What is the relation between emotional intelligence and job
performance of sales representatives?
A study in the automotive industry
Date: 2 February 2015
University of Amsterdam
Bachelor: Economie en Bedrijfskunde
Specialization: Finance and Organization
Supervisor: dr. S. Dominguez Martinez
Name: Lyndesay de Kleer
Student number: 10211136
E-‐mail:
L.dekleer@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
The present thesis examines the relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance. It appears that the ability to understand one’s own and other’s emotions is important to achieve a high job performance. A study was conducted among 60 salespeople in the automotive industry. A questionnaire, consisting of mostly self-‐report questions, was sent to the respondents. These respondents work in either the low end or the high end segment. According to the regression analysis, emotional intelligence is significantly and positively related to job performance. In the low end, the impact of EI on job performance is considerably larger than in the high end. The control variables stress and experience
influence the relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance. This research provides support for the assumption that there is a relation between emotional intelligence and job performance.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Lyndesay de Kleer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction……… 5
2. Literature Review……… 7
2.1 Emotional Intelligence and hypothesis 1………. 7
2.2 Job Performance……….. 8
2.3 Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance…. 8 2.3.1 Hypotheses………. 10
2.4 Stress……….. 11
2.5 Experience………... 13
3. Research Design and Methodology………. 15
3.1 Research Design……….. 15
3.2 Data Collection………..16
3.3 Measures……….. 16
3.3.1 Dependent Variable: Job Performance……….. 17
3.3.2 Independent Variable: EI………18
3.3.3 Control Variable: Stress……….. 19
3.3.4 Control Variable: Experience………... 20
3.3.5 Remaining Control Variables: Education, Age, Gender, Self-‐Evaluation and Meeting Expectations... 20
3.4 Regression Model………... 21 3.5 Data Analysis………... 21 4. Results……….. 22 4.1 Descriptive Statistics………...………. 22 4.1.1 Cronbach’s Alpha………. ………... 23 4.1.2 Job Performance……….. 23 4.1.3 Emotional Intelligence………. 23 4.1.4 Stress……….. 23 4.1.5 Experience………... 24
4.1.6 Remaining Control Variables: Education, Age, Gender,
Self-‐Evaluation and Meeting Expectations……….. 24
4.2 Correlations between the Variables………... 24
4.3 Multiple Regression Analysis……….. 26
4.3.1 Hypothesis 1 Tested……….…………. 27
4.3.2 Hypothesis 2 Tested……….. 27
4.3.3 Control Variables Tested: Stress and Experience……… 28
4.3.4 Control Variables Tested: Education, Age, Gender, Self-‐Evaluation and Meeting Expectations……….. 29
5. Discussion and Conclusion……….. 30
5.1 Analysis Results……….. 30 5.2 Limitations……….. 31 5.3 Conclusion……….. 33 5.4 Further Research……… 34 Reference List………... 35 APPENDIX -‐ A……….. 38 APPENDIX – B………. 39 APPENDIX – C……….. 43 APPENDIX – D………. 45 APPENDIX – E……….. 46
1. Introduction
In the last decade, emotional intelligence (hereafter EI) has had a significant amount of attention in the literature of Organizational Behavior, Human Resources, and Management (O’Boyle et al. 2011). Research of Ashkanasy and Daus (2002) shows the importance of EI as a predictor in several important domains like job performance, leadership, and stress. In the sales department, EI can be a factor that helps differentiate an average salesman from an outstanding one (Deeter-‐Schmelz and Sojka, 2003).
To examine the relationship between EI and job performance, salespeople of cars seemed interesting and feasible to use as a sample selection. Besides examining the relationship between EI and job performance on all the salespeople in the sample selection, a distinction is made between two groups. One of these two groups contains the salespeople of relative expensive cars, the high end. The other group contains the salespeople of relative cheap cars, the low end. It is known that when selling an expensive car like a Ferrari, a good
relationship with the customer is very important. The ability to maintain a good relationship with clients is a part of EI. This aroused interest on whether the effect of EI on job
performance is different in the high end than in the low end. Literature shows that an important characteristic of high end products is that there must be a combination of emotional appeal and product excellence (Nueno and Quelch, 1998). A certain reputation must be kept high. In the case of low end products, the main characteristic is functionality. Low end products that satisfy basic needs do not change much over time. They have a relative stable demand and long life cycles (Fisher, 1997). From this can be concluded that there is a possibility that EI plays a more important role in the high end than in the low end. The relationship between EI and job performance of salespeople will be compared in the low end and high end.
The present bachelor thesis aims to characterize the relationship between EI and job
performance. Wong and Law (2002) have done research to the relationship between EI and job performance. They found a significant positive relationship between EI and job
on job performance. Jamal (1984) found that stress creates hindrances for a better job performance. When an employee is insecure about his job duties and obligations, and will experience stress, it will have a negative effect on job performance (Jamal, 1984). More experience means more practice and commitment to the job, this will enhance the EI (Becker, 1962). Also, existing literature (Becker, 1962) shows that more experienced workers have a higher job performance because they have accumulated their skills during their career. Following this related literature; there will be controlled for stress and experience.
A questionnaire was sent to 90 salespeople working in the automotive industry, both in the low end and high end. This questionnaire consisted among others of 16 questions about EI, seven questions about job performance, and two questions about stress. As expected, a significant positive correlation between EI and job performance was found. Also, the results showed a clear difference in the impact of EI on job performance in the high end and low end. Furthermore, the control variables stress and experience seemed to have a significant effect on the relationship between EI and job performance. It is important to take certain limitations in mind, such as endogeneity and reversed causality. These limitations are discussed in the discussion.
The present thesis consists of several parts. First the related literature is discussed to introduce the important determinants in this empirical research. According to the existing literature, it was possible to derive the two hypotheses. Next, it was described how to examine these hypotheses. Several control variables are described to test whether they are relevant to include in the regression model. Furthermore, the results are analyzed and discussed in part 4 en part 5. Last, some suggestions for further research are given.
2. Literature Review
This chapter reviews existing papers on EI, stress, experience, and job performance, which are relevant for the topic of this paper. In the first section EI and job performance are discussed. Then, the relationship between EI and job performance is discussed. Subsequently, based on the existing literature about EI and job performance, the first hypothesis is formulated. A second hypothesis is added to test the relationship between EI and job performance in both the low end and high end. In the second section stress and experience are reviewed. Stress and experience are added as control variable in the relationship between EI and job performance.
2.1 Emotional Intelligence (EI)
EI has its roots in the term “social intelligence”. In 1920, Thorndike defined social
intelligence as “the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls – to act wisely in human relations” (Wong and Law, 2002, p. 245).
In 1990, Salovey and Mayer (O’Boyle et al. 2011) gave a first definition of EI. EI can be defined as “a type of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Mayer and Salovey, 1993, p. 433). Later in 1995, Goleman (1998) proposed that EI involves abilities that can be categorized as self-‐awareness, managing emotions, motivating oneself, empathy, and handling relationships. In this present research, the definition of EI as a set of interrelated skills according to Mayer and Salovey will be used (Wong and Law, 2002). Mayer and Salovey conceptualized EI as a composition of four dimensions. These four dimensions are:
1. ‘The appraisal and expression of emotion in the self’ (SEA). This is related to the individual’s ability to understand the deep emotions of themselves and the ability to express these emotions naturally. People who have a high score in this area will sense and acknowledge their emotions well before most people.
2. ‘The appraisal and recognition of emotion in others’ (OEA). This relates to the individual’s ability to perceive and understand the emotions of other people. People
who score high in this area will be more sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. They will also be more sensitive to reading minds of others.
3. ‘The regulation of emotion in the self’ (ROE). This is related to the ability of an individual to regulate his or her emotions, which will enable a more rapid recovery from psychological distress.
4. ‘The use of emotion to facilitate performance’ (UOE). This dimension describes the ability of individuals to make use of their emotions by directing them towards constructive activities and personal performance.
2.2 Job Performance
According to Behrman and Perreault (1982) the sales force and its performance are critical to the success of almost every industrial firm. They argued it is of little surprise that
researchers and managers both have studied salespersons, a sales process, and exchange interactions. These similarities provide insights on how to make the sales managers and the sales force more effective.
2.3 Relationship EI and Job Performance
Wong and Law (2002) have investigated the effect of EI on performance and attitude of leader and follower. To measure the EI of managers and students, Wong and Law (2002) developed their own EI measurement. First, the 120 respondents, consisting of part-‐time MBA and undergraduate students in a large university of Hong Kong, were introduced to the four dimensions of EI according to Mayer and Salovey: SEA; OEA; ROE; and UOE. Then respondents were asked to generate self-‐reported items on each dimension that would describe a person with a high level of EI. A factor analysis with all self-‐reported items was performed. The four items with the largest factor loadings were selected to represent each of the four dimensions of EI. Then, a second factor analysis was conducted with these 16 items, 4 items per dimension, and a clear four-‐factor structure emerged. Then Wong and Law (2002) used the constructed EI measure to test the relation between EI and job performance. For this study 149 subordinates were asked to fill in the 16 items
questionnaire on a 7-‐point Likert-‐type scale. The managers evaluated the job performance of the employees using the five items developed by Williams. An example of one of these five
items is: ”This subordinate always completes the duties specified in his/her job description”. This response format was also a 7-‐point Likert-‐type scale. Wong and Law (2002) found a significant positive correlation between EI and job performance. The coefficient of EI was 0.21 with P <0.01.
Deeter-‐Schmelz and Sojka (2003) undertook an exploratory qualitative study about the link between EI and sales performance of salespeople. According to Deeter-‐Schmelz and Sojka (2003), training in EI enhances the communication and interpersonal skills of salespeople. Training in EI is needed by salespeople to develop and improve relationships with
customers. EI was divided into five aspects: empathy; perceiving others emotions; self-‐ awareness; self-‐regulation; and self-‐motivation. In the study of Deeter-‐Schmelz and Sojka (2003), personal interviews were used. This method is valuable because it allows
respondents to talk freely about their experiences, feelings, and attitudes. Also, personal interviews allow the researcher to go deeper into certain questions. The sample contained 11 sales professionals. These sales professionals were chosen on the basis of their strong performance records. Deeter-‐Schmelz and Sojka (2003) approached and chose these professionals by using their personal contacts. According to them, a manager has a strong performance when he performs above expectations for sales revenue and customer
satisfaction. To measure the performance level, a self-‐report measure was used. The results showed that there was evidence for a positive link between EI and sales performance. This was based on the fact that each interviewed salesperson, that was considered to be
successful in sales, exhibited aspects of EI. Most of the interviewed salespeople relied upon one or more aspects of EI to deliver a strong performance. A qualitative research has several advantages (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). It enables the researcher to work with unforeseen complexities. Also, qualitative research enables the researcher to investigate the phenomena in multiple perspectives. On the other hand, this research investigated only 11 salespersons with a strong performance. This might not be representative for salespersons with a strong job performance. Besides that, this study does not include varying levels of EI skills to compare with strong sales performance. Using quantitative measures for EI might provide a better conclusion for the study of Deeter-‐Schmelz and Sojka (2003).
O’Boyle et al. (2011) investigated the relation between emotional intelligence and job performance using a meta-‐analysis. This meta-‐analysis was build upon a previous meta-‐
analysis and included 65 per cent more studies with a sample size twice as big. A number of search techniques were applied in order to maximize the likelihood of identifying empirical research related to EI and job performance. In this study (O’Boyle et al. 2011) EI was
classified into three streams: ability-‐based models that use objective test items for EI; self-‐ report or peer-‐report measures based on the four-‐branch model of Mayer and Salovey; and mixed models consisting of both traditional social skill measures and EI measures. The first stream of EI, the ability-‐based models, consisted of the MSCEIT (Mayer, Salovey and Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test). The MSCEIT measures EI with the use of, inter alia, facial expressions and pictures (Mayer et al. 2004). The second stream of EI, the self-‐report or peer-‐report measure, consists of, inter alia, the SUEIT (Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test). The SUEIT measures EI according to 64 self-‐report questions (Bailie and Ekermans, 2006). The third stream of EI, the mixed models, consists of, inter alia, the EQ-‐I (Emotional Quotient Inventory). The EQ-‐I (Conte, 2005) is a 133-‐item self-‐report test. All EI streams as a set were significantly (1%) and positively correlated with job performance. Also, all the three streams individually were significantly (1%) and positively correlated with job performance.
2.3.1 Hypotheses
Based on the existing literature, the first and main hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship between EI and sales performance
As mentioned before, it is possible that there is a difference in the relationship between EI and sales performance in the high end and low end segment. Nueno and Quelch (1998) show that an important characteristic of high end products is that there must be a combination of emotional appeal and product excellence. There is a focus on keeping a certain reputation high. To keep the reputation high, EI might be an important factor. In the case of low end products, the main focus is functionality. Low end products that satisfy basic needs do not change much over time. They have a relative stable demand and long life cycles (Fisher, 1997). Based on the characteristics of the high end products and the focus on functionality
with low end products, it is expected that EI plays a more important role in the high end. This could mean that EI has a bigger impact on the job performance in the high end than in the low end. Therefore, the second hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 2: The impact of EI on job performance in the high end is bigger than the impact of EI on job performance in the low end
It is possible that stress and experience might influence the relationship between EI and job performance. Therefore, stress and experience are discussed below.
2.4 Stress
According to Jamal (1985) stress has an adverse effect on the well-‐being, effectiveness, and health of a worker. Stress at work can be defined as “an individual’s reactions to the
characteristics of the work environment which appear threatening to the individual”(Jamal, 1985, p. 410). This definition means that there is no balance between the individual’s capabilities and the work environment. This could be because either the demands from the individual are excessive or the individual is not fully capable to handle a particular work situation.
Jamal (1985) argues that four types of relationships can be expected between job stress and job performance. These are: a curvilinear/U-‐shaped relationship; a positive linear
relationship; a negative linear relationship; and no relationship between the two variables. The type of relationship between stress and job performance depends on the way in which stress is interpreted. Besides that, the first two relationships described below are mainly theoretical and are rarely tested nor supported. The third and fourth relationships have been supported in several studies and seem more plausible.
The four possible relationships between stress and job performance are:
1. A curvilinear/inverted U-‐shaped relationship (Jamal, 1985). This means that neither high nor low stress is a good thing. This is a model of Yerkes and Dodson. When a person experiences low stress at work, it is very likely he will not be activated and thus will not exhibit any improved performance. Being activated reflects the level of being active at work. On the other hand, if the individual experiences a high level of
job stress, more time might be devoted to dealing with stress and his efforts toward job performance may be reduced. This could result in low job performance.
According to this model, a moderate amount of stress would be optimal for a high level of job performance. At this moderate level of stress the individual would be both activated and able to direct his energies toward job performance. This would relate to an inverted U relationship between perceived stress and job performance. In reality, this relationship has rarely been supported.
2. A positive relationship between stress and job performance. This is a model of Dewey and Toynbee (Jamal, 1985). They suggest that at the low level of stress there is no challenge for the employee. According to Dewey and Toynbee (Jamal, 1985), when there is no challenge, the employee is not likely to show any improved performance. When the individual experiences a moderate level of stress, he will be mildly aroused in terms of challenge and thus will exhibit a medium level of performance. At a high level of stress, the individual will experience optimal challenge and his performance will also be at the highest level. Also this hypothesis has rarely been tested and supported, so this relationship is not expected in the present research.
3. A negative relationship between job stress and performance. This relationship is present when job stress is seen as dysfunctional for the organization and its employees (Jamal, 1985). In this scenario job stress can create a noxious and a
potentially harmful situation in the work environment. When an individual is facing a noxious work environment, it is most likely that a certain amount of time and energy is devoted to dealing with stress. This time use could lead to many undesirable activities in the job setting. This could be activities like playing political games, goofing off, and sabotaging. There have been several studies that supported this negative relationship between job stress and job performance.
4. Last, no relationship between job stress and performance. (Jamal, 1985). In this case, the individuals are viewed as rational beings that have performance as priority because they are being paid for performing their tasks no matter what. The individuals are expected to ignore circumstances that could disturb their
well as in the absence of it. In this case, job stress does not influence the individuals’ job performance.
In 1984, Jamal examined the relation between job stress and employees’ performance. Jamal conducted an empirical test among 440 nurses in two hospitals in Canada. Job stress was measured with a 15-‐item Likert-‐type scale developed by Kahn et al. in 1964. This scale was used to seek for various job-‐related tensions (JRT) which workers experience at work. The 15 items were divided into four stressors: role ambiguity; role conflict; role overload; and resource inadequacy. The JRT measures stress in terms of the respondents’ perceptions. The dependent variable job performance included the employees’ overall effectiveness in terms of performance, motivation, patients care skills, absenteeism, tardiness, and anticipated turnover. The results of Jamal demonstrated that there was a negative linear relationship between stress and performance. These findings seemed logical since stress creates hindrances and can adversely affect expectations for better performance. Jamal (1984) mentioned that when an employee is not sure about his job duties and obligations, or gets conflicting messages from different people in the organization, then it is very unlikely that the person shows better performance.
Based on this reviewed literature, it is expected that stress can create obstacles and can adversely affect expectations for better performance at work. Therefore stress is added to the main regression equation as a control variable to see whether it affects the relationship between EI and job performance.
2.5 Experience
According to the Human Capital Theory, more experienced employees perform better than employees who currently started a new job. This is because they accumulate skills
performing their job (Becker, 1962). Schmidt et al. (1986) state that tenure in a job is positively associated with performance. There are several ways to raise real income
prospects, as result of better job performance (Becker, 1962). One way is investing in human capital. Examples of investing are schooling, on-‐the-‐job training, and medical care. These options differ in the amount of resources invested; in the size of returns; and in return to
investment ratio. All these activities improve the physical and mental abilities of individuals, and thus raise revenue prospects. Literature shows that through practice and commitment, EI could be learnt, developed and improved (Slaski and Cartwright, 2002).
Based on the existing literature, it is expected that experience and job performance will be positively correlated. It will be tested whether experience affects the relationship between EI and job performance. Therefore, experience will be added to the main regression
equation as a control variable. Given that practice and commitment can enhance EI, it is expected that experience is positively correlated with the relationship between EI and job performance.
3. Research design and methodology
This chapter presents how the mentioned hypotheses will be tested. This includes the method of research that will be used, followed by a description of the measurement of the dependent variable, independent variables, and control variables. Then the data collection process will be discussed and the regression model will be established. As last, the concepts that measure the constructs will be explained.
3.1 Research Design
This study aims to investigate the relation that EI, stress and experience have with job performance of salesmen of cars. To conduct this research a questionnaire is used. An online survey is conducted, because this ensures that questions can be asked in a consistent and standardized way. This way, answers from the respondents can be compared easily (Wright, 2006). Another advantage of a survey is that the answers can be collected in a relative short amount of time. Furthermore, online surveys allow a researcher to reach much more people in a short amount of time, despite a great distance. Since this thesis had to be conducted in a limited time, it was important to reach as many people as possible in a short time period. Besides that, a large sample means a more accurate measurement. When there is a relative large sample, the reliability of the outcome of the tests will increase. On the other hand, there are also some disadvantages of online surveys using a questionnaire. One of these is that the answers are limited due to the predetermined answer options. However, the emphasis is placed on generating a larger amount of data that can be compared and
analyzed in a consistent way. The data that is used is based on a self-‐reported measure. An advantage of self-‐reports is that a worker knows best how well he performs and what could be accomplished. There have been several sales research studies that have used a self-‐rating scale for multiple job situations. In the present study, EI, stress and job performance are measured according to a self-‐rating report.
3.2 Data Collection
The questionnaire is distributed in The Netherlands. Since only Dutch employees would fill in the questionnaire, it was translated to Dutch. This also increases the likelihood that all respondents would be able to fill in and understand the questions and statements. This could prevent problems with the validity of the study. In addition, not translating the questionnaire might have discouraged the respondents from filling out the rest of the questionnaire because they might not understand the questions. The questionnaire is handed out to employees who have a sales function in the automotive industry. The reason one industry was chosen is that it might be too difficult to compare salespeople from
different industries. It could be that it takes different competencies to sell different products. The questionnaire was distributed to salesmen of cars in both the low end and high end segment. With low end is meant the employees who sell cars with an average sales price below 37.000 euro. This includes cars like: Opel, Fiat, Mitsubishi, Peugeot, Toyota, Citroën, etc. With high end is meant the employees who sell cars with an average sales price above 48.000 euro. This price segment includes: Ferrari, Maserati, Morgan, Bentley, etc. First the companies were called to inform them about the study. Afterwards, the questionnaire was sent by email with a link to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed on the website www.thesistools.nl. There were 90 questionnaires sent to the salespeople, 49 sent to high end and 41 sent to low end, and 60 sellers responded. These 60 respondents consisted of 29 high end and 31 low end salespeople. The questionnaire is included in
Appendix A and B. Since there was a strive for honest answers, it was stated in the email that the test was anonymous and confidential. Respondents of anonymous, self-‐administered questionnaires are less tempted to answer is a socially desirable way (Saunders et al. 2009). This temptation reduces the subject bias.
3.3 Measures
The questionnaire contains questions to measure emotional intelligence, subjective stress, experience, and job performance. Self-‐report evaluations seem most practical since there is a possibility of confidential responses. It is also most practical since emotional intelligence and stress is not directly observable. Another advantage of self-‐report evaluations is that job performance can contain aspects that are not reflected in the quantitative available data,
such as the effort a salesperson exerts to represent the company (Behrman and Perreault, 1982). A reliable scale has been developed by Wong and Law (Libbrecht et al. 2012), and Sujan et al. (1994). These scales strike different aspects of EI and performance. This EI and job performance measurement gives the opportunity to sample employees from multiple companies. The questions measuring EI and job performance are not constrained to one certain company.
Next the questions and scales used to measure the variables are discussed.
3.3.1 Dependent Variable: Job Performance
Behrman and Perreault (1982) compared three different options for how to evaluate the job performance of a worker. The first option is a manager evaluating the performance of his employee. These evaluations are not very reliable when the managers have not been specifically trained in carrying out evaluations (Behrman and Perreault, 1982). There are common difficulties with evaluations of sales managers. One is that salespersons operate across organizational boundaries, and a part of their effort may be beyond the view of the firm. Besides that, the sales manager may have little firsthand knowledge about all the activities that a salesperson does to represent the firm, other than the activities shown in the summary reports of quantitative data. This may cause a bias in evaluations (Behrman and Perreault, 1982).
The second approach is to let customers rate the salesperson. In this case only those aspects of performance that impact customer attitudes and their purchases from the salesperson’s firm could be tested (Behrman and Perreault, 1982). A limitation of this approach is that the evaluative criteria may vary widely among customers. Besides that, only a limited subset of the criteria relevant for the firm, at which the salesperson works, may be important for the customer (Behrman and Perreault, 1982).
The third and last possibility that remains is the self-‐evaluation. The salesperson is most aware of the requirements of the job. He knows best how well he actually performs and what could be accomplished. There have been several sales research studies that have used a self-‐rating scale for multiple job situations. These self-‐reports were adapted by Pruden and Reece (Behrman and Perreault, 1982). This method of self-‐measuring is attractive because it
is relatively easy to manage and it is not specific for industrial sales. In case the self-‐rating scale is based on only one or a few items, the self-‐evaluation could be biased by the
salesperson’s perception of what he does well. This could be resolved by a balanced
perspective of performance on different and important aspects of the job. The use of rating scales that strikes different aspects of sales performance could partially overcome the bias made by self-‐reports. These scales should be based on the response items that sample from different activities for each aspect. Therefore, there is chosen for a self-‐evaluation in the present thesis. A limitation with self-‐evaluations is that the worker might overestimate himself. The possibility of the worker overestimating himself is added as control variable (SELF).
In this thesis, the seven items from Sujan et al. (1994) are used according to a 10 point Likert-‐type scale. Sujan et al. (1994) used a self-‐evaluation approach to measure
performance of salespeople. For this, they used seven items, five taken from Behrman and Perreault and two added by Sujan et al (1994). These statements had to be answered according to 10 point Likert-‐type scale. The scale ranges from ‘very bad’ to ‘very well’. The respondents had to rate themselves relative to their colleagues by using the statements. The seven answers of each respondent are added up and divided by seven. The average answer of each respondent is used in the regression analysis. The reliability of this test is 0.91 (Sujan et al. 1994). The following statements were translated to Dutch.
1. Contributing to your company's acquiring a good market share. 2. Selling high profit-‐margin products.
3. Generating a high level of dollar sales.
4. Quickly generating sales of new company products.
5. Identifying major accounts in your territory and selling to them. 6. Exceeding sales targets.
7. Assisting your sales supervisor meet his or her goals.
3.3.2 Independent Variable: Emotional Intelligence
Wong and Law (2002) developed an EI measure that can be used in leadership and
management studies. They conducted a 16-‐item questionnaire to measure EI based on the theory of Mayer and Salovey. As mentioned before Mayer and Salovey defined EI as a set of
interrelated skills concerning: “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth”. They also conceptualized EI as a composition of four distinct dimensions:
1. The appraisal and expression of emotion in the self (SEA) 2. The appraisal and recognition of emotion in others (OEA) 3. The regulation of emotion in the self (ROE)
4. The use of emotion to facilitate performance (UOE)
For each of these dimensions Wong and Law (2002) designed 4 questions. In the research of Wong and Law, the reliability of the 16 questions is 0.81. This is a relative high reliability compared to the overall EQ-‐I test and the SUEIT. As mentioned before, the EQ-‐I test (Conte, 2005) is a 133-‐item self-‐report measure of EI. This measure had an internal consistency of 0.76. The SUEIT (Bailie and Ekermans, 2005) is also a self-‐report measurement of EI, consisting of 64 questions. The SUEIT has an internal consistency of 0.82 in the study of Bailie and Ekermans (2005). Compared to the questionnaires of Conte, Bailie and Ekermans, the 16-‐item questionnaire of Wong and Law seems a reliable measurement. Also, the
amount of questions of Wong and Law were considerably lower than the amount of questions of the SUEIT or the EQ-‐I. A long questionnaire can reduce the amount of responses, which means a lower reliability.
The scale that is used to answer the 16 questions is a 5 point-‐Likert scale. Libbrecht et al. (2012) also used a 5 point-‐Likert scale when they measured EI, using the 16 questions of Wong and Law. This five point-‐Likert scale ranges from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The reliability of this test (Libbrecht et al. 2012) was 0.81. The four dimensions of EI as described above will also be analyzed separately. In the study of Libbrecht et al. (2012) the internal consistency of the dimensions of EI: SEA; OEA; ROE; and UOE were respectively: 0.80; 0.83; 0.78; and 0.84.
3.3.3 Control Variable: Stress
A subjective measurement of stress is used. Respondents were asked to indicate on a single scale the extent to which they perceive stress at the present time at work. They were also asked to which extent they are sensitive to stress. This scale ranged from one to five. One
means ‘almost never’ and five means ‘very often’. The individual’s perception of stress is a central issue in a stress process (McGrath, 1986). Since EI and stress could be strongly correlated, multicollinearity might exist. This is discussed in the results.
3.3.4 Control Variable: Experience
Since there is evidence that experience is an important determinant of job performance, the questionnaire contains a question concerning experience. The respondent was asked the time span that he is selling cars. This could be done by filling in one of the five answers. These answers are: 0 -‐ 5 years; 6 -‐ 10 years; 11 -‐ 15 years; 16 -‐ 20 years; and longer than 20 years.
3.3.5 Remaining Control Variables: Age, Gender, Education Level, Meeting expectations at Work, and Overconfidence.
To examine whether the independent variables depend on other factors, control variables are added. Additionally, age, gender, education level, meeting expectations at work, and overconfidence are used as control variables. As an employee gets older during its career, it could be that he has more skills than before. Since one of these developed skills could be EI, age is included as control variable. Gender is included to control for a potential difference between men and women. Fischer et al. (2004) show that there is a difference in the
reporting of emotions between men and women. Men report more powerful emotions such as anger and women report more powerless emotions such as fear or sadness. Based on this related literature, it is possible that men are more capable to translate EI into a high job performance. Women who are afraid or said might be absent from work as a result of experiencing high emotions. Furthermore, a control variable for education (EDUC) is
included. Education can be crucial for job performance (Becker, 1962). Most of the questions in the questionnaire are answered with a self-‐ratings scale. A limitation with self-‐rating scales is that workers could be overly generous when rating their own performance. This could result in overestimation of their performance, so the fifth control variable called self-‐ evaluation is added (SELF). Nevertheless, it is common practice to insure that all the
responses of the salespersons will be anonymous. This way there will be less motivation for a respondent to give inflated ratings. Finally, to ensure that job performance does not
depend on whether a worker meets the required expectations at work, a control variable (EXPECT) is added.
3.4 Regression Model The regression model is:
𝐽𝑜𝑏 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒!= 𝛽!+ 𝛽!𝐸𝐼!+ 𝛽!𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠! + 𝛽! 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒! + 𝛽!𝐴𝑔𝑒! + 𝛽!𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟! + 𝛽!𝐸𝐷𝑈𝐶! + 𝛽!𝑆𝐸𝐿𝐹! + 𝛽!𝐸𝑋𝑃𝐸𝐶𝑇! + 𝜀!
3.5 Data Analysis
The outcome of the questionnaire will be analyzed by using the regression program SPSS. In this research several regressions will be performed to test the results. A least square method (OLS) will be used to estimate the unknown coefficients of the variables. The OLS method is consistent when there is no perfect multicollinearity and when the errors are
homoscedastic.
4. Results
First the descriptive results and the Cronbach’s Alpha of each variable will be discussed. Then the correlations between all the variables will be analyzed. Furthermore, the results of the regression analysis will be discussed in order to answer the hypotheses of this thesis.
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. Each variable is discussed below. The descriptive results of these variables, split into high end and low end, are shown in Appendix-‐C.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s Alpha N Job Performance 5.57 8.43 7.10 0.76 0.931 60 Emotional Intelligence 2.56 5.00 3.66 0.73 0.978 60 Emotional Intelligence – SEA 2.00 5.00 3.73 0.77 0.905 60 Emotional Intelligence – OEA 2.50 5.00 3.65 0.75 0.940 60 Emotional Intelligence – ROE 2.00 5.00 3.65 0.79 0.943 60 Emotional Intelligence -‐ UOE 2.25 5.00 3.63 0.75 0.937 60 Stress 1.50 4.50 3.32 0.65 0.722 60 Experience 2.00 5.00 -‐ -‐ -‐ 60
4.1.1 Cronbach’s Alpha
According to Nunnaly (1978), an alpha higher than 0.7 is considered as an acceptable reliability coefficient. The results in Table 1 show that job performance, EI, and stress have a high internal consistency.
4.1.2 Job Performance
Job performance is measured according to seven questions. Based on a 10-‐point Likert scale, the average rating of salesperson’s performance is 7.10. This implies that salespersons rate themselves as quite high. Looking at the low end and high end, the average job performance is a bit higher in the high end [7.66] than in the low end [6.58].
4.1.3 Emotional Intelligence
EI is measured according to 16 questions, which are spread over four dimensions. All four dimensions have a high internal consistency. It can be concluded that EI has clearly a high reliability. Based on a 5-‐point Likert scale, the average rating of salespeople’s EI is 3.66. This implies that salespeople of cars rate themselves as having EI between ‘average and
somewhat high’. Table 1 shows that all dimensions of EI have the almost the same mean. Looking at the EI in the high end and low end, the average EI is higher in the high end [4.32] than in the low end [3.05].
4.1.4 Stress
Stress is measured according to two questions: ‘To what extent do you experience stress at work?’ and ‘Are you sensitive for having stress?’. Based on a 5-‐point Likert scale, the average level of perceived stress of salespeople is 3.22. This implies that salespeople of cars
experience stress on a level that is between average and somewhat high. Looking at stress in the high end and low end, the stress is higher in the high end [3.78] than in the low end [2.89]. The reason that the reliability [0.722] is lower than the reliability of EI [0.978] and job performance [0.931] is because the two questions about stress are interpreted
differently.
