousness .06Openness .26Neuroticism ¡.11Agreeableness .43¤

Extroversion .08

Step 2 .06¤¤

Employee EI .88¤¤

Step 3 .05¤¤

Manager EI 1.01¤¤

Step 4 .02¤

Manager EI £ employee EI ¡.16¤

Overall F for equation 6.78¤¤¤

Page 9: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 469

Fig. 1. Interaction of managers’ and employees’ emotional intelligence on job satisfaction.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Employees with HighEmotional Intelligence

Employees with LowEmotional Intelligence

Managers with LowEmotional Intelligence

Managers with HighEmotional Intelligence

Managers’ Emotional Intelligence

Job

Satis

fact

ion

Table 5Hierarchical regression results for interaction between employee and manager EI and job performance control-ling for personality

Note. EI, emotional intelligence.a p D .07.¤ p < .05.

¤¤ p < .01.¤¤¤ p < .001.

Predictor variable Job performance

B �R2

Step 1 .13¤¤¤

Conscientiousness ¡.04Openness ¡.11Neuroticism ¡.09Agreeableness .20Extroversion .36¤¤

Step 2 .03¤

Employee EI .51¤

Step 3 .01Manager EI .46¤

Step 4 .02a

Manager EI £ Employee EI ¡.09

Overall F for equation 5.03¤¤¤

Page 10: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

470 T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

5. Discussion

The results of this study, which indicate that employees’ with higher EI have higher jobsatisfaction, support the Wndings of Wong and Law (2002). The Wndings suggest thatemployees with high EI are more adept at identifying and regulating their emotions. Theability to understand their emotions could imply that employees with high EI are moreaware of the factors that contribute to their experience of positive and negative emotions.Accordingly, awareness of the factors that elicit certain emotions and understanding theeVects of those emotions enable employees with high EI to take the appropriate actionsthat inXuence job satisfaction. For example, employees with high EI (compared withemployees with low EI) could be more adept at identifying when they are beginning to feeloverwhelmed by stress. This awareness allows them to search for the causes of their stress,thereby enabling them to develop coping strategies and ways to manage their emotionalreactions to these stressors.

The results also support previous research (e.g., Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002)indicating that employees’ with higher EI have higher job performance, suggesting thatemployees with high EI are more adept at using their emotions to facilitate job perfor-mance. Employees with high EI seem to be more aware of how certain emotions caninXuence their behaviors and work outcomes and more adept at regulating their emo-tions in such a manner that they are aligned with the requirements of the task. Forexample, employees with high EI could be more adept at regulating their emotions sothey experience more conWdence and control over the task requirements of their job,which in turn enables them to be more proactive and inXuence work outcomes posi-tively. Alternatively, it is possible that employees with high EI are better at “managingupward.” That is, employees with high EI are more adept at managing their relation-ships with their managers such that managers are more likely to evaluate their perfor-mance positively. Past research has shown that the quality of relationship betweenmanager and employee inXuences job performance evaluations (e.g., Janssen & VanYperen, 2004; Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne,1997).

The fact that our results are stronger for the EI-job satisfaction relationship (�R2D .06)than for the EI-job performance relationship (�R2D .03) could be the result of bias due toself-reporting of EI and satisfaction versus self-report EI and manager-report of perfor-mance; but it may also be that our sample of food service workers did not have as muchemotional labor in their jobs, which Law et al. (2004) and Wong and Law (2002) foundimportant. Our initial assumption was that these jobs included high emotional labor due tothe importance of good customer service in the food service industry. However, these jobsalso include cooking food, cleaning up, maintaining machines, etc., i.e., duties that may notnecessarily involve interpersonal interactions. Moreover, the performance items the man-agers reported on reXect more generic work competence than extra-role, customer service,or teamwork where EI may be more of a factor: “This employee is very competent;” “Thisemployee gets his or her work done very eVectively;” “This employee has performed his/her job well.” Future research may clarify the eVect of EI on more and less interpersonalaspects of job performance.

Besides supporting previous research, this study makes a new contribution to the litera-ture on emotional intelligence through our Wndings on the interaction eVect betweenemployee and manager EI and job outcomes. We found that manager’s EI associates more

Page 11: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 471

positively with job satisfaction for employees with low EI than for employees with high EI.Wong and Law (2002) showed that the emotional labor of the job moderates the EI-joboutcome relationship, such that EI is more important for jobs that require higher emo-tional labor. Just as some jobs may not require as much EI as others, some employees maynot require as much emotional support from their manager as others. Previous researchsuggests that EI training is perhaps as important as employee selection (Wong & Law,2002) and is a core component that determines employee success (Day, 2000). This studyanswers the call for additional research to identify moderators of the EI and work outcomerelationship. Additional research on the moderators of the EI and work outcome relation-ship should prove fruitful in identifying contexts under which EI leads to beneWcialoutcomes.

A key debate in the EI literature (e.g., Davies et al., 1998; Law et al., 2004; Roberts et al.,2001) centers around the distinctiveness of EI from the Big Five personality factors. Build-ing on the work of Law et al. (2004) and Wong and Law (2002), our Wndings conWrm thepredictive power of EI beyond the Big Five personality factors on important constructssuch as job satisfaction and performance. In addition, our Wndings provide some multi-cul-tural validity of EI and its inXuence on work outcomes since our sample was more diverse.That is, Law et al. (2004) and Wong and Law (2002) recruited participants who were pri-marily of Chinese descent from the East Asia region. Participants in our study includedAfrican Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Caucasians, as well as participants whoidentiWed as “other.”

One limitation of this study is that EI was measured by self-report. As with all self-report measures, common method variance and social desirability biases are a concern(e.g., Bagozzi & Yi, 1990; Williams & Brown, 1994). Recent research provides evidence toalleviate some of these concerns. For example, the EI instrument we used has demon-strated convergent and discriminant validity in previous research using multiple raters toassess EI (Law et al., 2004).

A second limitation of this study is that we used a subjective measure of performance(i.e., performance was assessed by managers), instead of an objective performance measure(e.g., work output, revenue, etc.). As discussed previously, the EI and performance relation-ship could be inXuenced by the quality of manager and employee relations. Future researchmay investigate to what extent employee EI aVects performance through managingupward versus objective work output.

A third limitation of this study could be the demographics of our participants. The aver-age age of our participants was approximately 21 years. Researchers have indicated EI canbe developed, and one’s EI should correlate positively with one’s age and work experience(for a review, see Bar-On & Parker, 2000). Perhaps because of the limited range in age ofour participants, we found no correlation between EI and age. Future research couldexplore the potential inXuence of age and work experience on EI and work related out-comes with a more age diverse sample.

The results of this study suggest that managers’ EI makes an important diVerence toemployees who possess lower levels of EI. Employees who have high EI are more likely toperform well and enjoy high job satisfaction regardless of their managers’ EI. In contrast,employees possessing lower levels of EI can beneWt greatly from a manager with high EI,who can help employees recognize and regulate their own and others’ emotions; speciW-cally, employees need a manager who can improve the work environment by “generatingand maintaining excitement, enthusiasm, conWdence, and optimism in an organization”

Page 12: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

472 T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473

(George, 2000, p. 1039). Managers can be inspired by our Wndings indicating that their EImakes a diVerence in the lives of their employees, especially, the ones who may be strug-gling with their own lack of self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and interpersonalskills, i.e., emotional intelligence.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence in the collection of debt.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 176–182.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait–multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported aVect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547.

Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple eVect: Emotional contagion and its inXuence on group behavior. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multi-

method analyses of the big Wve in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes:

An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788–813.Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leaders and organizations. NY: Gros-

set/Putnam.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of

Leadership, 11(4), 581–614.Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual

performance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviours. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 36,1443–1458.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,& R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Bar-rett Koehler.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055.George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The eVects of feelings on focus of

attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 18, pp. 75–109). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment,4, 26–42.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and aYrmative actioneVorts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–544.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange,and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five” Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley:Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley.

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive eVect of leader–member exchangeand communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 764–772.

Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance indiVerent cultures: The moderating eVects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and eYcacy. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 905–914.

Page 13: Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance

T. Sy et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006) 461–473 473

Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and itspotential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483–496.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential forthe future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433–442.Mossholder, K. W., Bedian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). Group process-work outcome relationships: A note

on the moderating impact of self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 575–585.Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leader-

ship eVectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–41.Roberts, D. R., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an

intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231.Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change:

A guide to Weld practice. New York: Wiley.Shimazu, A., Shimazu, M., & Odahara, T. (2004). Job control and social support as coping resources in job satis-

faction. Psychological Reports, 94(2), 449–456.Sy, T., & Cote, S. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: A key ability to succeed in the matrix organization. Journal of

Management Development, 23, 437–455.Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group

members, group aVective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305.Williams, L. J., & Brown, B. K. (1994). Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources

research: EVects on correlations, path coeYcients, and hypothesis testing. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 57(2), 185.

Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The eVect of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and atti-tude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 243–274.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(3), 371–399.

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. Lead-ership Quarterly, 14, 545–568.