THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE OF THE
LEADER AND THE ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR
OF THE SUBORDINATE
Mauri Hertsenberg (10899596)
University of Amsterdam
Executive Programme in Business Studies
Specialization: Leadership and Management
Academic year: 2016‐2017
Supervisor: dr. A.H.B. de Hoogh
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Mauri Hertsenberg 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.
Abstract
In this study, we examined the relationship between emotional intelligence of the leader and subordinates’ altruistic behaviors and investigated the mediating roles of positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion in this relationship. Questionnaires were filled in by teams (N=49) from two large organizations in two sectors, namely profit and non-profit sector. Emotional
intelligence was measured in two ways, self-reported (leader) and other-reported (team members). Subordinates rated their positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion, and leaders rated subordinates’ altruistic behaviors. We did not find any evidence for possible mediating roles of positive emotions and exhaustion in the relationship between leaders’ emotional intelligence and subordinates’ altruistic behaviors. However, as expected, leader emotional intelligence (self-reported) was positively related to subordinates’ altruistic behavior. Furthermore, leader emotional intelligence (other-reported) was positively related to subordinates’ positive emotions.
Key words: Emotional Intelligence, Positive Emotions, Exhaustion, Altruism, Profit and
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Literature Review ... 6
2.1 Emotional Intelligence ... 6
2.2 Positive Emotions and Leader Emotional Intelligence ... 14
2.3 Exhaustion and Leader Emotional Intelligence ... 15
2.4 Altruism and Leader Emotional Intelligence ... 16
2.5 Positive Emotions and Altruism ... 18
2.6 Exhaustion and Altruism... 20
2.7 Research Model ... 22
3. Methods... 23
3.1 Research procedure ... 23
3.2 Sampling technique ... 23
3.3 Response rate ... 23
3.4 Characteristics of the selected respondents ... 24
3.5 Measurement of variables ... 25
4. Analytical Strategy ... 27
4.1 Missing values ... 27
4.2 Reliability ... 27
4.3 Computing scale means ... 28
4.4 Correlations ... 28
5. Results and conclusions ... 30
6. Discussion ... 33
6.1 Strengths and limitations... 35
6.2 Directions for future research ... 37
6.3 Practical implications ... 38
6.4 Conclusion ... 38
1. Introduction
The interest in emotional intelligence has grown enormously in the past decade. Emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to guide one’s thinking and action (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Numerous articles have written on the subject and have analyzed what impact emotional intelligence can have on individuals and teams (Modassir and Singh, 2008 ; Salovey and Mayer, 1990).
The reason why more people are interested in emotional intelligence is because the level of people’s emotional intelligence is suggested to make the difference between a simple brilliant person and a brilliant manager (Modassir and Singh, 2008). Turner (2004) even argues that emotional intelligence contributes 80% to one’s success, whereas IQ contributes only 20%. Indeed, research indicates that emotional intelligence enables people to attain higher achievements in both the workplace and their personal life (Carmeli and Josman, 2006).
Emotional intelligence is suggested to be especially important for effective leadership behavior. Many researchers have stated that effective leadership behavior fundamentally depends upon the managers’ ability to solve complex social problems that arise in an organization
(Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs and Fleishman, 2000; Zaccaro, Mumford, Connelly, Marks and Gilbert, 2000). Managers high on emotional intelligence are expected to be better able to manage their own and other’s emotions and will therefore generate subordinates’ enthusiasm, trust and cooperation, outcomes which are crucial for organizational performance (George, 2000). However, research on the link between leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors is still scarce (notable exceptions include Carmeli, 2003; Abraham, 1999).
We argue that emotional intelligent managers feel the needs of their subordinates and can give subordinates a feeling of trust and understanding. It is expected that this will result in more positive emotions of the subordinates. Furthermore it is expected that the subordinates feel less feelings of exhaustion. As a result, subordinates of emotional intelligent managers are expected to show more altruistic behavior.
We test this in a study on leaders and their teams working in two large scale
organizations, one in the profit and one in the non-profit sector. We link emotional intelligence of the leader to subordinates altruistic behaviors and investigate the mediating roles of positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion in this relationship. Additionally, because self-reports of emotional intelligence have been extensively criticized in the literature (Bracket, Rivers,
Shiffman, Lerner and Salovey, 2006), emotional intelligence is measured using both leader self-reports as perceptions of emotional intelligence by subordinates. We aim to provide new insights in the emotional intelligence and leadership literature by looking at the different roles leader self-reports and subordinates perceptions of leader’s emotional intelligence play as possible
antecedents of subordinates’ positive emotions, feelings of exhaustion and altruistic subordinates’ behaviors.
2. Literature Review
This chapter discusses the most relevant findings from the current literature about
emotional intelligence and states the hypotheses of this study. Undermentioned, the following are discussed: the concept of emotional intelligence and positive emotions, which ends with the relationship of these variables and the first hypotheses. Furthermore the link between emotional intelligence and the concepts of exhaustion and altruism. Finally this chapter outlines how positive emotions and exhaustion mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and altruism. The chapter ends with a research model which graphically illustrates the stated hypotheses.
2.1 Emotional Intelligence
Salovey and Mayer (1990) first introduced the concept of emotional intelligence as a subset of social intelligence. Social intelligence is defined as the ability to understand and
manage people (Thorndike and Stein, 1937). According to Salovey and Mayer (1990), emotional intelligence is the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feeling and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to guide one’s thinking and action. People who have developed emotional intelligence skills, understand and express their own emotions easily. Furthermore they recognize emotions of others, regulate the effect of emotions and use moods and emotions to motivate adaptive behaviors (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Accordingly, emotional intelligence is considered very important to social functioning.
Understanding the concept of emotional intelligence requires exploring the two terms,
emotion and intelligence. Emotions belong to the mental functioning, which includes the
emotions themselves, moods, evaluations of emotions and other feelings like fatigue or energy (Mayer and Geher, 1996). Intelligence belongs to the cognitive functions. These cognitive functions include human memory, judgment, reasoning and abstract thought (Carroll, 1993).
More recently, Mayer and Geher (1996) state that emotional intelligence involves the ability to appraise, perceive accurately and express emotions. Furthermore, the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thoughts; the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth and the ability to understand emotions and emotional knowledge.
In 1997, Mayer and Salovey, expanded their first concept into a four branches model, known as the ability model. The four branches are arranged from basis psychological processes to higher, more psychologically integrated processes. Each branch describes a set of skills that is part of the overall emotional intelligence.
The first branch – perception, appraisal and expression of emotions – involves the capacity to recognize emotion in others’ facial and postural expressions and it reflects the perception of emotion. Furthermore the ability to identify emotions in others through behavior, sound, appearance and language. Also the ability to feel the difference between honest and dishonest expressions are covered in this branch (Mayer and Geher, 1996).
People differ in the degree to which they are aware of emotions they experience. People also differ in their ability to accurately express their verbal and nonverbal emotions to others. Besides that, people also differ in their ability to accurately express emotions. Some people are unable to communicate their feelings using language or cannot appraise their own emotions. This branch represents the awareness of our own and others’ emotions (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
Emotional facilitation of thinking, the second branch, concerns emotion acting based on
intelligence. Emotional intelligence does not only help us begin being aware of one’s own emotions, but also to use these emotions in a functional way. Emotions can be useful to express
concerns to others and signaling what should be the focus of attention (Frijda, 1988; George and Brief, 1996).
Emotions can be used in problem solving and decision making. Also being able to predict and anticipate how people feel if certain events took place. Furthermore, emotions can facilitate cognitive processes. Positive moods can integrate thinking, facilitate creativity and inductive reasoning. On the other side, negative moods can facilitate detection of problems and errors, attention to detail and careful information processing (Sinclair and Mark, 1992). Finally, shifts in emotions can help in the generation of multiple alternatives, a more flexible planning and a broadened perspective on problems (Mayer, 1986; Salovey and Mayer, 1990).
The third branch – understanding and analyzing emotions; employing emotional
knowledge – includes the capacity to analyze emotions, appreciate probable trends, and
understand the outcomes. Furthermore the ability to understand how emotions transition from one stage to another, to recognize the causes of emotions and to understand the relationships among emotions (Brackett, Mayer and Warner, 2004).
Emotional knowledge includes the understanding of the determinants and consequences of emotions and moods, and how these evolve and change over time (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). People differ in their understanding and their awareness of how other people, events, situations and other stimuli generate emotions. Emotional knowledge also includes the ability to
understand complex feelings, such as love of hate. This branch contains knowledge of causes of emotions, how emotions progress over time, and the consequences of emotions (Mayer and Geher, 1996).
The last and fourth branch – reflective regulation of emotions to promote emotional and
intellectual growth – contains the management of emotion. Emotions are managed in the context
of social awareness, individual goals and self-knowledge (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
Emotional intelligence is not only being able to manage one’s own feeling, but also the ability to manage the emotions and moods of other. People with a high level of emotional intelligence are able to enthuse and excite people or make them feel cautious and aware
(Wasielewski, 1985). To reach this level, people must be able to appraise and express emotions, and effectively use emotions (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
As before mentioned, the concept of emotional intelligence was introduced by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and in 1997 they expanded their first concept into a four branches model, known as the ability model. These emotional abilities can be divided into four levels ranging from basis processes (i.e. appraisal, perception and integration of emotions) to higher-level mechanisms (i.e. managing emotions and reasoning by using emotions ; Mayer and Salovey, 1997). This ability model emphasizes that emotional intelligence should be viewed as a type of intelligence that is relatively independent of personality traits and in which emotions and thoughts interact in adaptive and meaningful ways. Other definitions of emotional intelligence tend to be focuses on traits and less on abilities, which Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2000a) labeled as trait based or mixed models (Livingstone and Day, 2005). The resulting combination of dispositions, skills, competencies, traits and abilities are labeled as emotional intelligence, even though the model predominately involves neither emotion nor intelligence (Mayer et al., 2000a. For example, Goleman (1995) included various personal attributes into his definition of emotional intelligence (e.g. handling relationships and motivating oneself). Furthermore, Bar-On
emotional intelligence is “an array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures”.
Thus, Goleman (1995) and Bar-on’s (1997) definitions are much more inclusive that the ability-based definition of Mayer and his colleagues (Livingstone and Day, 2005), but stray from the traditional view of emotional intelligence (Mayer, Caruso and Salovey, 1999). This lack of agreement regarding the definition of emotional intelligence has led to the development of different measures assessing emotional intelligence.
The majority of emotional intelligence studies has rely on self-reports. For instance, mixed models have been operationalized in self-report measures (e.g. Bar-on, 1997). The ability-based approach has also seen the development of self-report measures (Salovey, Mayer,
Goldman, Turvey and Palfai, 1995 ; Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden and Dornheim, 1998).
Self-report measures has been criticized (e.g. Mayer and Cobb, 2000 ; Mayer et al., 2000a ; Petrides and Furnham, 2000). Generally the person him or herself undoubtfully has the greatest access to information that is relevant for judging competences and traits. However, the relevance of such information for judging the self may be better perceiver by others (Hofstee, 1994 ; John and Robins, 1993 ; Thorne, 1989). Moreover, some of the richness of
self-experience is a lost as a consequence of limitations of the judge’s working memory upon performing the self-report. Thus, self-reports may be less accurate than others’ view (Hofstee, 1994 ; John and Robins, 1993 ; Thorne, 1989).
There are some existing measures of emotional intelligence, but they are not suitable for research on the workplace (Wong and Law, 2002). Salovey et al. (1995) developed a 30-item
Trait Meta-Mood Scale to measure emotional intelligence. Unfortunately, the measure captured three components: emotional clarity, attention to one’s moods and emotions, and emotional repair. These three components do not capture all of the emotional intelligence dimensions as defined in this study (Salovey and Mayer, 1997). BarOn (1997) introduced the BarOn EQ-i instrument, but there is only validation evidence provided by the developer. Furthermore, Goleman (1995) developed a 10-item measure of emotional intelligence without any validation evidence. Which is also the case with the short emotional intelligence instrument of Weisinger (1998). Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (1997) designed the Multifacet Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS), but exists of 400 items and takes two hours to complete (Wong and Law, 2002).
Therefore, Wong and Law (2002) developed a 16-item scale (Wong and Law Emotional
Intelligence Scale ; WLEIS) which includes the four branches of the ability model (Salovey and Mayer, 1997) and measures emotional intelligence on two ways ; self- and other reported (Wong and Law, 2002). Besides that, they (Law, Wong and Song, 2004 ; Wong and Law, 2002) have argued that previous measures of emotional intelligence were insufficient for organizational usage because they were not constructed to maximize overlap with work criterion constructs. Thus, WLEIS was the first publicly available measure of emotional intelligence developed specifically for organizations (Whitman, van Rooy, Viswesvaran and Kraus, 2009).
Because the WLEIS is developed for organizations, measures emotional intelligence on two ways and focuses on the four-branches model of Salovey and Mayer (1997), we used this scale to measure emotional intelligence. Besides that, empirical reviews have found that
measures of emotional intelligence based on the four-branch ability model are valid and reliable predictors of important organizational outcomes (Daus and Ashkanasy, 2005).
Previous research has shown that emotional intelligence is related to several work
outcomes, intelligence and personality dimensions. Interestingly, although emotional intelligence is particularly regarded as a construct of intelligence, the evidence for a relationship between emotional intelligence and personality variables is much stronger than the evidence for a relationship with intelligence (Boyle, Stankov and Cattell, 1995 ; Eysenck, 1994a). Personality can be defined in terms of five factors, often called the ‘Big Five’ (De Raad, 1992 ; Digman, 1990 ; McCrae and John, 1992). The current labels of these five factors are ‘Extraversion’, ‘Agreeableness’, ‘Conscientiousness’, ‘Emotional stability’ and ‘Intellect, Autonomy or Openness to Experience’ (Van der Zee, Thijs and Schakel, 2002). There is evidence that emotional intelligence is related to the Big Five (Davies et al., 1998 ; Schutte et al., 1998 ; Van der Zee and Wabeke, 2004)
Besides that emotional intelligence is related to personality, it is also related to work outcomes. Leaders high on emotional intelligence are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction because they are more adept at regulating and appraising their own and others’ emotions than leaders with low emotional intelligence. These leaders are better in identifying feelings of frustration and stress and regulating those emotions to reduce stress. Their
subordinates experience higher job satisfaction and performance because of the skills of their leader (Wong and Law, 2002). Furthermore, they are more resilient because they are able to understand the causes of stress and develop perseverance to deal with the negative consequences of stress (Sy, Tram and O’Hara, 2006). Besides that, leaders with high emotional intelligence can regulate their own emotions and managing others’ emotions to foster more positive interactions. These interactions lead to more organizational citizenship behavior from subordinates that contributes to job performance (Wong and Law, 2002). There is also evidence that leaders high
on emotional intelligence can influence the moods and motivations of their subordinates (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver and Story, 2011), which contributes to effective leadership (Palmer, Walls, Burgess and Stough, 2001). Palmer et al. (2001) stated that in leadership, dealing effectively with emotions, contributes to how one handles the needs of subordinates, how to motivate them and how to make them feel at work. High emotional
intelligence from leaders also emerges leadership in teams. Subordinates feel more responsibility and positive emotions than with leaders low on emotional intelligence (Kellett, Humphrey and Sleeth, 2002).
Above mentioned theories all measured emotional intelligence with self-reports. Besides the relationship with workout comes and personality, Turner (2004) states that emotional
intelligence is the softer component of our total intelligence and it contributes 80% to one’s success, whereas IQ contributes only 20%.
We can conclude that emotional intelligence seems important for work related outcomes, but we still do not know a lot about the relationship of emotional intelligence and subordinates’ behaviors and attitudes. Especially the mediating effect of positive emotions and exhaustion is relatively unknown. Besides that, we do not know a lot about emotional intelligence and related aspects, when measuring emotional intelligence with other-reported measures.
2.2 Positive Emotions and Leader Emotional Intelligence
There is a lot of evidence indicating that affect is of major importance for human functioning. Positive Affect (PA) reflects the extent to which a person feels active, alert and enthusiastic. A high PA is a state of full concentration, high energy and pleasurable engagement. On the other hand, low PA is characterized by lethargy and sadness. The ten positive emotions are: attentive, inspired, strong, interested, alert, excited, enthusiastic, proud, determined and active (Crawford and Henry, 2004 ; Watson, Clark and Tellegen, 1988).
Preliminary evidence suggests that emotional intelligence of managers may enhance the affect of followers (Wong and Law, 2002 ; Zhou and George, 2003). Wong and Law (2002) state that managers with high emotional intelligence are more likely to use supportive behavior. Furthermore, they will treat their subordinates with psychological benefits, since they are more sensitive to feelings and emotions of themselves and their subordinates. Managers who are able to accurately appraise and understand emotions, are likely to be able to monitor subordinates’ dissatisfaction or unhappiness and are able to respond in an early stage. Moreover, their knowledge of emotions enables them to channel negative effects into appropriately identifying problems and coming up with creative solutions to solve them, ultimately improving
organizational effectiveness and employee effect. Managers who are high on emotional
intelligence can use their knowledge of moods effects and help subordinates to balance negative and positive emotions. Furthermore, managers with high emotional intelligence are capable of appraising, understanding, and managing conflicts and tension in groups and facilitating identification of a common goal or direction (Zhou and George, 2003).
Based on this we expect that subordinates feel more support and trust from high emotional intelligent managers. The managers will help them in monitoring and balancing
emotions and help them to solve their problems, resulting in subordinates with more positive emotions (Zhou and George, 2003).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1: Leader Emotional Intelligence is positively related to subordinates’ positive emotions. 2.3 Exhaustion and Leader Emotional Intelligence
Exhaustion is one of the three dimensions of burnout. Burnout is defined as a psychological syndrome of exhaustion, cynicism, an inefficacy. Burnout is experienced in response to chronic job stressors (Maslach and Leiter, 2008).
The exhaustion component of burnout represents the basic individual stress experience. It refers to feelings of being overextended and depleted of one’s physical and emotional resources. Most burnout research is primarily focused on social support from supervisors and colleagues. Maslach and Leiter (2008) state that when supervisors care about their colleagues, for example monitor their workload, this colleague feels less exhaustion feelings than when the supervisor shows no social support.
According to Maslach and Leiter (2008) burnout is one end of a continuum in the relationship people establish in their jobs. A syndrome of exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy stands in contrast with the energetic, effective and involved state of engagement with work. When people have too much to do in a shortage of time with too few resources, there is an increasing workload. People experienced this as work overload. Work overload contribute to exhaustion by depleting the capacity of people to meet the demands of the job. Such exhaustion lead to disruption of collegial relationships and a deterioration in the quality of work.
Preliminary evidence suggests that emotional intelligence of managers may enhance the affect of followers. Lam and O’Higgins (2012) found leader emotional intelligence to be indirectly related to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is positively related to subordinates’ commitment to the organization and negatively related to subordinates’ stress (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). A leader who can manage his/her own emotions and have empathy for others will be more effective in the workplace and their teams. Besides that, they can generate and maintain enthusiasm, optimism, cooperation, confidence and trust. Leaders high on emotional intelligence are better in achieving these outcomes than leaders with less emotional intelligence (George, 2000).
In addition, leaders high on emotional intelligence know how to avoid dysfunctional emotions and use them in adaptive ways to alleviate feelings of frustrations (Carmeli, 2003). Subordinates experience continuous positive moods and feelings that generate higher levels of satisfaction and less stress, compared to subordinates who work with leaders that score low on emotional intelligence (Bono, Foldes, Vinson and Muros, 2007 ; Bono and Ilies, 2006 ; Sy, Tram and O’Hara, 2006).
Based on above mentioned theories, it is expected that subordinates show less feelings of exhaustion and stress. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: Leader Emotional Intelligence is negatively related to subordinates’ emotional exhaustion.
2.4 Altruism and Leader Emotional Intelligence
Altruism is one of the five major types of organizational citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behaviors as “individual behavior that is discretionary,
promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable”.
Organ (1988) identified the following types of organizational citizenship behavior: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic value. According to Organ (1988), altruism are voluntary actions that help others with their work problems, for example helping a coworker catch up with a backlog of work. Altruism or helping behavior is the
principle of concern for the welfare of others (Wagner and Rush, 2000). Smith, Organ and Near (1983) define altruism as behavior that is intentionally and directly aimed at helping a specific person in face-to-face situations. For example assisting someone with heavy workload or orienting new people.
Preliminary research has shown that emotional intelligence is the common element that influences the different ways in which people develop in their lives, job and social skills. Especially how they have with frustration, control their emotions and get along with other people. People high on emotional intelligence retain a positive viewpoint, have high work performance, are successful in whatever they choose to do and enjoy greater job satisfaction. Leaders who can identify and manage their own emotions and who display delay gratification and self-control, serve as a role model for their subordinates, thereby earning subordinates’ trust and respect. It is expected that when subordinates see their leaders as a role model, they trust them and their organization. The outcome is that the subordinates exhibit higher levels of
Lam and O’Higgins (2012) found leader emotional intelligence to be indirectly related to job satisfaction. When subordinates are satisfied about their jobs, they show more citizenship behavior. Furthermore, leaders who score high on emotional intelligence, are more capable to be aware of the need of their subordinates, in order to raise them to a higher level of motivation, job satisfaction and morality. Subordinates are more committed to the organization and their
colleagues when their leaders show high emotional intelligence behavior (Giles, 2001).
As a result we expect that the subordinates show more altruistic behavior to their managers and are willing to help others. Based on aforementioned research, we hypothesize:
H3: Leader Emotional Intelligence is positively related to subordinates’ altruistic behavior.
2.5 Positive Emotions and Altruism
Regardless of an organization’s structure or size, most leaders strive to maximize the performance of their subordinates to achieve the goals of the organization and their employees (Yukl, 1998). Positive moods and emotions lead people to think, feel, and act in ways that promote both resource building and involvement with approach goals (Elliot and Thrash, 2002).
Emotions appear to play a significant role in terms of subordinates’ enthusiasm for their work. Bandura (1977) stated that employees engage in efforts to achieve goals when they feel optimistic. Subordinates who look optimistically to the world are likely to transform problems into opportunities, put in the hours to refine skills, see adversity as a challenge, persevere in finding solutions to difficult problems, rebound quickly after setbacks and persist, and maintain confidence (Schulman, 1999).
Furthermore, employees who report more frequent levels of positive emotions tend to be more socially integrated in the organization and satisfied with their jobs, thus likely leading to higher engagement and citizenship (Connolly and Viswesvaran, 2000 ; Wright and Staw, 1999).
Subordinates who experience positive emotions show higher organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, positive affect at work is pivotal in understand “organizational
spontaneity”, which includes helping coworkers, developing one’s own abilities within the organization and protecting the organization (Donovan, 2000).
As a result we expect that subordinates who experience positive emotions show more altruistic behavior and are more willing to help others. Based on aforementioned research, we hypothesize:
H4: Subordinates’ positive emotions are positively related to subordinates altruistic behavior. Managers who score high on emotional intelligence, are more capable to be aware of the need of their subordinates, in order to raise them to a higher level of motivation, job satisfaction and morality. As a result we expect that the subordinates feel a high level of understanding and support from their leaders. Besides that, we expect that they show more altruistic behavior because they experience positive emotions in their work environment and are committed to the organization and their colleagues (Giles, 2001).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H5: Subordinates’ positive emotions mediate the positive relationship between leader Emotional
2.6 Exhaustion and Altruism
As before mentioned, emotions appear to play a significant role in terms of subordinates’ enthusiasm for their work. Subordinates who lose enthusiasm for work do not put forth the same effort as in the past, and this impacts their performance (Manion, 2000).
When subordinates feel that they have little or no control they are unlikely to put in the work what is required to achieve that objective (Campbell and Martinko, 1998 ; Seligman, 1975). Moreover, subordinates who experience no stability are more likely to feel frustrated and will likely reduce the work they expend and their performance (Schulman, 1999). Leiter and Maslach (1988) stated that it seems reasonable that the experience of exhaustion would lead employees to be less committed to the organization. If employees feel emotionally exhausted by their job, they would become less enthusiastic in achieving organization’s goals and become more prone to withdrawing from work (Jackson, Schwab and Schuler, 1986; Lazaro, Shinn and Robinson, 1984).
Furthermore, prior researchers have found that exhaustion influences one’s physiological and psychological well-being, as well as affecting job performance in terms of low levels of job performances and negative job attitudes (Burke and Greenglass, 1995; Lee and Ashforth, 1993).
As a result we expect that subordinates who experience feelings of exhaustion show less altruistic behavior. Based on aforementioned research, we hypothesize:
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H6: Subordinates’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related to subordinates’ altruistic According to Sy et al. (2006), managers with high emotional intelligence can regulate their own emotions and manage others’ emotions to more positive interactions. This lead to more
organization citizenship behavior that contribute to performance. It is expected that managers with high emotional intelligence can lead to more altruistic behavior from subordinates. The more satisfied the subordinates are, the more likely they are to be engaged in helpful behavior and experience less feelings of exhaustion.
Besides that, managers with a high emotional intelligence regulate their own emotions and feel a higher sense of confidence and control in their lives. Based on this research, it is expected that subordinates show less symptoms of exhaustion, when they have a manager who is fully in control and who can regulate their own and others’ emotions and that this will lead to more altruistic behavior (Sy et al., 2006).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H7: Subordinates’ emotional exhaustion mediates the positive relationship between leader
2.7 Research Model
Figure 1 demonstrates the research model of the relationship between leader emotional intelligence and subordinate altruism. We test this in a study on leaders and their teams working in different organizations. We link emotional intelligence of the leader to subordinates altruistic behaviors and investigate the mediating roles of positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion in this relationship. Additionally, because self-reports of emotional intelligence have been
extensively criticized in the literature (Bracket et al., 2006), emotional intelligence is measured using both leader self-reports as perceptions of emotional intelligence by subordinates. We aim to provide new insights in the emotional intelligence and leadership literature by looking at the different roles leader self-reports and subordinates perceptions of leader’s emotional intelligence play as possible antecedents of subordinates’ positive emotions, feelings of Exhaustion and altruistic subordinates’ behaviors.
Figure 1 Emotional Intelligence Altruism Positive Emotions Exhaustion
+
‐
+
+
‐
3. Methods
3.1 Research procedure
Data were collected by means of an online survey that is distributed among twenty-one teams within a large accounting company. Every team consists of one manager and two
subordinates. Every team got an e-mail including the two online surveys. One survey for the manager and one survey for the two subordinates. The surveys consists of questions, which measure the four different variables that are being researched in their relationship to each other. Survey Administration started on September 9th 2016. The survey was closed on October 14th
2016. To perform the statistical analyses, the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used.
We choose for an online survey because we asked teams across the country. Besides that, we used the tool Qualtrics for the data collection. This is a good provider of collecting data but especially a safe tool for analyzing data and integrating it to SPSS.
3.2 Sampling technique
I used self-selection and snowball as the sampling techniques. I work at the same
accountancy firm where the surveys have been collected. I asked colleagues that I know from my own advisory engagements and colleagues that work in the same region (offices Enschede, Zwolle and Groningen). These colleagues helped me by introducing other teams within our company to fill in my survey.
3.3 Response rate
From the 63 employees that started filling out the online survey, 63 fully completed the questionnaire. (response rate 100%). As we separate the 63 respondents into teams, 21 managers
3.4 Characteristics of the selected respondents
The sample consisted of Dutch employees working at the same accountancy firm. We included several business units: audit, advisory and business support. Taking the managers together, 52,3% were male and 47,7% were female. The sample covered a broad range of age and work experience at the accountancy firm. In the managers sample the age differs from 27 to 52 years old. In total 23,8% completed an education programme at university of applied
sciences, whereas 76,2% of the managers completed an education programme at the research university. The organizational tenure shows a range of 2 till 25 years.
Taking the subordinates together, 61,9% were man and 38,1% were female. De sample covered a broad range of age, work experience at the accountancy firm and working with their manager. In this sample, the age differs from 21 to 49 years old. 2,3% of the respondents completed a secondary education programme, 21,4 % completed an education programme at university of applied sciences and 76,3% completed an education programme at the research university. The organization tenure differs from 1 till 25 years and the working experience with their manager differs from 0,5 till 19 years.
Total sample
In addition to the data collected in the accountancy firm, 28 leaders and their 130 subordinates working for a non-profit organizational in the Netherlands also filled in questionnaires. The data for this sample was collected by a fellow UVA student in an
organization providing specialized care for children and their families. The total sample for this study ( N = 49 leaders, N = 172 subordinates) consist of two subsamples collected in the two organizations.
3.5 Measurement of variables
All items used in the questionnaire were derived from English studies. Since all respondents to the survey had Dutch as their first language, the original items were translated into Dutch.
Emotional Intelligence
To measure emotional intelligence of the manager, we used the 16-item Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), developed by Wong and Law (2002). The response format of the WLEIS is a traditional 5-point scale from (1) “Totally Disagree” to (5) “Totally Agree”. A sample item from the Use of Emotion to facilitate performance dimension is “I would always encourage myself to try my best.” A sample item from the Self- Emotions Appraisal is “I really understand what I feel.” A sample item from the Others’ Emotion Appraisal is “I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me.” A sample question from the
Regulation of Emotion dimension is “I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry.” Every appraisal consists of 4 items, thus in total 16 items to measure emotional intelligence.
Besides that, the subordinates filled in the experienced emotional intelligence of their managers. Therefore we used the OEA (Others-Emotions Appraisal, 4 items) and ROE
(Regulation of Emotion, 4 items), also from the WLEIS. The response format of the WLEIS is a traditional 5-point scale from (1) “Totally Disagree” to (5) “Totally Agree”. A sample item from the Others’ Emotion Appraisal is “My manager has a good understanding of the emotions of people around him/her.” A sample question from the Regulation of Emotion dimension is “My manager can always calm down quickly when he/she was very angry”.
Altruism
MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991) research included the four measures of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, identified by Organ (1988), namely: altruism,
sportsmanship, courtesy and civic value. In our survey we used 3 items to measure the altruism of the subordinates. A sample item includes: “He/She is always ready to help or lend a helping hand to those around him/her”. The respondents filled in a traditional 5-point scale ranging from (1) “Strongly Disagree” to (5) “Strongly Agree”.
Positive Emotions
To measure positive emotions of subordinates, we used the shorter version of Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), a 20-item self-report measure of positive and negative affect developed by Watson et al. (1988b).
From the 20-items, ten positive and ten negative, the shorter version measures five positive and five negative affects. We only included the five positive affects in our survey, namely: “Rustig”, “Voldaan”, “Ontspannen”, “Opgewekt”, “Enthousiast”. The subordinates rated how many times they felt the before mentioned emotions the last couple of weeks. The scale ranged from (1) “Never” to (6) “Constantly”.
Exhaustion
Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001) have developed the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS). To measure the exhaustion level of the subordinates, the subordinates rated their own exhaustion feelings on a traditional 5-point scale ranging from (1) “Never” to (5) “Always”. In total 5 items are included. An example item is: “Aan het einde van een werkdag
voel ik mij leeg” or “Ik voel me vermoeid als ik s’morgens op sta en er weer een werkdag voor me ligt”.
4. Analytical Strategy 4.1 Missing values
All variables under investigation were checked for missing data. A frequency test was run for all variables. In one team some data was missing, we deleted this team and ended with N=49 teams.
4.2 Reliability
Reliability enables to examine the consistency of measurements. Reliability checks were run for emotional intelligence (self-reported), emotional intelligence (other-reported), altruism, exhaustion and positive emotions. The Cronbach’s alpha, which represents the estimator of the internal consistency, has been tested to verify if all the items in one scale measure the same, or if some questions should not be used for analysis. As exhibited in Table 1, all five variables have a Cronbachs alpha > .7, which indicates high level of internal consistency.
Tabel 1 Cronbachs Alpha
Variable Cronbachs Alpha
Emotional Intelligence (SR) .81 Emotional Intelligence (OR) .86
Altruism .89
Exhaustion .84
4.3 Computing scale means
As the final preliminary step, new variables as a function of existing variables were created for hypothesis testing. We calculated the mean of all items that was used to describe a variable. Means and standard deviations of all variables are exhibited in table 2.
4.4 Correlations
SPSS provided us with a table of correlation coefficients, called correlation matrix, for all of the combinations of variables. When we look at model 1, where emotional intelligence is reported by the leader, we only see a strong correlation between emotional intelligence and altruism. The relationship has a significance value less than 0.01 and a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=0.409.
Looking at model 2, where emotional intelligence is reported by the subordinate, we see a strong correlation between emotional intelligence and positive emotions. The relationship has a significance value of .02 and a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=0.346.
Besides model 1 and 2, looking at the means and standard deviations, the respondents agree with each other on emotional intelligence. The mean of self-reported emotional
intelligence is M=4,08 and the mean of other-reported emotional intelligence is M=3,99. The leaders in this research seem high on emotional intelligence based on this means. That the respondents agree with each other is also shown by the standard deviations of self-reported emotional intelligence (SD= 0.40) and other-reported emotional intelligence (OR =3.99). The other significant correlation, which is not included in model 1 and 2 is the correlation between self-reported emotional intelligence and other-reported emotional intelligence. The relationship
has a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=0.33. This shows that the leaders and subordinates support each other on the level of emotional intelligence of the leader.
Moreover, the respondents seem very happy, looking at the means and standard
deviations. The mean of positive emotions (M=4.27) tells us that the respondents often to very often experience positive emotions. And Table 2 shows us that the respondents only very occasionally experience exhaustion symptoms (M=2.09).
Furthermore, it is interesting that we only found significant correlations between emotional intelligence (self-reported) and altruism, and emotional intelligence (other-reported) and positive emotions. This seems due to common-source bias (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee and Podsakoff, 2003) because emotional intelligence (SR) and altruism is reported by the leader, and emotional intelligence (OR) and positive emotions is reported by the subordinates.
Table 2
Mean, Standard deviation and Correlations and Reliabilities
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Tenure leader 2.61 2.05 2. Emotional Intelligence (SR) 4.08 .40 -.24 (.81) 3. Emotional Intelligence (OR) 3.99 .43 -.42** .33* (.86) 4. Altruism 3.91 .40 -.02 .41** -.13 (.89) 5. Exhaustion 2.09 .43 .03 -.14 -.05 .01 (.84) 6. Positive Emotions 4.27 .58 - .10 .06 .35* -.21 -.53* (.89)
Note: N = 49 teams. Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal. Tenure leader is reported in years. Emotional intelligence is measured in two ways: self-reported (SR) and other-reported (OR)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
5. Results and conclusions
In order to test the seven hypotheses a regression analysis was conducted. We used “process model 4” to test the mediation effect of subordinates’ positive emotions and exhaustion in the relationship of leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ altruism. Because
emotional intelligence is measured in two ways, we have two outcome models, namely; Model 1, presented in Table 3 and Model 2, presented in Table 4. In Model 1, emotional intelligence is self-reported by the leader. In Model 2, emotional intelligence is reported by the subordinates. Table 3 and 4 provide an overview of the regression analysis.
First, we regressed emotional intelligence (self-reported) on subordinates’ positive emotions, exhaustion and altruism (Table 3). In line with hypothesis 3, we found that leader emotional intelligence is positively related to subordinates’ altruistic behavior (B = .43), p = < 0.00). Contrary to hypothesis 1 and 2 no significant relationship was found between leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ exhaustion (B = -.15), p = .16), and leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ positive emotions (B = .06), p = .22). Besides that, hypothesis 4 and 6 are rejected. No significant relationship was found between subordinates’ positive emotions and subordinates’ altruistic behavior (B = -.19, p = .11) and subordinates’ emotional exhaustion and subordinates’ altruistic behavior (B = -.07, p = .15).
Furthermore the indirect effects of subordinates’ positive emotions and exhaustion in the relationship of leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ altruism are not significant (B = -.01), p = .05) (B = -.01), p = .03). Hypothesis 5 and 7 are rejected.
Table 3
Mediation Results Model 1
Predictor Exhaustion B(SE)
Positive Emotions
B(SE) Altruism B(SE)
Control variables Tenure leader -.00 (.03) -.03 (.04) .01 (.03) Independent variable Emotional intelligence (SR) -.15 (.16) .06 (.22) .43 (.14)** Exhaustion -.07 (.15) Positive emotions -.19 (.11) R² .41
Indirect effects on altruism B (SE) LL 95 % CI UL 95% CI
Positive Emotions -.01 (0.05) -.15 .05
Exhaustion .01 (0.03) -.03 .09
Note: LL = lower limit ; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit. N=49 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; standard errors in parentheses.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Second, we regressed emotional intelligence (other-reported) on subordinates’ positive emotions, exhaustion and altruism (Tabel 4). In line with hypothesis 1, we found that leader emotional intelligence is positively related to subordinates’ positive emotions (B = .50), p = 0.21). Contrary to hypothesis 2 and 3 no significant relationship was found between leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ exhaustion (B = -.05), p = .16), and leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ altruism (B = -.07), p = .16). Besides that, hypothesis 4 and 6 are rejected. No significant relationship was found between subordinates’ positive emotions and subordinates’ altruistic behavior (B = -.17, p = .13) and subordinates’ emotional exhaustion and subordinates’ altruistic behavior (B = -.12, p = .16).
Furthermore the indirect effects of subordinates’ positive emotions and exhaustion in the relationship of leader emotional intelligence and subordinates’ altruism are not significant (B = -.09), p = .08) (B = .01), p = .02). Hypothesis 5 and 7 are rejected.
Table 4
Mediation Results Model 2
Predictor Exhaustion B(SE)
Positive Emotions
B(SE) Altruism B(SE)
Control variables
Tenure leader .00 (.03) .01 (.04) -.01 (.03)
Independent variable
Emotional intelligence (OR) -.05 (.16) .50 (.21)* -.07 (.16)
Exhaustion -.12 (.16)
Positive emotions -.17 (.13)
R² .16
Indirect effects on altruism B (SE) LL 95 % CI UL 95% CI
Positive Emotions -.09 (.08) -.28 .03
Exhaustion .01 (.02) -.03 .08
Note: LL = lower limit ; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit. N=49 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; standard errors in parentheses.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of emotional intelligence of the leader with subordinates altruistic behaviors and investigate the mediating roles of positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion in this relationship. The aim of the research was to provide new insights in the emotional intelligence and leadership literature by looking at the different roles leader self-reports and subordinates perceptions of leader’s emotional intelligence play as possible antecedents of subordinates’ positive emotions, feelings of exhaustion and altruistic subordinates’ behaviors.
We expected that subordinates’ positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion would act as mediators between emotional intelligence and altruism. We believe that our study has
contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of emotional intelligence. Previous research has tended to focus on self-reported emotional intelligence of leaders (Bar-on, 1997 ; Salovey et al., 1995 ; Schutte et al., 1998). As mentioned before in the literature study, self-report measures has been criticized, because they may be less accurate than others’ view (e.g. Hofstee, 1994 ; John and Robins, 1993 ; Mayer and Cobb, 2000 ; Mayer et el., 2000 ; Petrides and Furnham, 2000 ; Thorne, 1989).
This study has extended that work by exploring both the effects of self-reported and other-reported emotional intelligence of leaders. And we used a measurement, WLEIS, which is developed for organizations and focuses on the four-branches model of Salovey and Mayer (1997). The research findings do not broadly support our hypotheses. We found a significant relationship between subordinates’ positive emotions and emotional intelligence, reported by the subordinates. The subordinates experience more positive emotions when their leader shows a
leader emotional intelligence (self-reported) and subordinates’ altruistic behavior. Leaders experience more helpful behavior of their subordinates when they perceive themselves as showing a high level of emotional intelligence. This means that the relationship between emotional intelligence and follower attitudes and behaviors depend on how emotional intelligence is measured. Self-reported emotional intelligence in this study seems to be more important for subordinates’ altruistic behavior, whereas other-reported emotional intelligence seems to be more important for subordinates’ positive emotions. However common source bias (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee and Podsakoff, 2003) may play a role.
Another significant correlation, which is not included in model 1 and 2 is the correlation between self-reported emotional intelligence and other-reported emotional intelligence. The relationship has a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=0.33. This shows that the leaders and subordinates support each other on the level of emotional intelligence of the leader. The means and standard deviations are quite high of the self-reported emotional intelligence (M = 4.09, SD = 0.40 ) and other-reported emotional intelligence (M=3.99, SD = 0.43). Based on these
numbers, we can conclude that the respondents agree with each other on the level of emotional intelligence of leaders. Comparing these means and standard deviations with other literature who also measured emotional intelligence with the WLEIS, these numbers are quite high (Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008 ; Law et al., 2004 ; Sy et al., 2006). This comparison also contributes to the thought that we might have common source bias, which we will discuss later. Inconsistent with our expectations, we did not found any other significant effects.
6.1 Strengths and limitations
Although the current study broadens our understanding of emotional intelligence, it has several potential limitations. First, the data used in the current study partly comes from self-reports. This might lead to a self-enhancement bias in the results. Respondents tend to rate themselves as better or more positive than they actually are (according to a normative criterion) (Krueger, 1998). Especially when the managers have to rate their own emotional intelligence, which might cause common source bias (Podsakoff et al., (2003). Looking at our results, this might be the case. We only found significant relationships between variables where the same person (leader or subordinates) filled in the questions. Podsakoff et al. (2003) described effects produced by a common source, for instance social desirability. According to Crowne and Marlowe (1964), social desirability is the need for social approval and acceptance. Furthermore the belief that it can be attained by means of appropriate and culturally acceptable behaviors. It is viewed as the tendency of people to present themselves in a favorable light, regardless of their true feelings about a topic or issue. It could be the case that the leaders want to put themselves in a favorable light to get higher motivated teams and bonuses. For the subordinates it could be that they are afraid to really fill in what they think about the leader, because they still have to work together.
Second, the two variables – positive emotions and exhaustion – are kind of opposites of each other. Because of the high correlation of these variables, multicollinearity can influence the results. A respondents can’t have the two emotions at the same time. We see that in our results, no significant effect is found between emotional intelligence and exhaustion.
A third limitation is related to the nature and size of the sample. Although the sample can be described as diverse in terms of age, gender, organizational tenure, profit vs. non-profit and
respondents. This could affect the results because the sample seems homogeneous looking at education and type of person. Accountancy firms attract certain people who like to work hard, need a lot of control in their jobs and always look for structure. Furthermore most of the respondents are highly educated and may think twice before they fill in what they really think and feel. Finally, the design of the study does not allow testing for the directionality of causal relationships. Longitudinal and experimental research could help to clarity this.
Besides limitations, the study also has strengths such as its multi-source data and two measurements of emotional intelligence. The study adds to the current literature by furthering our understanding of how leader emotional intelligence relates to subordinates’ positive emotions, exhaustion and altruistic behavior.
6.2 Directions for future research
A fruitful road for future would be to further examine the link between leader emotional intelligence and subordinates outcomes with a larger sample size. Especially another timing of the questionnaire and different levels of managers would contribute to the literature. Looking at our results, with the questionnaire filled in in September, the participants are quite happy and experience no exhaustion feelings. This might be influenced by the period. The respondents just had their holiday and are full of energy to get back to work. When they fill in the questionnaire in March or April, the busy season of an accounting firm, we expect less experienced positive emotions and more exhaustion symptoms. According to Podsakoff et al. (2003) this can be a common source bias, named transient mood state. Positive and negative affectivity are
considered to be fairly enduring trait characteristics of people that may influence their responses to questionnaires. In this case, the employees just had their holidays and were full of positive emotions, which we also see in our results.
Besides that, the level of manager can make a difference in the results. In our survey three kinds of managers filled in the questionnaire, namely: assistant managers, managers and senior managers. The senior managers have a different role in teams than assistant managers and managers. Most managers were assistant managers. This might influence the experienced
emotional intelligence of the leader and altruistic behavior of the subordinates because senior managers are less hours together with their teams, so these managers might have less of an influence on their subordinates. Further research can use multi-level analysis to catch more leaders in the sample of different levels of the organization.
we had taken a lawyer’s office the variables could have shown less positive results because of the hard working all year and deadlines they deal with.
6.3 Practical implications
This research has several practical implications. One relates to self-reported emotional intelligence and subordinates’ altruistic behavior. The leader feels that his team wants to put extra effort on an engagement when showing high emotional intelligence behavior. These leaders are successful in whatever they choose to do and enjoy greater job satisfaction. Besides that, they also can identify and manage their own emotions and serve as a role model for their
subordinates.
Next, the results of this study suggest that subordinates experience more positive emotions when they work with an emotional intelligent leader. Leaders who are able to accurately appraise and understand emotions, are likely to be able to monitor subordinates’ dissatisfaction or unhappiness and are able to respond in an early stage. Organizations may want to raise the awareness the impact of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction, emotions of employees and altruistic behavior.
6.4 Conclusion
The current study investigated the relationship of emotional intelligence of the leader with subordinates altruistic behaviors and examined the mediating roles of positive emotions and feelings of exhaustion in this relationship. The results showed that the relationship between emotional intelligence and follower attitudes and behaviors depend on how emotional intelligence is measured. Self-reported emotional intelligence in this study seems to be more important for subordinates’ altruistic behavior, whereas other-reported emotional intelligence seems to be more important for subordinates’ positive emotions.
7. References
Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: A conceptualization. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: the role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357.
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 317-334.
Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence. In International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 417-446). Springer US.
Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual differences, 36(6), 1387-1402.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating
emotional abilities to social functioning: a comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(4), 780.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1995). A longitudinal study of psychological burnout in teachers.
Human Relations, 48(2), 187-202.
Campbell, C. R., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An integrative attributional perspective of empowerment and learned helplessness: a multimethod field study. Journal of Management, 24(2), 173–200.
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.
Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human performance, 19(4), 403-419. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245-265.
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability‐based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 453-466. Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(4), 989.
De Raad, B. (1992). The replicability of the Big Five personality dimensions in three word‐ classes of the Dutch language. European Journal of Personality, 6(1), 15-29.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 417-440.
Donovan, M. A. (2000). Cognitive, affective, and satisfaction variables as predictors of organizational behaviors: A structural equation modeling examination of alternative models.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(9-B), 4943. (UMI No. AAI9944835)
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804– 818.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Meta-analysis and its problems. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309(6957), 789.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American psychologist, 43(5), 349.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
relations, 3(8), 1027-1055.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of
feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Giles, S. J. S. (2001). The role of supervisory emotional intelligence in direct report organizational commitment. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam.
Hofstee, W. K. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality?. European Journal of Personality, 8(3), 149-162.
Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L. and Schuler, R. S. (1986). ‘Understanding the burnout phenomenon’, Journal of Applied Psychology, in press.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of personality, 61(4), 521-551.
Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and individual differences, 44(3), 712-722.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 523-544.
Krueger, J. (1998). Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and others. Personality and Social
sychology Bulletin, 24(5), 505-516.
Lam, C. S., & O'Higgins, E. R. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated influences of managers' emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of applied Psychology,
89(3), 483.
Lazaro, C., Shinn, M. and Robinson, P. E. (1984). ‘Burnout, job performance, and job withdrawal behaviors’, Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 7, 213-234. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A longitudinal study of burnout among supervisors and managers: Comparisons between the Leiter and Maslach (1988) and Golembiewski et al. (1986) models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 369-398.
Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Frame, K. (1998). Burnout. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology.
Livingstone, H. A., & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the construct and criterion-related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional intelligence. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 65(5), 757-779.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(1), 123-150.
Manion, J. (2000). Retaining current leaders. Health Forum Journal, 43(5), 24–27.
Marlowe, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1964). The approval motive. Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York: Wiley.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of
applied psychology, 93(3), 498.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of
Mayer, J. D. (1986). How mood influences cognition. Advances in cognitive science, 1, 290-314. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
Mayer, J. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2000). Educational policy on emotional intelligence: Does it make sense?. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 163-183.
Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion.
Intelligence, 22(2), 89-113.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). The emotional IQ test (CD Rom). Needham, MA: Virtual
Knowledge.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1997). Emotional IQ test (CD ROM). Needham, MA:
Virtual Knowledge.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). TARGET ARTICLES:" Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications". Psychological inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215.
Modassir, A., & Singh, T. (2008). Relationship of emotional intelligence with transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. International journal of leadership studies,
4(1), 3-21.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.
O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788-818.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 5-10.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273-289.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and
