THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGER EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND JOB SATISFACTION: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES by David

T. Stoneback FRANK DECARO, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair DAVID BALCH, PhD, Committee Member LUIS RIVERA, PhD, Committee Member William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Capella University November, 2011

UMI Number: 3482835

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3482835 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

 David T. Stoneback, 2011

Abstract Like many employers, call centers are searching for ways to attract and retain talented individuals who can meet the needs of their customers. This quantitative study examined an identified problem in addressing the job satisfaction of employees in call centers (N = 49). It was hypothesized that the level of emotional intelligence (EI) in managers (N = 10) may have an impact on employee satisfaction. This problem and the hypothesis led to a series of questions concerning whether any of the four branches of emotional intelligence impact employee satisfaction. Many of the studies within the existing body of knowledge focused on EI and other factors such as bottom line results, employee engagement, and leadership effectiveness. What was known at the time of the study was that attrition in call centers is high and that there must be a series of factors related to this fact. Employee satisfaction was identified as a potential factor. To measure employee satisfaction, the Job Satisfaction Survey tool was used while the MSCEIT tool was used to measure manager emotional intelligence. The results of the MSCEIT for each manager were tested against the JSS results for their employees that participated in the study. The outcomes found that for each of the four branches (perceive use, understand, and manage) there was no statistically significant link. The study concluded that there was no discernable impact of managers EI on the satisfaction of their employees. However, there was a relationship found between employee satisfaction and gender of manager. The conclusion of these results suggests that there is further opportunity to develop knowledge in this field. Further research should be developed to understand

the relationship manager gender plays in employee satisfaction. It is suggested that additional variables be added to future studies and that the scope of future studies extend beyond internal factors and look at macro factors external to the workplace. Additionally, it is suggested that the body of knowledge may benefit from a longitudinal study that examines and tracks results for manager EI and employee satisfaction over time.

Dedication This work is dedicated to my family whose love drives me to succeed every single day. My three boys are my motivation and I thank them for understanding when Daddy has school and for their patience in sharing me with my work. To my wife, Sue. You are the greatest gift anyone could ask for. I love you and thank you for your support and encouragement as I worked toward my goal. I am forever grateful.

iv

Acknowledgments First I would like to thank my mentor and dissertation chair, Dr. Frank DeCaro for his guidance along this journey. From our initial conversation I knew that I would be in good hands as I worked through the greatest challenge of my educational career. Im extremely grateful for your help at each stage and for helping me through the more challenging times. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Luis Rivera and Dr. David Balch for their thoughtful questions and critiques along the way. You made me think differently and I believe my work is better for it. I would also like to acknowledge the impact of the work of Dr. David Caruso in the field of emotional intelligence and thank him for the many hours spent working with me to better understand emotional intelligence and the MSCEIT tool. He is a leading thinker in the field of emotional intelligence, yet took the time to correspond with me throughout the process. His support is greatly appreciated.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Employee Engagement Factors in Call Center Operations Background & Purpose of the Study Statement of the Problem Conceptual Framework Overview of Constructs Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions, Limitations, and Bias Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Emotional Intelligence as a Construct Chronology of Theoretical Development Models of Emotional Intelligence Validity of Emotional Intelligence Bias in Emotional Intelligence Research Measures of Emotional Intelligence Employee Satisfaction as a Construct vi v ix 1 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 14 14 18 24 28 29 34

Methodologies in Existing Research in Emotional Intelligence Methodologies in Existing Research in Employee Engagement Chapter Summary CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Sample Research Question and Hypothesis Instruments Data Collection Procedures Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Research Question 3 Research Question 4 Additional Findings CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Findings Synthesis of the Literature Implications and Practitioner Recommendations Recommendations for Future Research vii

36 41 44 45 46 47 49 49 52 53 55 57 60 60 61 61 62 64 64 65 68 70

REFERENCES APPENDIX A. JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

74 81

viii

List of Tables Table 1. Frequency Counts for Selected Variables (N = 49) Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables (N = 49) Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables (N = 10) Table 4. Spearman Correlations for Selected Emotional Intelligence Scores with Employee Job Satisfaction (N = 49) Table 5. Prediction of Total Job Satisfaction Based on Selected Variables. Backward Elimination Regression (N = 49) 58 59 60 62 63

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Employee Engagement Factors in Call Center Operations In high turnover industries such as call centers, employers are searching for ways to attract and retain talented individuals who can meet the needs of their customers. A call center is an organization dedicated to the purpose of answering phone inquiries, resolution or problems, order taking/insurance claim receipt, or other elements of customer service (Rath, 2005). The nature of work in a call center usually involves handling a high volume of customer complaints, questions, and/or concerns (Rath, 2005). Additionally, the operating model of a call center controls expenses by focusing on key metrics such as call handle time and wait time of the customer. These metrics require the call center employees to resolve issues as quickly as possible, adding to the stress levels of the job. In order to help offset some of these stressors, of special interest to employers may be the level of Emotional Intelligence (EI) held by the folks who are responsible for managing these employees on the front line. These front line associates often encounter the most direct contact with customers. Due to the customer facing nature of the call center employees role, it is imperative that there is a high level of job satisfaction and engagement that is visible to the customer (Rath, 2005). With this relationship, there is a need to further develop the existing body of research to understand what the impact is of a managers emotional intelligence on employee engagement (Heindel, 2009). The purpose of this research focused on the components of the problem and the intricacies relationships between the variables. Components of the problem include: 1

understanding emotional intelligence in managers (perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions), understanding the components of employee engagement (job satisfaction, engagement, empowerment, and satisfaction with manager), as well as measurements for each. Background & Purpose of the Study In order to better understand how managers EI contributes to the job satisfaction of employees, it is important to understand the makeup of EI. According to Goleman (1995), there are five elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Salovey and Mayer (1990) divide these into four branches that were used for purposes of this study: perceive, use, understand, and manage). Due to the complexity of organizational change and the role emotions play in changes such as global expansion, job eliminations, leadership changes, as well as stressors of day to day responsibilities, the EI of managers and how they manage their associates is an element that leadership needs to consider while moving their organizations forward. Emotional intelligence connects a leaders cognitive abilities with their emotional state (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The ability for a leader to recognize the impact of their own emotions on their decision making is paramount if that leader is to make sound decisions based on the best interests of the organization. Additionally, a leader must be able to read emotions in their peers and employees in order to be as effective as possible. Stogdill (1969) originated this notion with linkages of leader personality and control over emotions to employee perception of leader effectiveness.

High turnover organizations such as call centers have an even more heightened need for management of employee satisfaction (Weiss, 2002). Due to the importance of emotional intelligence in leader effectiveness (Stogdill, 1969), several leadership theories are explored throughout the literature with regard to EI. EI is a common thread linking the Five-factor Personality Model, Contingency Theory, and Situational Leadership Theory. All five personality factors in the Five-factor Model impact a leaders EI. EI also plays a role in connecting Fiedlers (1972) contingency theory, particularly the focus on leader personality to leader effectiveness. Situational Leadership is also greatly impacted by the EI of the leader. External threats, stress, and organizational culture are contributing factors influencing situational leader behavior (Barrow, 1977). As such, EI is an important factor for effective leadership as stressful situations present themselves (Heindel, 2009). Fiedler (1972) described EI as an element of leadership training in the contingency model. He postulated that in order to improve the overall performance of a workgroup, leader behavior had a significant impact. He wrote the two best ways of accomplishing this was to focus on leader motivations (EI) or find the best situation to match to the leaders abilities (Situational Theory). Fiedler went on to describe how training and experience are actually means of changing a situation to best fit the needs of a leader. In order for this to take effect, a leader must possess a high level of emotional intelligence to recognize and support weakness. While the organization can provide the requisite training, it is still the onus of the leader to convert training into knowledge and

action. Fiedler (1972) referred to his contingency theory as the marriage of the motivational, personality concept to the output of the workgroup. Muyia and Kacirek (2009) examined leadership development and how it is impacted by EI. The purpose of Muyia and Kacireks 2009 study was to better understand how EI is impacted by training. Research has produced mixed results and Muyia and Kacirek found no statistically significant differences between pre and post test scores of their research participants. Emotional intelligence abilities contribute to team effectiveness, better decision making, stress tolerance, interpersonal facilitation, and overall performance (Muyia & Kacirek, 2009, p. 705). As a result of these factors, leaders must recognize the importance of emotional intelligence. Statement of the Problem There is an opportunity within the call center operations industry to realize the connection between the five core elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills (Goleman, 1995) and the three elements of employee engagement: job satisfaction, empowerment, and manager satisfaction (Weiss, 2002). Heindel (2009) concluded that there is opportunity for additional research to recognize the critical success factors that impact employee engagement and satisfaction (p. 61). Recognizing this connection may help companies with the attraction and retention of top talent. The conceptual framework outlines the critical components of emotional intelligence and employee engagement referenced above intersecting at the manager/employee relationship. This study aims to provide a blueprint for leaders to 4

develop action plans designed to drive success in their organizations through successfully engaging employees. This study builds upon Heindels (2009) dissertation which addressed four questions relating EI to job satisfaction, employee engagement, empowerment, and manager satisfaction. This study focused on answering four similar questions to understand if there is a link between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. In order to understand this connection, data was collected from managers as well as their employees. Identifiers used to make the connection between the data sets was stripped prior to publication of the data in order to maintain anonymity. Like Heindels (2009) study, this study will be a correlational, quantitative study. The purpose of the study built on Heindels (2009) work and validates the results. Conceptual Framework Talent acquisition and retention are critical issues that are requiring organizations to take a fresh look at how EI may be affecting morale and satisfaction of their employees. In many cases, followers take their cues from the workgroup leader (Bass, 1990, Hui, Chiu, Yu, Cheng, & Tse, 2007). These cues, explicit or otherwise, ultimately affect the outcome of workgroup performance in relation to goals. Going beyond the Situational Theory, leadership behavior and skill set can alter workgroup performance independent of situation. Berlew (1974) described the two-factor managerial model which focuses on a custodial (rudimentary) leadership approach and a managerial (participative) focus.

Followers take their cues from their leadership and sometimes do this unconsciously. Leaders set the tone with their work ethic, urgency, and quality of output. Followers, in turn, follow. A leader must recognize the role of their leadership personality in this process and the subordinate-leader relationship as an impact to the end state (Durand & Nord, 1976). Again, Fiedlers (1972) contingency model supports the entry of leader personality as a critical success factor. The theoretical foundation of EI lies in the work of Bar-On who pioneered the concept of EI as early as 1980 (Heindel, 2009), Salovey and Mayer (1990), and Goleman (1995). Bar-On (1997) viewed EI from a trait perspective. His work examined personal characteristics of individuals and measures EI using his EQ-i model. Salovey and Mayer (1990) viewed EI as an element of an individuals overall intelligence. They measure EI by using the MSCEIT scale. Finally, Golemans (1995) work focused on understanding the specific leadership competencies that impact EI. Goleman uses the emotional competence inventory to measure EI. The theoretical foundation of employee engagement is separated into the three elements: job satisfaction, empowerment, and manager satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been studied by using the two-factor method (Fraser, 1983). The two-factor method compares the perceived cost of doing a particular job to the perceived benefit from the employees perspective. Bass (1990) is a leading thinker regarding employee empowerment in terms of the leader-follower relationship. Bass (1990) research on Transformational Leadership instructs that employee-manager trust is a key driver of employee empowerment. 6

Overview of Constructs Emotional Intelligence The concept of emotional intelligence is a relatively new area of interest within organizations. As organizations are faced with greater challenges as a result of globalization, high competition for talent, and restricted budgets, it is very important that management has a keen understanding of what makes their employees happy and effective in their work. In order to understand individuals at their emotional core, it is helpful to take inventory of the levels of emotional intelligence their employees and managers possess. The definition of EI has changed over time and has even conflicted itself within some studies (Muyia, 2009). The application of contingency theory by Fiedler (1972) and Blanchards (1985) Situational Theory has exemplified this conundrum among researchers. As organizations look to train their leaders on this concept it is imperative that they recognize these changes and update their programs accordingly. Like any concept, training programs must keep pace with the new research that is developed as scholars build on the work of Bar-On, Goleman, and Salovey and Mayer. Employee Engagement There are three components of employee engagement: job satisfaction, empowerment, and manager satisfaction (Weiss, 2002). According to Transformational Leadership theory, employee engagement is an important factor in helping managers understand how to retain employees (Bass, 1990). It follows then, that in high turnover industries such as call centers the need is heightened. As such, it is beneficial for the 7

leadership of firms in these industries to better understand how they can positively impact the engagement of their employees in order to improve retention and potentially lower their expenses associated with acquisition and training as well drive satisfaction with customers as a result of a more tenured and engaged representative contact. Job satisfaction is described by Futrell (1979) in terms of the employees personal feelings of accomplishment, meaningful contribution, and contentment with their job responsibilities. Fraser (1983) defined job satisfaction in terms of the perceived relationship between the value an employee extracts from their work against the effort and mindshare exerted to achieve results. Empowerment focuses on the level of ownership an employee feels over their own work while satisfaction with the manager focuses on the level of satisfaction an employee has with the manager-subordinate relationship (Durand & Nord, 1976). Research Questions In order to understand the impact of managers EI on employee engagement, the following four research questions were asked: 1. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction. 2. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction.

3. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Understand branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. 4. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Manage branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. Emotional intelligence scores for each of the four branches (perceive, use, understand, and manage) are the independent variables for the study. This is measured for managers within the sample by using the MSCEIT test (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The dependent variable for the study is the job satisfaction score as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). This quantitative study focused on understanding any relationship between the managers EI scores for each branch and each of the job satisfaction scores. The sample was taken from a call center of 1000 employees and 108 managers in the insurance industry and represented 5% of employees (49) and 10% of the management team (10). Significance of the Study The gap in the literature surrounds the role of emotions in affecting employee job satisfaction specific to call centers. McKenzie (2010) indicated that managers have a role in eliminating the concerns of employees and creating an atmosphere of communication and inclusion when working through change. The outcome of this study may assist leaders in attracting and retaining the talent necessary to compete within their industry through focusing on the employee engagement factors driven by the managers EI. 9

Additionally, Heindels (2009) work indicates there is an opportunity for further research in understanding the critical success factors relating leader emotional intelligence to employee engagement factors. Definition of Terms Call Center is the organization of individuals who are responsible for fielding the phone calls from customers with inquiries, complaints or other concerns regarding a product or service they have purchased (Rath, 2005). Emotional intelligence is defined by Goleman (1995) as the ability to recognize and control emotions in oneself as well as recognize and interpret emotions in others. Emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) is a measurement of the emotional intelligence of an individual. Similar to the IQ measurement, EQ focuses on emotion rather than intellectual intelligence. Bar-On (1997) developed the Bar-On scale for measuring EI with his EQ-I test. Employee engagement describes the psychology of an employees attitude toward their current situation in their workplace. Macey and Schneider (2008) describes three facets of employee engagement: psychological, behavioral, and trait. Front line manager is the manager level individual responsible for the front line associates who deal directly with customers (Frunzi & Savini, 1997). Front line managers represent the level of management closest to the customer and presumably have the greatest potential impact on customer satisfaction. Job satisfaction is defined by Allen and Wilburn (2002) as a measure of an employees happiness in their current job and future prospects within their role. 10

Additionally, they make the link between an employees job satisfaction and customer satisfaction. The mantra is that a satisfied employee will make a satisfied customer. Assumptions, Limitations, and Bias There were four essential assumptions made in this study. First, it is assumed that the participants surveyed are representative of the population. Second, it is assumed that the emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) is an accurate measure of emotional intelligence. Third, it is assumed that the self-assessment tool is accurate. Finally, there is an assumption that the job satisfaction scores reported are representative of a general sample and not driven by a recent outlier event. Among the limitations of this study is the fact that it is limited only to the call centers, with their high turnover rates which may place generalizability into question for industries with normal or low turnover. Another limitation is that, in general, EQ is a relatively weak measurement (Muyia & Kacirek, 2009). Finally, the results may be impacted by an outlier stress level among those sampled on the day they complete the survey. Biases in either design or outcomes of the study are components that were considered as part of this research. There were three potential areas for bias in this study: researcher, participant, and method bias. Each of these potentials areas were addressed throughout the study. Researcher bias comes in many forms. Boyd and Westfall (1955) found that researcher personality characteristics may bias both the design and results of a study. Bailar, Bailey, and Stevens (1977) found a link between response rates and the 11

researchers attitude toward the subject matter. Singer, Frankel, and Glassman (1983) and Phillips and Dipboye (1989) took the argument a step further through their finding that outcomes often skew toward confirming the researchers initial perspectives and preconceived notions regarding the subject. For this study, each of the above risks for bias was monitored throughout the research process. The second area of concern for biases hat may have impacted the results of the study concerns participants. Building from the potential for researcher personality to affect research outcomes, so too may the participants in the study affect outcomes through their disposition (Phillips & Dipboye, 1989). A second potential for bias concerns the Hawthorne effect which describes a propensity to respond to a survey with answers the participants think appropriate to the content instead of providing an honest assessment (Denova, 1968). Data collection method bias has manifested itself in each of the methods of collecting data. Albaum (1987) found bias in mail surveys although the bias was less obvious that in interviews. Because this survey was conducted via online survey, there is less likelihood of bias manifesting itself in the outcomes (Evans, Garcia, Garcia, & Baron, 2003) but it must be accounted for in analyzing results. Organization of the Remainder of the Study The following chapters review the body of literature on the subject of emotional intelligence. The leading thinkers on the subject are reviewed along with their preferred methods of measurement of the construct. Additionally, an overview of the job

12

satisfaction construct is provided in order to understand both main components of this study. Methodology is also discussed. This study was correlational in nature and reviewed the emotional intelligence measurements of the front line managers in the sample and the correlation of those results to the job satisfaction and employee engagement scores of the line employees in the sample. Chapter 4 describes the results of the study and addresses the research questions that were asked. Outcomes were determined in relation to the samples selected and the relationship, if any between emotional intelligence and the elements of employee engagement. Summary and recommended future studies on the topic complete the study and provide suggested framework for future researchers to continue to build upon this study and the existing body of knowledge.

13

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Emotional Intelligence as a Construct The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has been developed over time as a complimentary intelligence to intellect and social intelligence, among others. The research has evolved over time, and spans mid century work in behavioral science to more recent works focusing specifically on the study of emotional intelligence. From the work or Thorndike (1920) and Weschler (1958) through modern day EI academics such as Goleman (1995), Gardner (1983), Mayer and Salovey (1993), and Bar-On (1997), EI has found its way into the lexicon of academia and business alike. Emotional intelligence is a relatively new measure of intelligence, having really been developed over the last thirty years. Over this time the idea has evolved and has taken on the form of innate abilities, personality traits, emotional and intellectual capabilities, and as a developed ability (Mayer & Salovey, 1990). The evolution of EI as a construct has led to great debate about its place among the previously recognized intelligences. Weschlers (1958) concept of multiple intelligences forms the basis for the idea that EI is not a measure of an element of IQ, but rather an intelligence that can stand on its own, independent of intellect, social intelligence, and other measures of intellectual abilities. Chronology of Theoretical Development The concept of emotional intelligence is often credited as stemming from the work of Thorndike (1920), Wechsler (1958), and (Fancher, 1985). These early thinkers laid the foundation from which emotional intelligence was eventually born. Thorndike 14

(1920) studied social intelligence which he defined as the ability to act rationally and intelligently while managing relationships with others. Weschler (1958) built his theoretical work from the foundation of Thorndikes work and began to separate personal and social intelligence from innate intellectual abilities. This separation eventually led to divergent fields including EI. The early works of Thorndike (1920) and Weschler (1958) provided a foundation for the development of emotional intelligence as an independent intelligence. However, it took many years between their research and the research of Gardner (1983). The evolution from behaviorist psychology to cognitive research in the second half of the 20th century (Hunt, 1993) helped to build a foundation for the study of EI which is both behaviorist and cognitive in nature. This shift in the focus of the psychology field was instrumental in spurring the concept of EI. Perhaps spearheading the emotional intelligence research field was Gardner (1983) whose concept of multiple intelligences implicitly recognized the potential for an emotional state of intelligence. Intelligence had primarily been thought of in terms of intellectual or social intelligence. His theories of personal intelligence including intrapersonal (understanding ones internal feelings) and interpersonal (recognizing the feelings of others) provided a supporting framework for the subsequent research on the concept of EI. Although the term emotional intelligence was not yet a part of the lexicon of academia, Gardners (1983) work was in the space that would eventually be termed emotional intelligence research. Gardner (1983) studied interpersonal and intrapersonal 15

intelligence as they related to the capability to understand emotions, intentions, and motivations in oneself and others. Inter and intrapersonal intelligences combined provide a framework or foundation for Salovey and Mayers (1990) landmark evaluation of emotional intelligence. The field of psychology began to focus on how emotions and thought interact with one another. Bower (1981) and Mayer and Bremer (1985) studied mood and the impact on thought processes. Coupled with the work of Gardner (1983), the 1980s produced significant research in the realm of emotional connection to cognitive processes. The shift in thinking in some parts of the scientific community paved the way for later thinkers such as Mayer and Salovey (1990) to begin publishing articles focused on the concept of emotional intelligence and the term was coined. As leading thinkers in the study of EI, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2004) defined EI as the capacity to recognize, manage, and leverage emotions to improve self and relationship management. The term emotional intelligence was coined by Salovey & Mayer (1990) through their research which stemmed from the efforts of Thorndike, Weschler, Gardner, and others as they formalized the definition of EI. This early definition was limited to the ability to read, understand, and recognize emotions in oneself and others. Later their definition expanded to perceiving and understanding emotions in others as well as managing and harnessing emotions in oneself (Salovey & Grewal, 2005; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). As academic research became more popular in professional and academic journals, author Daniel Goleman took the concept to the masses. His (1995) book 16

Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ brought the concept of EI into popular culture. This mainstream recognition of EI as a leadership competency led to many more research opportunities as well as practitioner applications in institutes of higher education as well as in corporations. Golemans view of EI is a mixed model focused on both ability and personality. His research has led to a perspective that an individual may use EI to their advantage by effectively managing relationships and by increased self-motivation which is related to high levels of EI. Goleman (1995) views EI as a skill that can be honed through learning and practice. Another leading thinker in the study of emotional intelligence is Bar-on (1997). Bar-On (1997) developed a model of EI that focuses on emotional intelligence as a coping mechanism. He describes emotional intelligence as a development of the emotional core that allows an individual to think clearly in the face of emotions and act rationally in relationships and other acts of daily life. Bar-On (2004) further developed the body of knowledge concerning EI through his analysis of the shared elements of emotional and social intelligence. The social side of intelligence makes up half of the four elements of EI. The relationship management and management of other emotions elements of EI have a social component and thus provide synergy with the study of social intelligence. However, not all researchers are convinced the social and emotional intelligence overlap is warranted including Mayer and Salovey (1997) who described EI in ways that separates EI from other aspects of social intelligence such as personality characteristics.

17

Mayer and Salovey (1997) built upon the continuum of the emotional intelligence literature including their own, while recognizing the work particularly of Goleman (1995) and Bar-On (1997) and viewed EI as distinguished from traits and talents. Their focus and expanded definition of EI represents characteristics outside of the realm of the definition of intelligence. This focus, particularly in separating EI from traditional definition of intelligence, may have come in response to a building coalition against the concept of EI being recognized as intelligence at all by some researchers who view the concept as a personality trait more than intelligence similar to intellectual intelligence (Landy, 2005). This backlash in the academic community has been a hurdle for emotional intelligence researchers who continue to build the argument for a separate and distinct form of intelligence represented by EI through various models and schools of thought. Models of Emotional Intelligence As researchers have looked to develop the study of emotional intelligence, the study has branched into three general models. Muyia (2009) attempted to bucket the definitions and models of EI into three categories: ability model, personality model, and a mixed model. The ability model implies that EI is a competency that can be learned, developed and maintain as individuals focus on the elements of the construct of EI. Goleman (1995) is recognized as a leader in the research and positioning of EI as an ability. Golemans studies represent EI as an ability akin to athletic ability that can be trained to become more efficient and effective in any given individual. Other researchers have utilized a personality model to describe and research EI. Bar-On (1997) focused his research on EI as a personality trait. His measure of EI (EQ-i) 18

has been compared to a personality trait assessment (Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). Bar-Ons (2004) argument was that personality plays an important role in how other perceive an individuals emotions or motivations in a social setting. The thinking is that internal emotions and the external manifestation of emotions (perceived as personality) are inextricably linked (Bar-On, 2004). Finally, Mayer et al. (2004) view EI from a mixed model perspective. Perhaps using the best arguments from both Goleman (1995) and Bar-On (2004), Mayer et al. (2004) agree that EI is an innate ability, perhaps part of an individuals personality makeup as well as a skill that can be further developed. They view EI as both a competency that can be developed as well as an innate ability, something that an individual enjoys from birth forward which may be more akin to an example of athleticism whereby an individual may be born with given talents (personality in the case of EI) but has the opportunity to further develop those talents (or allow the talents to whither) which follows the ability models thinking. EI as a Competency That Can Be Developed Goleman (1995) measures EI via the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). Golemans research (Goleman, 2005; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002) supports the notion that EI may be learned and practiced. The ECI is a measurement that allows an individual to self-report elements of EI that ultimately allows the participant to then focus on those areas that may need further development and make an impact to their EI growth. With this in mind, leadership development programs have begun to focus training managers and executives in the elements of emotional intelligence and how to develop 19

their competencies in this area. Goleman et al. (2002) focused particularly on the concept of EI as a critical competency in effective leadership and have been able to link EI competencies to positive employee morale as well as linking EI to improved financial performance of organizations where leaders have practiced and exhibited strong EI competencies. This provides a monetary gain for employers who recognize EI not as an element of personality, but rather a construct that individuals can learn to enhance over time. The ability model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1995, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000a) consists of an accurate understanding of ones own emotions, use of emotions to enhance intellectual intelligence, understanding emotions, and regulation of emotions. The ability model views EI as a competency and is specific about the four main areas of focus to enhance emotional intelligence. These four are presented in a continuum from understanding emotions (and triggers) and regulating or harnessing these emotions to leverage as strengths. Mayer et al. (2000a) described understanding ones own emotions as monitoring internal thoughts and feelings. Understanding emotions in others is viewed as identifying these emotions through physical states, spoken word, and other outward verbal and non-verbal actions others may take during an interaction (Mayer et al., 2000a). The use of emotions to enhance intellectual intelligence is the ability to understand multiple perspectives of intelligence and correlate internal emotions with emotions of others to better understand and react to certain situations (Izard, 2001). The ability to understand emotion recognizes the outcomes of emotions and provides a 20

framework and reference point for future reactions to the same emotions in a given context (Frijda, 1988). The foundation for this is understanding what may trigger an emotion- whether it is positive or negative- in order to act more intelligently upon that emotion, deciding how to best leverage the emotion within the context of the situation. Regulation of emotions is an offshoot of understanding emotion; this is the foundation of the ability model of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Regulation includes the moderation of emotions, judging and acting on the usefulness of a given emotion- i.e. when and where to use anger as an advantage in a situation. This may include displaying angry emotions in situations that require renewed focus from others or when to display eagerness and hopefulness in promoting a positive environment for success. EI as a Personality Trait/Characteristic Emotional intelligence is viewed by some as a personality trait or a characteristic that individuals are born with. Bar-Ons (1997) EQ-i model focuses on measuring items such as resilience and ability to manage stressors as critical components of EI. The traits measured with Bar-Ons model cross into the big five personality factors of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.1). Bar-On recognized personality as a significant component of emotional intelligence in individuals. However, this idea has contributed to some of the major criticisms of EI concerning the grey area between which components of personality constitute true EI and which are simply personality traits. The EQ-i model attempts to separate the difference between the two. 21

The EQ-i model was designed with an eye toward both emotional and social intelligence. Bar-Ons (1997) focus was on how an individual uses an understanding of their emotions and the emotions of others to navigate through social situations. This model aims to measure effectiveness in this endeavor. Viewing EI in this manner (as a characteristic of personality) has lent itself to criticism from academia including from pioneers in the research of EI, Salovey and Mayer (1990) who decried Bar-Ons method as lacking the necessary correlating properties linking emotions to intelligence. Overall, the research recognizes that personality is a component of EI, the differences between research models lies in how big of an impact does personality have on the measure of EI. The question may lie in asking whether personality is the sole component, a contributing component or simply an ancillary characteristic that has no bearing on an individuals level of emotional intelligence. EI as a Distinct Intelligence/ Innate Ability Mayer, DiPaolo, and Saloveys (1990) critique of Bar-Ons take on the EI construct lies at the heart of their model of EI itself. The viewpoint of EI as a distinct intelligence that individuals are prone to hold through innate ability differs significantly from the viewpoint of EI as a personality trait. It is this viewpoint that specifically ties EI to something more similar to intellectual intelligence, a characteristic independent of ones personality, yet something that contributes to an individuals overall being. Mayer et al. (2004) described EI as the ability to perceive, utilize, manage, and understand emotions through self-management and self-awareness. Their four branch model is similar to models advanced by Bradberry and Greaves (2009) and focuses on 22

self-awareness, self-management, relationship management, and social awareness. To link these four branches back to the big five personality factors that are so linked to BarOns model, it is apparent that each of the branches is more inward looking, more reflective then the personality factors which are more expressive in nature. Perhaps this distinction best illustrates the difference between the personality model and the ability model. Bar-Ons (1997) personality model is expressive in nature and focuses on outward expression of emotions, categorizing emotions into areas similar to personality factors. Mayer et al. (2004) focus on the understanding and use of emotions as an internal exercise, something that can be understood and enhanced over time and separate and distinct from personality. The models built by Bar-On (1997), Goleman (1995), and Mayer and Salovey (1997), while different in many ways, are also linked by several components. Bar-On (1997) breaks EI down into interpersonal skills, stress management skills, mood, and adaptability skills (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000b). Goleman (1995) focuses on similar elements of subsystems of personality including: self-motivation, relationships, understanding emotion in oneself, understanding emotion in others, and managing emotions (Mayer et al., 2000b). As Mayer et al. (2000b) reflected on the models of their colleagues, they determined that the focus of emotional and intellectual interactions in their model were most similar to that of Goleman. Their construct of EI is four pronged and concerns perception or emotion, facilitating emotion, understanding emotion, and regulating emotion (Mayer et al., 2000b). These concepts are well-aligned with Golemans (1995) descriptions of the elements of EI. 23

Finally, the view of emotional intelligence is broken into two components, those that satisfy internal needs, and those that are externally focused. Much of the distinction is found in constructs such as perception versus expression of emotion (Mayer et al., 2000b). Expression of emotion can be considered an external element of EI, how one interacts with the outside world. Perception of emotion on the other hand may be considered internally facing. Perception of the emotion in oneself or others focuses on a satisfaction of the internal needs of the individual to better understand the world. Other constructs such as Golemans (1995) recognizing emotion in others and understanding ones own emotions also represent the division between internal and external forces that make up the models of EI. Validity of Emotional Intelligence Understanding the validity of emotional intelligence has proven difficult for researchers for a variety of reasons. Cherniss (2010) outlines the two obstacles to effectively measuring EI. Ever changing and sometimes conflicting definitions and models of EI is the first obstacle. This is played out in the model descriptions above and the varied approaches to modeling EI practiced by the greatest thinkers in this space. Researchers have attempted to mitigate this apparent conflict by clearly stating the definition of EI as it relates to their individual research and acknowledging the model used in their research- ability, personality/trait, or mixed.. However, this has not helped ease concerns within the overall body of work on this concept and there is more work to be done to validate the concept as the body of knowledge deepens.

24

The second concern presented by Cherniss (2010) is the limitations and questionable validity of the measurement instruments for EI. Muyia (2009) attempted to reconcile the validity of the instruments by taking the bucketed models addressed above (ability, personality, and mixed models) to create three approaches to measuring EI: specific ability, integrative model, and mixed model approach. Specific ability conceptualizes EI as developing over time, similar to cognitive intelligence (Muyia, 2009). The integrative and mixed model approaches focus on non-cognitive learning. In each of the models and approaches to measuring EI, there are significant limitations that have not yet been fully mitigated. These include questions such as whether EI can stand on its own as a separate intelligence and whether EI is simply a component of social intelligence. Finally there is concern with the use of self-report measures to understand EI in individuals. Because self-reporting may be influenced by how an individual feels on a given day and not representative of true feelings, EI results may be skewed. Additionally, inherent in self-reporting mechanisms is the skewing of data related to an individuals awareness that their responses are being tracked. As such, responses may be embellished or falsified to meet the percepted expectations of a researcher. The introduction of tactics such as 360 degree feedback help mitigate this risk by triangulating self-reported results with results as reported by third parties who have had interactions with the participants. EI as Standalone Intelligence As the concept of emotional intelligence has grown, a common question is whether EI is strong enough to stand on its own as a separate intelligence. Salovey & 25

Mayer (1990) define EI in terms of cognitive abilities, innate to an individual contributing to rational thought. This set of cognitive abilities is viewed as set apart from established intelligences such as intellect and social intelligence. Due to the specific nature of the elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, relationship management, and the ability to read emotion in others, EI maintains components much different from those associated with other measures of intelligence. Additionally, some argue that EI is not an intelligence at all, rather simply a set of personality traits (Muyia, 2009). Overall, the prevailing viewpoint of the scholars who study EI is that EI is one element of a holistic intelligence within an individual. Emotion and intellect have been linked as early as Thorndike (1920). Its the relationship between the two that constitutes emotional intelligence. Ketelaar and Clore (1997) viewed EI as focused on the functional relationship between emotive and cognitive capabilities. Their viewpoint connects EI to intellect, but in a way that the two are complimentary, indicating that EI must be a separate entity from intellect altogether. This viewpoint supports the notion that EI represents a part of intelligence that combined with cognitive abilities, presents a more rounded individual in terms of competencies and abilities. Is EI Simply an Element of Social Intelligence? Another perspective taken by some scholars is that EI may simply be an element of social intelligence given some of the similar properties between the two. Leading the counter charge to this argument are Mayer et al. (1990). Mayer et al. (1990) describe EI as a combination of two elements that when meshed are more powerful intellectual tools 26

than when standing alone. Similar to the description of the cognitive relationship with EI above, this combination describes social intelligence as a complimentary intelligence to EI. Social intelligence represents the ability of an individual to interact in social settings whereas EI measures a level of awareness an individual has while in social settings or within oneself. The continuum could be described as an individual who holds high emotional intelligence may also, then, demonstrate a high level of social intelligence. Supporting the notion of a complimentary relationship between social and emotional intelligence is the work of Bar-On (2004). He described awareness, expression, understanding, and controlling emotions and their relation to managing change, generating self-motivation, and affecting positive interpersonal relationships as connecting social and emotional intelligence. This connection supports the work of Mayer et al. (1990) in describing the relationship between emotional and social intelligence as complimentary, a continuum of learning rather than EI simply being a component of the umbrella of social intelligence. Can EI Be Measured Accurately? The importance of self-reporting to the measurement of EI has been presented as a significant concern in the literature and has in some cases threatened the validity of EI as intelligence separate from other, more established elements of intelligence. Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) discussed the limitations of self-reporting to include the blurring of emotional intelligence factors with personality assessment. An ongoing struggle with the establishment of EI as an accredited measure of intelligence, the crossover into personality trait assessment has caused problems with validation. 27

The clear connection between personality factors, social interactions, and emotional intelligence factors contributes to the blurring of the lines between each, but researchers in the field, especially Mayer et al. (1990), Goleman (1995), Bar-On (2004) create clear distinctions between the three components. The arguments presented by each author, although differing in model and approach, generally support the notion that each stand on its own, while offering complimentary features. The three elements- personality traits, social intelligence, and emotional intelligence, when combined with intellectual intelligence does not threaten validity, but rather, strengthens validity of the concept of EI (Ryback, 1998). Bias in Emotional Intelligence Research Throughout the work of Mayer and Salovey (1993), Goleman (1995), and Bar-On (1997) the issue of bias has been raised. The primary concern is method bias. Because of the nature of the research that is done to support EI, self-reporting provides the greatest opportunity for bias (Spector, 2006). Spector (2006) focuses primarily on the method bias while using mixed method research favored by Bar-On (1997). The mixed method bias may be mitigated by using an ability based model (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). Golemans (1995) EQ Test was developed as ability model research and thus limits the method bias inherent in EI research. The emotional competence inventory (ECI), a method created by Goleman et al. (2002) utilized 360 degree feedback. However, potential biases exist primarily with regard to how employers perceive employees or impressions (true or false) that others may have for the individual in question. These perceptions may color the research and 28

create biased results. Mitigation for this variable was provided by generating feedback from many individuals in order to filter the biases and provide an accurate picture on an individuals EI. The triangulation created by combining 360 degree feedback with self-reporting helps mitigate mono-method bias. This is created when self reporting mechanisms and results are not supported by anything else. Additionally, inflated results from self reporting (Jackson, Stillman, Burke, & Englert, 2007) may further influence bias in research. Again, this is mitigated by a triangulation approach or by using other methods besides self-reporting to gather information from a respondent. Measures of Emotional Intelligence There are many tools available today to measure EI in individuals. A few will be discussed in more detail below. Many are theoretically sound; some are not but most measure similar components of emotional intelligence to arrive at an Emotional Quotient (EQ) similar to that of IQ. The tools referenced below are those that are found to be most useful for this research. Although each has been criticized by some academics for a variety of reasons, most notably the close link to personality assessments, each is a good barometer of the EI competency of the respondent. The tools reviewed have been developed by some of the leading thinkers in the field of emotional intelligence. Those reviewed are: the EQ test developed by Daniel Goleman (1995), the ECI developed by Goleman and Boyatzis (Sala, 2000), EQ-i developed by Bar-On (1997), the SSEIT created by Schutte et al. (1998), and MSCEIT crafted by Mayer et al. (2002).

29

EQ Test Developed by Daniel Goleman (1995), the EQ Test, like most other measures of EI, is a self-report test. This test focuses on the use of ones own emotions and the emotions of others. The test is administered as a scenario analysis where respondents are asked to choose alternative actions to ten scenarios. Because Golemans stance is that EI is a competency that can be developed, it is assumed that respondents may improve their results on subsequent tests as they work to hone their competencies. As with other EI tests, academics have questioned the validity of the tool, primarily due to the self-report nature of the test. The EQ test differs from the other measures discussed because of the use of scenarios. The scenarios allow the respondent to put themselves in a situation and respond according to how they would react. This response over a series of vignettes allows the test to yield a score for EQ (emotional quotient) which is used as an output of emotional intelligence rated on a scale similar to IQ. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) (Sala, 2000) links personality to performance. The ECI builds on Golemans (1995) previous work as well as that of Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002). While this measure is also a self-reporting tool, it also leverages 360 degree feedback and thus includes measurables based on the perceptions of EI competencies from others. This triangular approach strengthens the models, although there are still validity gaps due to the subjective nature of both internal and external feedback mechanisms. 30

The ECI differs from the other tools primarily with its use of the 360 degree feedback. In this sense, the validity questions regarding self-reporting are somewhat mitigated by taking into account the perceptions of others. Useful participants in 360 degree feedback usually include family members, peer level coworkers, subordinate as well as managers of the respondents. The use of 360 degree feedback (Sala, 2000) strengthens the potential weakness of self-reporting mechanisms, however, there are risks concerning the size of the gap between outside perception and internal perception of ones level of EI. There is risk that the size of the gap may deter from the validity of the results of the survey. It is for this reason that outliers may be pulled from consideration when analyzing the results. EQ-i Bar-Ons (1997) EQ-i model is a 133 item assessment. The tool is a mixed model assessment (traits and abilities) measuring interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood of the respondents. Validity studies are concerned with the disconnect from traditional intellectual intelligence tests which pushes emotional intelligence out as a less valid component of overall intelligence (Bar-On, 2004). Much research exists that generally considers mixed model approaches to EI as invalid in one form or another due to the over-reliance on self-reporting (Brown and Moshavi, 2005). Roberts, Zeidner, and Matthews (2001) took a critical eye of the EQ-i tool as a measurement of EI intimating that this measurement is over reliant on the individuals self-awareness to measure their full range of EI. Thus, as with many EI measurements, 31

the hurdle remains that as self-reporting measures, these tools are not as scientific in nature as measurements for other realms of intelligence such as IQ. The EQ-i differs from other tests in its focus on traits in addition to abilities. BarOn (1997) recognized two components of EI which include personality and traits and thus tailored his measurement tool to account for both. His research supports the notion that truly developed EI is represented on both fronts. SSEIT The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT) (Schutte et al., 1998) was designed to be a tool which is simple to administer and interpret as a means to measure EI. Schutte et al. (1998) designed the SSEIT based on the theoretical and practical work of Salovey and Mayer (1990). Salovey and Mayer (1990) described four elements of EI. They included: recognizing emotions in oneself, expression of emotion, emotional regulation, and leveraging emotions to solve problems, each of which are accounted for within the development of the SSEIT tool. Schutte et al. (1998) focused on taking a deeper viewpoint of the respondent within each of the elements of EI in order to provide a holistic overview of the measurement of emotional intelligence in the individual. The SSEIT shares weaknesses of the other tests with regard to self-reporting. However, this tool differentiates itself from the other measurement instruments by focusing on four specific components of EI. The continuum from emotional recognition and expression (internal) to regulation and emotional leverage (external) allows for a full spectrum analysis of EI in the individual. 32

MSCEIT The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is a 141 item assessment tool that assesses the ability based model of EI (Mayer et al., 2002). MSCEIT focuses on the ability of the individual to recognize and react to emotions generated within vignettes and viewed in illustrations of facial characteristics. Support for this test academically comes from the realization that the ability model avoids some of the pitfalls associated with emotional intelligence tests that seemingly cross over too far into the realm of personality assessments (Brackett & Mayer, 2001). Additionally, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004) correlate MSCEIT results with general intelligence tests, further supporting the validity to this tool. This tool differs from others in its use of the visual clues of emotions in others. An important element of EI is recognizes emotions not only in oneself, but in others. One of the most useful ways to accomplish this is by having the skill (ability) to read underlying emotions through facial expression. The MSCEIT allows the respondent to try their skill in this regard to compliment the rest of the survey outcomes to gain a rounded understanding of the individuals EI. The MSCEIT was the tool used to measure manager EI for this research. The variety of the construction of the questions, including visuals provided a unique perspective into the EI of the managers that were studied. Additionally, the use of the ability model provides for an appropriate framework in understanding the abilities of managers to develop and display emotional intelligence in the workplace and did not limit the results or influence the results of this study by illuminating personality factors 33

that contribute either to the self-reporting of results or the perceptions of EI in the managers that were studied. Employee Satisfaction as a Construct Goleman et al. (2002) found that the level of a leaders EI is correlated to the positive mood of their employees which then leads to higher revenues through improved customer satisfaction scores, particularly in service industries. In linking EI to their concept of primal leadership, Goleman et al. (2002) found that employees who work for a leader that is actively working on their EI competencies will be positively impacted and thus perform more strongly and experience an increase in their own satisfaction at work. The importance of EI as a leadership competency has been described as executive intelligence (Ryback, 1998). Executive intelligence includes EI as a significant contributor to the ability of a leader to relate to his organization, make more informed decisions, and increase the output as well as loyalty of the employees in the organization. The executive intelligence concept contemplates EI as driving employee satisfaction with a correlation to bottom line results and thus Ryback (1998) has been able to formulate a business case for EI. However, there are limitations to the connection between EI and effective leadership (Cherniss, 2010). Muyia and Kacirek (2009) found Cherniss (2010) concerns around the linkages of EI to leadership to be true as they worked through their research and determined EI had little, if any impact on a leaders job performance. Cherniss (2010) reiterated the importance of the situational factors as much as the EI factors in

34

determining outcome in a given situation. Situational theory supports this notion, with EI being just another element that may embellish a situation. It can be surmised that EI is simply one of many contributing factors within a given situation that allows for successful governorship. However, Ryback (1998) asserts that any situation, given a dose of EI from the leadership post will yield better results than those situations absent of any element of strong EI represented from leadership. Followers within an organization look to leaders for guidance not only in day to day responsibilities but also in how to react to a crises or otherwise negative situation. Ryback (1998) researched the connection a leader who is strong in his EI competencies and the reactions of employees and thus influences the outcome of such an event. Employee satisfaction represents a condition of feeling about ones positive or negative work environment, inclusive of relationships, culture, and physical environment (Fraser, 1983). The EI of management and coworkers can contribute to the overall experience of an employee and influence how they rate their own satisfaction on the job (Goleman et al., 2002). Again, the leader sets the tone emotionally and a leader strong in his own EI will influence others, implicitly or explicitly, to develop their own emotional intelligence and thus react to situations with more control. A feeling of control emotional may also contribute to a higher satisfaction on the job (Ryback, 1998). Employee satisfaction has followed theoretical models such as the two-factor theory (Fraser, 1983) and Stamps and Piedmontes (1986) model consisting of five viewpoints. Frasers model looks at both the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of an employee on the job. These factors are modeled from the employees perspective and are 35

related to the level of motivation and ownership (engagement) in ones job responsibilities with a correlation to levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Stamps and Piedmonte (1986) explored employee satisfaction more broadly in their five factors. They view satisfaction as a conglomeration of: personal fulfillment, views of expectations gap, impact of their work output, relative contribution, and Frasers two-factor model. These five viewpoints encompass each of the factors that may influence an employees view of their job but what is not explicitly outlined is the impact of leadership EI as a construct of employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction, like emotional intelligence relies heavily on self-reporting as a measure of the levels of satisfaction in the individual. The results of any given survey may be influenced by the particular feelings at the time of the survey. Therefore, there is risk inherent ion a heavy reliance on self-report measures to definitely entertain results of any given survey. However, it is the entirety of the body of research on employee engagement and job satisfaction that normalizes for any gaps or deficiencies in any given study. Methodologies in Existing Research in Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence has been studied primarily using variations quantitative research. Because emotional intelligence is recognized by some researchers as a hard intelligence similar to IQ, and the mainstream measures of EI are survey based (ie MSCEIT, EQ-I, etc), it is appropriate that the quantitative methods of research are applied (Mayer & Salovey, 1990). Four such studies are explored to better understand some of the common methodologies employed by researchers seeking better understand 36

EI and the relation to various variables. The relevance to this study is that the study is quantitative in nature and the methodology is similar to that of the existing body of work in the field. Day and Carroll (2008) sought to further understand a perceived gap in the emotional intelligence research that deals with the limitations of self-reporting to measuring EI. Their study was quantitative and measured the same sample taking both Bar-Ons (1997) EQ-I test and the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2004) in two separate sessions to determine if either was more susceptible to participant misrepresentation. Their method measured results of the same sample separated by two weeks. The sample was set in two separate functions each week. In week one they were set in an applicant situation where the participant was responding to the test based on their applying for a job. The second scenario placed the sample participants in a different scenario as a non-applicant, they simply instructed to complete the test as participants in a research study. Participants were asked to complete both the MSCEIT and EQ-I tests in each session (Day & Carroll, 2008). To understand the results of their study, Day and Carroll (2008) used descriptive statistics to determine the correlation between the applicant and non-applicant results of the two instruments. The correlation was stronger and negatively positioned for the EQ-I test. Reported measures t-tests were used to analyze this data. Chi-square analysis was used as part of a control dataset taking all of the test results and treating them as if they were all results from different applicants versus duplicate results for each member of the sample. The results of the Chi-square found the proportion of different responses 37

(indicated distorted responses) can from the EQ-I dataset whereas MSCEIT results were generally constant (Day & Carroll, 2008). The outcome of their research determined that the EQ-I test was more susceptible to distortion when compared to the MSCEIT (Day & Carroll, 2008). This is relevant to this study because the mechanism for measuring EI in the sample selected is the MSCEIT. Because Day and Carroll (2008) have supported the notion that, although still somewhat limited by the nature of self-report testing, MSCEIT limits participant distortion due to the nature and construct of the instrument. Another study on EI was performed by Rahim and Malik (2010). Their study was presented as a case study designed to better understand the effect of demographics on EI. In particular there was a focus on age, educational, and gender differences. Surveys and questionnaires were used to collect data. Because this was not a correlational study, but rather a study of independent variables, the independent sample t-test was used to understand gender differences in measure of EI. Their results showed that there was a difference and that the women in the sample showed higher EI measurements than the men in the sample. Regression analysis was used for all variables and the finding was that demographic variables or level of education and gender were found to have a positive relationship with EI. Coefficient of determination was used to determine variation in the results (Rahim & Malik, 2010). Variation was found to be minimal and supported the quality of the control group.

38

With regard to the relationship between age and EI, the mean responses were almost identical throughout the distribution of the age brackets. Using a 5-point Likert scale, each of the age brackets mean results was in the 3.8 range with a significant drop off of 2.8 over the age of 41. The authors postulate that this decline is a result of the experiences over the career of someone in this age bracket as well as the level of responsibility differences as the sample study progressed through their career (Rahim & Malik, 2010). Rode et al. (2007) used the MSCEIT to test the effect of the model on individual performance. This study considered four hypotheses: Emotional intelligence is positively related to interpersonal effectiveness (Rode et al., 2007, p. 402), Emotional intelligence is positively related to academic performance (Rode et al., 2007, p. 403), conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal effectiveness, such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal effectiveness is stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness (Rode et al., 2007, p. 404), and Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance, such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance is stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness (Rode et al., 2007, p. 404). Each hypothesis was tested for direct and indirect effects using descriptive statistics for analysis. Their findings supported weak correlation between EI and group behavior effectiveness, public speaking, and GPA of the participants. The correlation factors were 39

r = .17, .15, and .16 respectively. These findings failed to support the notion that EI is most correlated with acts of two way communication, whereas public speaking and GPA are relatively solitary acts where it may be expected the EI has weak correlation. The authors were surprised by the low correlation between EI and group behavior effectiveness but postulated that this may have been due to the artificial environment within which group behavior was moderated compared to the real world environment within which GPA was collected (Rode et al., 2007). A fourth study on EI sought to understand the relationship between EI and social intelligence variables. Morand (2001) used the construct validity of facial recognition to measure against measures of social intelligence including personality type, empathy, and leader consideration. Morand (2001) used validated testing instruments to measure the social intelligence measures and a facial recognition tool to correlate results. The test was administered to MBA students with a sample size of 41. The study found the average correlation between facial emotion recognition and empathy (.33) and personality type (.36) both using a one tail test. Leader consideration on the other hand was determined to not have a significant correlation to the facial recognition test results (.20). The author concluded that the weak correlation of leader consideration was related to weakness in the study design related to this measurement (Morand, 2001). Similar to other studies, Morand (2001) found that females scored higher than males in facial recognition. He used descriptive statistics (t-test) to come to this

40

conclusion. The use of descriptive statistics in understanding elements of EI using various measures to test is common within the research on this construct. The quantitative nature of the studies reviewed here as well as the tools used in testing EI helped shape the construct of the present study. The importance of the use of an ability based model influenced the decision to use the MSCEIT test for EI. The studies reviewed are primarily correlational studies seeking to understand correlation between measures of EI and various elements of social intelligence, demographics, and other indicators. This study took a similar approach and attempted to better understand the correlation between the emotional intelligence specific to front line managers with the employee engagement factors of employees. In that regard, this study takes a similar approach as the studies reviewed here to build on the existing body of knowledge in the realm of emotional intelligence. Methodologies in Existing Research in Employee Engagement In a study focused on understanding the relationship between dysfunctional leaders and employee engagement, Leary (2010) used the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) (Hogan & Hogan, 2009) and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (WES) to measure employee engagement. The HDS is a self-report mechanism tracking three different categories of employee engagement: moving away, moving against, and moving toward engagement (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). The internal consistency reliability coefficients is .67. Standard deviation ratio is .84/.98 indicating reliability of the instrument (Leary, 2010). The use of the self-report mechanism HDS is consistent with the use of the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) which was used in this study. Both HDS and 41

JSS are self-report mechanisms that measure various elements of employee engagement. In order to understand empowerment, engagement, job satisfaction, and manager satisfaction. HDS is a 168- item test and is thus longer than the JSS. The brevity of the JSS tool was the main driver for the choice for this study over other tools such as HDS and WES. The WES measures employee engagement on three scales: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The internal consistency measure for the WES is in excess of .70 for all three criterion. This indicates strong internal consistency and thus promotes WES as a useful tool in understanding employee engagement (Leary, 2010). To analyze the data collected via WES and HDS, Leary (2010) used multiple regression analysis and ANOVA. One key finding of Learys (2010) research was the negative correlation between dysfunctional employee disposition and employee engagement. Although this study compared the disposition and employee engagement levels of the same individual, it is relevant to the present study that compared the disposition (emotional intelligence) of managers with the employee engagement levels of employees. In another study focused on personality and employee engagement, Wildermuth (2008) used the five factor model and Job Engagement Survey (JES) (Rich, 2006) to measure personality and employee engagement. Similar to Learys (2010) study, Wildermuth (2008) used an email survey to collect data using these instruments. Wildermuth (2008) found that extraversion was highly correlated to engagement levels. Because emotional intelligence contains elements of personality, the present study concerns an element of comparison between personality and engagement. Wildermuths 42

(2008) provides a framework for this understanding. Like the present study, Wildermuth (2008) contributed to the further development and validation of the tools that were used. The collection of data using an individual tool contributes to the overall body of knowledge produced by that tool. The JES (Rich, 2006) is an 18-item survey. Similar to the JSS tool that was used in the present study, the completion of the survey can be done by participants in 5-10 minutes. Thus participation was increased as a result. Rich (2006) measured validity of the tool in a comparison with Schaufeli and Bakkers (2004) test UWES. Rich (2006) found the two to be strongly correlated. Wildermuth (2008) asked four questions in the study each focused on the strength and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between: personality factors and employee engagement, differences in employee engagement across each organization, differences within demographics, and how best to determine predictability of engagement using personality test scores. T-tests, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analysis, and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. Wildermuths (2008) findings indicated a strong relationship between extraversion and engagement and indicated that personality factors can be strong predictors of engagement. The employee engagement studies referenced provide a framework for how to approach future employee engagement studies. In conjunction with the review of emotional intelligence studies, the research describes the importance and effectiveness of the quantitative approach to correlation of these concepts. Additionally, the examples of research provide additional insight into the various tools available to research and 43

understand elements of EI and job satisfaction. The present study contributes further to the existing body of research in both areas of study. Chapter Summary There is significant research available in the realm of both emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. These constructs have been studied separately as well as together to understand correlation. There are many tools available to measure these elements in individuals, however most rely on self-reporting. There have been steps to mitigate the relative weaknesses in self-reporting such as the use of 360 degree feedback, but there remains the concern around the necessity for an individual to be the expert in expressing how they feel as an individual. The research reviewed has shown correlation between emotional intelligence and other factors such as demographics, employee or workgroup performance, and job satisfaction. Additionally, it has been shown that there are changes in EI over time in studies of the same sample separated by time and circumstance. Research in the field of job satisfaction has shown correlation with manager dysfunction, behavior, and personality.

44

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship, if any, between manager emotional intelligence and job satisfaction of employees within call center operations. This study was similar to the work done by Heindel (2009) which addressed four questions regarding the relationship between manager EI and employee engagement which were job satisfaction, employee engagement, empowerment, and manager satisfaction. The study examined the existing body of academic knowledge on the subject of the managers impact on the overall engagement of employees through their own mastery or absence of emotional intelligence. Additionally, this study sought to further understand the work of Heindel (2009) which called for additional research opportunities in identifying the critical success factors (p. 61) related to manager EI and contributing to the overall job satisfaction. Kouzes and Posner (2002) found that EI was the central factor in developing and maintaining effective leadership. The purpose of this study attempted to verify Kouzes and Posners (2002) perspective relative to job satisfaction. Due to the stated importance of EI in driving productivity (Goleman et al., 2002), EI should be a consideration in the leader selection process (Bailie & Ekermans, 2006). This study attempted to bolster existing claims of this correlation. The present study was a correlational study comparing the emotional intelligence scores of the sample of front-line managers selected from the overall population at the call center chosen for the study. These results were used in conjunction with the job 45

satisfaction scores of the sample employee group selected from the population of employees at the same call center. These two groups of results were compared using Spearmans Rho correlation and descriptive statistics to determine outcomes in relation to the four research questions asked. This chapter addresses research design, sample selection, research questions, the instruments used in the collection of data, the method of data collection, data analysis, and expected findings of the study. Research Design This study was designed as a quantitative study to understand if there is a relationship between the emotional intelligence of front line managers and the job satisfaction of their employees. This quantitative study was conducted using the MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The MSCEIT utilizes the ability based model of EI (Mayer et al., 2002). MSCEIT was chosen based on the academic support for the tool particularly in recognizing that this tool focuses strictly on abilities and competencies and filters out the personality assessment or influence that will be deemed prevalent in some other widely accepted tools to measure EI (Brackett & Mayer, 2001). The MSCEIT is also adept at measuring not only the self-awareness of EI but also the ability to read emotional cues in others which is another critical component of EI. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Spector, 1985) was used to measure job satisfaction of the call center employees. The JSS is a 36 question survey that was distributed via email. The survey measures employees on nine scales: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature 46

of work, and communication (Spector, 1985). The JSS is a tool that has been validated independently and yields statistically viable outcomes. The results of the employees JSS surveys were used in conjunction by the results of the managers EQ measurement obtained via the MSCEIT. Design Strengths Because the tools used can be distributed electronically via email, the reach of the study was extended widely. Additionally, this mechanism allowed for a quick distribution of the materials to participants. The validity of the tools used to measure both EI and job satisfaction also strengthened this study. The use of the MSCEIT for EI reduces the possibility of personality factors to influence the measurements of EI in this study. Design Limitations This study was limited to call center employees at one firm. Its possible that the results are not indicative of call centers in general. Thus generalizability of the study may be threatened. While not necessarily a limitation, one area for improvement may be use of a mixed method study that delves deeper into the underlying reasons via interviews that supported or disproved this studys conclusions. Sample The sample was taken from a call center of 1000 employees and 108 managers in the insurance industry and represented 5% of employees (49) and 10% of the management team (10). The manager sample was chosen by random sampling and was based on availability of participants to the researcher. The first step to achieve random sampling was to identify the manager sample. 47

Criteria for inclusion in the employee sample required that potential participants were full time employees of the organization and had a reporting relationship with one of the managers in the manager sample. Criteria for inclusion in the manager sample required that the manager was a full time employee of the organization, listed managerial responsibilities as the primary job of the individual, and that the manager had a reporting relationship with at least one of the employees in the employee sample. In order to achieve this criterion, probability sampling was used. Random sampling allows the researcher to divide the overall population into subgroups (Trochim, 2006). These sub-groups were selected by a random sampling of the managers to create the manager sample. From there, random samples of the employee population based on the employees who work for the managers selected for the study were chosen. This sampling method allowed the researcher to maintain control over which participants were selected in order to meet the criteria outlined above. To ensure that the managers and employees who complete the survey were linked, there were identifiers created as part of each study. The first set of data obtained was the MSCEIT responses from the manager population. Once responses were collected the employees associated with those managers were surveyed. Any manager who did not have an employee respond to the JSS had his/her results discarded. Once the data was linked using the identifiers, the identifiers were stripped, ensuring that anonymity is upheld.

48

Research Question and Hypothesis In order to understand the impact of managers EI on job satisfaction, the general question for the study was whether the measure of a managers emotional intelligence has an effect on job satisfaction. The level of significance used was .05. The following four research questions were asked: 1. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction. 2. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. 3. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Understand branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. 4. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Manage branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. Instruments There were two instruments used for this study. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) developed by Mayer et al. (2004) was used to measure the EI in the managers in the sample. The Job Satisfaction Survey developed by Spector (1985) was used to measure job satisfaction in employees. 49

The four branches of emotional intelligence as defined by Salovey and Mayer (1990) were the independent variables for the study (perceive, use, understand, and manage). This was measured for managers within the sample by using the MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The MSCEIT is also adept at measuring not only the self-awareness of EI but also the ability to read emotional cues in others which is another critical component of EI. Reliability for the MSCEIT is r = .93 using the general consensus scoring method (Mayer et al., 2004). The four branches of the MSCEIT test all indicate strong reliability. For the perceiving emotion branch, r = .91; facilitating emotion branch, r = .79; understanding emotion branch, r = .80; and the managing emotion branch r = .83 all using the general consensus scoring method (Mayer et al., 2004). The general consensus scoring method is one of two scoring methods used to analyze and report MSCEIT results. The general consensus scoring is derived from the consensus of thousands of individuals on which answers to each question constitute good versus bad responses (Mayer et al., 2004). The expert scoring system is more similar to IQ and is based on the responses of a smaller number of experts in emotions (Mayer et al., 2004). The general scoring method was used for this study. Caruso and Salovey (2004) discussed the importance of an ability-based model for measuring emotional intelligence. The MSCEIT is an ability-based scoring system to measure EI. Using consensus scoring took into account the abilities of managers in the realm of their emotions as compared to the group norms determined by the consensus. Caruso and Salovey (2004) extol the virtues of the ability-based model primarily because 50

it removes personality from the equation. Using MSCEIT for this study allowed for a more accurate portrait of the emotional competencies of the managers while ignoring personality factors that may otherwise influence their emotional intelligence quotient. The dependent variable for the study was the job satisfaction measurements of employees. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Spector, 1985) was used to measure job satisfaction of the call center employees. The survey measures employees on nine scales: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of work, and communication (Spector, 1985). Overall reliability of the JSS is = .91. The internal consistency reliabilities for the nine components of the JSS are as follows: pay, = .75; promotion, = .73; supervision, = .82; fringe benefits, = .73; contingent rewards, = .76; operating procedures, = .62; coworkers, = .60; nature of work, = .78; and communication, = .71 (Spector, 1985). Similar to the MSCEIT, the JSS scores may be interpreted in one of two ways. First, the normative approach compares the results of the conducted survey to a database of norm scores maintained by Spector (1994). The normative scoring allows the researcher to compare the results of their selected sample against similar samples of norms. Spector (1994) acknowledged the limitation of the approach which concerns the small sample size used to calculate the norms. The absolute scoring system was approached differently and takes a logical approach to scoring, equating negative satisfaction with negative-worded responses and positive satisfaction for positively worded responses. Because the JSS uses a 6-point

51

scale, results 1-3 can be considered low job satisfaction while scores 4 and higher could be considered high job satisfaction (Spector, 1994). The job satisfaction survey instrument was made available by Spector at no cost to the researcher because the researcher did not receive a payment for the outcome of the research (ie for consulting purposes). As the owner and creator of the tool, Spector requires that the researcher share the results with him in lieu of a fee. The results are used to build out the norms he maintains for normative scoring (Spector, 1994). Thus the normative model is under constant revision and maintains regular updates. These tools were chosen among many options based on their academic validity as well as their ease of distribution. JSS was also chosen because of its availability as a free tool. Each study produced data relevant to the purpose of this study and consistent with other similar studies. Data Collection Procedures The steps for conducting this research began with the researcher first identifying the sample and communicating with the management team asking for permission to conduct the survey within their organization. Once permission was granted, emails were sent to the manager participants inviting them to participate. The invitation included a consent form. The employee sample was then chosen based on the respondents for the manager survey. Managers were made aware that their employees would be taking the JSS. Employees were then invited to participate with an invitation similar to the managers which included a consent form. Employees were made aware that their manager had completed the MSCEIT survey. There was one follow-up email to the 52

participants as reminders to complete the survey. The JSS survey was conducted using the Survey Monkey electronic survey distribution service. The MSCEIT test was conducted using the MHS distribution. Distribution of the surveys occurred via email. Participants were not offered an incentive to participate in the survey. They were guaranteed anonymity. Anonymity was assured despite the identifiers that enabled linkages between manager and employee. To facilitate this, the researcher purged any identifiers after the linkages were made between employee and manager for purposes of answering the research questions. It is noted that the aggregate results of the study was shared with the management team as a means for them to use the study results to improve team performance. Individual results were not made available. Additionally, the results of the JSS survey were communicated to the owner of the tool as part of the usage agreement. Participants were made aware of both of these arrangements prior to their participation. Finally, data was coded in such a way as to produce interval data. This data was then collected from the results of the surveys which facilitated analysis of the data for the study. For each survey, the identifiers that linked employees to their managers was stripped from the data once the two were linked. The JSS survey included interval data as the Likert scale wass used. For the MSCEIT, the data was also interval data as the scores were based on an interval scale from 0-130. Data Analysis There were two stages to the data analysis phase of the study. The first phase was an analysis of the JSS results and a separate analysis of the MSCEIT results. The second 53

stage was to aggregate the employee satisfaction results and the manager EI results in order to complete analysis of the potential relationship between the variables. The variables were then linked by identifiers which linked employees to their managers. This data is only known to the researcher and was presented with anonymity here in the published dissertation. These identifiers were then purged by the researcher. The first stage data analysis was performed using non-parametric tests from the two-group sample. Spearman Rho correlation was utilized to determine whether there was a relationship between managers EI and employees job satisfaction by first completing analysis of the JSS and MSCEIT surveys. Tools used for analysis were SPSS statistical software as well as Microsoft Excel. Correlation coefficients and other descriptive statistics were used to understand the results of each of the research questions and determined whether there was a relationship between the measured manager EI scores and the job satisfaction results of employees. For data collected via the MSCEIT survey, the analysis focused on the branch scores (four for each participant- one for each branch) as well as the overall EI score. For the JSS survey, the analysis focused on the results of each of the nine elements of the survey. Descriptive statistics were calculated using a cross section data provided, between managers and their employees. The second data analysis analyzed the engagement results for employees who work for each of the managers in the study. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the results with each of the four branches of EI. In order to determine if there was a relationship between the job satisfaction and the four branches of EI, the Beta was 54

tested for each independent variable. Additionally, Spearman Rho correlation coefficients were used to report the correlation of the subscales. The use of Spearman Rho, descriptive statistics, and multiple regression analysis, allowed the researcher to respond effectively to the research questions and made efficient use of the data explored. There was an expected outcome for each of the research questions that were asked. Expected Findings For each of the four research questions asked, there was an anticipated outcome for the study. For the first research question: Describe the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction, the expected finding was that there is a relationship and that job satisfaction increases with an increase in EI. This expectation was grounded in research that has made a correlation between high emotional quotient (EQ) and increased levels of job satisfaction (Goleman, 1995) in general, so it was expected that elements of engagement had the same relationship. The second research question asked to describe the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction. The expected finding here, too, were that there was a positive relationship between the two variables and that as leaders EQ advances, so does the level of job satisfaction. For the third and fourth research questions, the same logic applied. The expected findings were that there was a positive relationship between managers EQ with regard to Understand and Manage and job satisfaction. 55

It was expected that there would be variances in the levels of EQ from manager to manager, however the expectation was that the study would reveal that overall, regardless of the manager of a given sample of employees, there was a statistically similar relationship between the variables.

56

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of this study was to examine if there was a link between emotional intelligence measures of call center managers and job satisfaction with call center employees. A total of ten call center managers participated in this study by completing the MSCEIT test to measure their emotional intelligence. A total of 49 call center employees (each of whom had a reporting relationship with one of the ten managers) participated by completing the Job Satisfaction Survey. The studys aim was to understand if there was a relationship between the managers scores for each of the MSCEIT four branches of emotional intelligence: perceive, use, understand, and manage and the job satisfaction measurements of their employees. In order to understand the impact of managers EI on employee engagement, the following four research questions are asked: 1. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction. 2. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. 3. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Understand branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. 57

4. What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Manage branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. Table 1 displays the frequency counts for selected variables. The employee sample was made up of 17 males (34.7%) and 32 females (65.3%). There were four males and six females in the manager sample. The gender of the employees manager was 25 males (51.0%) and 24 females (49.0%). The ages of the manager sample ranged from 31 to 58 years old with a mean age of 44.84 (SD = 5.58) (Table 1). Table 1. Frequency Counts for Selected Variables (N = 49) Variable Staff member Gender Male Female Gender of Employees Manager Male Female Age of Employees Manager a 31 40 44 46 47 52 58 n %

17 32

34.7 65.3

25 24

51.0 49.0

4 6 9 10 15 3 2

8.2 12.2 18.4 20.4 30.6 6.1 4.1

Managers Gender (n =10) Male Female

Note. a Age: M = 44.84, SD = 5.58.

4 6

41.0 60.0

58

Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for selected variables with a sample of 49 which represented the manager results for each employee in the sample. The job satisfaction scores ranged from 2.56 to 5.64 on a 6-point Likert scale with a mean score of 4.19 (SD = 0.76). Overall MSCEIT scores ranged from 72.62 to 112.57 (M = 94.34, SD = 8.83). Table 2 also contains the means for the four emotional intelligence branch scores (Table 2). Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables (N = 49) Variable Managers age a Total Job Satisfaction Branch 1: Perceiving Emotions Branch 2: Using Emotions Branch 3: Understanding Emotions Branch 4: Managing Emotions Overall Emotional Intelligence M SD Low High

44.84 4.19 89.77 98.25 97.35 97.83 94.34

5.58 0.76 11.94 7.10 3.62 9.34 8.83

31.00 2.56 60.88 75.81 89.72 86.34 72.62

58.00 5.64 112.50 111.22 104.13 111.27 112.57

Note. a Managers age was based on a weighted average for the age of the manager that each of the 49 employees had. As an example, if seven respondents reported to the same manager, then that managers age was counted seven times in calculating the mean age.

Table 3 displays descriptive statistics for selected variables for the sample of ten managers. The managers age ranged from 31 to 58 years old (M = 46.00, SD = 7.35). Overall MSCEIT scores ranged from 72.62 to 112.57 (M = 94.43, SD = 11.02). Table 3 also contains the means for the four emotional intelligence branch scores (Table 3).

59

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables (n = 10) Variable Managers age a Branch 1: Perceiving Emotions Branch 2: Using Emotions Branch 3: Understanding Emotions Branch 4: Managing Emotions Overall Emotional Intelligence M 46 88.22 97.30 97.29 99.99 94.43 SD 7.35 14.71 9.61 4.47 9.42 11.02 Low 31.00 60.88 75.81 89.72 86.34 72.62 High 58.00 112.50 111.22 104.13 111.27 112.57

Note. a Managers age was the simple arithmetic mean for the ten managers that participated in this study.

The results of the four research questions are as follows: Research Question 1 What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction? Research question 1 predicted that, there is a relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Perceive branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's job satisfaction. To test this, Table 4 displays the Spearman Rho correlation for the total employee job satisfaction with the managers perceive branch score, rs = .06, p = .70. The correlation was not significant and therefore there is no relationship between the variables. Research Question 2 What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction? 60

Research question 2 predicted that there is a relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Use branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. To test this, Table 4 displays the Spearman Rho correlation for the total employee job satisfaction with the managers use branch score, rs = .10, p = .48. The correlation was not significant and therefore there is no relationship between the variables. Research Question 3 What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Understand branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction? Research question 3 predicted that, there is a relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Understand branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. To test this, Table 4 displays the Spearman Rho correlation for the total employee job satisfaction with the managers understand branch score, rs = .10, p = .48. The correlation was not significant and therefore there is no relationship between the variables. Research Question 4 What is the relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Manage branch of MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction? Research question 4 predicted that, there is a relationship between a leader's emotional intelligence quotient (EI) score for the Manage branch of 61

MSCEIT and their direct report's level of job satisfaction. To test this, Table 4 displays the Spearman Rho correlation for the total employee job satisfaction with the managers manage branch score, rs = -.07, p = .62. The correlation was not significant and therefore there is no relationship between the variables. Table 4. Spearman Correlations for Selected Emotional Intelligence Scores with Employee Job Satisfaction (N = 49) Variable Branch 1: Perceiving Emotions Branch 2: Using Emotions Branch 3: Understanding Emotions Branch 4: Managing Emotions Overall Emotional Intelligence Total Job Satisfaction .06 .10 .10 -.07 .17

Note. * p < .05.

Additional Findings Table 5 displays the results of the backward elimination regression model that predicted total job satisfaction based on 18 candidate variables. Only one candidate variable, gender of manager was statistically significant (p = .03). Manager gender is related to higher job satisfaction ( = .32, p = .03) with respondents reporting higher levels of job satisfaction when they had a female manager.

62

Table 5. Prediction of Total Job Satisfaction Based on Selected Variables. Backward Elimination Regression (N = 49) Variable Intercept Manager Gender a B 3.49 0.47 SE 0.33 0.21 p .001 .03

.32

Note. Final Model: F (1, 47) = 5.17, p = .03. R2 = .099. Candidate variables = 18. a Gender: 1 = Male 2 = Female.

In conclusion, this study attempted to determine whether there was a link between emotional intelligence measures of call center managers and job satisfaction in call center employees. Data from 49 employees and their 10 managers were used. The correlations found for each of the four research questions were not significant (Table 4) which provided no evidence for a link between the managers level of emotional intelligence and their employees level of job satisfaction. Ultimately, nothing was found in this study that would alter existing theories on either the subject of emotional intelligence or that of job satisfaction. The following and final chapter will compare these findings to the relevant Chapter 2 literature, draw conclusions and implications for business administration and then the chapter will end with a series of recommendations.

63

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Findings This chapter takes the results of the study as presented in chapter 4 and compares the outcomes to the existing literature on the topics of emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. A review of the literature that is consistent with the findings of the present study is presented and contrasted with an overview of the literature that does not agree with the outcomes found. Within the literature compare and contrast, an analysis is presented to synthesize and understand why there are conflicting results within the body of knowledge. Within the context of the existing body of knowledge, this study is but one piece of the puzzle. However, there are important conclusions to be drawn and implications of this studys results. These are reviewed along with opportunities for future research borne out of both the findings and the limitations of the study. The application of the results for those who are tasked with setting business strategy and tactical action is presented along with recommendations for action for practitioners. Opportunity for enhancements to improve future research is also presented within this chapter. The purpose of this study was to understand if there is a link between emotional intelligence measures of call center managers and job satisfaction in call center employees. A total of ten call center managers participated in this study by completing the MSCEIT test to measure their emotional intelligence. Forty-nine employees of these managers also participated in the study by completing the Job Satisfaction Survey. The study asked four research questions to understand if there is a relationship between each 64

of the four branches of Emotional Intelligence (perceive, use, understand, manage) and employee job satisfaction. The outcome of the study, as discussed in chapter 4, was that the EI scores for each of the four branches has no significant impact on employee job satisfaction. One variable that did appear to have an effect on job satisfaction was the gender of the manager. This outcome does not alter existing theories on either the subject of EI or that of job satisfaction. Synthesis of the Literature Most of the studies that agreed with the present findings that there is no statistically significant relationship between manager EI and employee job satisfaction focus on two areas. The first is the importance of situational and external factors on employee job satisfaction. It appears as though manager EI may be a factor, but not significant one. A potential reason for this may be that it is simply one input into a very complex construct of how an employee feels about their satisfaction level at work. Other outside forces such as macroeconomic factors, personal situation outside of the workplace, health, significance of work, and other factors may have a more significant impact on satisfaction than the EI of one individual that happens to be the manager. The second aspect of the literature that agreed with the present findings was the relative weakness of self-report tools. Most of the tools used to measure EI and job satisfaction rely on the self perception or self awareness as well as the current mood of the participant when completing the survey. These factors put a strain on validity and thus create findings that agree with the current study. 65

For the literature that appears to disagree that there is no relationship between manager EI and employee job satisfaction, some of the themes relate to the importance of interpersonal relationships for general satisfaction and well being and the relationship between EI and leadership traits which have been found to be linked to positive outcomes in the workplace. However, the same gaps apply with regard to self perception. The synthesis of the literature suggests that independent of the outcome of the research (whether these outcomes agree or disagree with the findings of the present study), there is generally agreement that self-report tools limit the validity of the studies and suggest that qualitative or mixed methods approaches as well as the use of 360 degree or other forms of third party perception measures may increase the validity of findings. Literature Supporting the Findings There have been several studies that support the findings of this research that state there is no statistically significant relationship between manager EI and employee job satisfaction. Cherniss (2010) determined that EI had little, if any impact on a leaders job performance and found situational factors to be more important an impact on employee job satisfaction. This finding arrives at a similar conclusion to that of the present study which showed a relationship between situational factors such as managers gender and employee job satisfaction. Interestingly, Morand (2001) found that females scored higher than males at facial recognition which he postulated was an important element in interpersonal relationships. This seems to support the present finding of the relationship

66

between manager gender and job satisfaction. The results of this study also showed a higher job satisfaction score with female managers as compared to male managers. Stamps and Piedmonte (1986) took a broad view of employee satisfaction through their five factors. These factors were: personal fulfillment, employee expectations, impact of work output, relative contribution, and Frasers two-factor model. They found that these five factors alone impacted employee job satisfaction and that leadership EI was not represented as a construct of job satisfaction. A weak correlation between EI and group behavior effectiveness and public speaking was found by Rode et al. (2007). Their findings failed to support the notion that EI is correlated with two way communication integral to effective leadership. Their findings support the findings of the present research in that manager EI does not have a material impact on the relationship between employee and manager. Literature that Disagrees with the Findings Goleman (1995) linked personality to performance. Some definitions of EI use personality as a key component of the construct. Golemans (1995 & 2002) research concludes that there is a link between manager EI and the perceptions of their effectiveness in their role. However, this disparate viewpoint from the findings of the present research may be a result of the triangulation provided by 360 degree feedback tools which allow for employees to offer an outside perspective on manager effectiveness which relies less on the self perception of managers. However, there is risk that the potential gap created between self perception and outside perception may actually increase the weakness of research and deter from the validity of the results (Sala, 2000). 67

Goleman (2002) furthered the argument for a relationship between manager EI and employee engagement with his finding that employees who work for a leader that is actively working on their EI competencies may perform more strongly and thus have a positive impact on the engagement of their employees. Ryback (1998) used the term executive intelligence to describe the relationship between EI and employee satisfaction and found a positive correlation with bottom line results. This correlation with bottom line results would seem to differ from the findings of the present study that there is no relationship between manager EI and job satisfaction, as job satisfaction of employees may impact their work product and therefore the bottom line. This is an example of an opportunity for further research in this area. Implications and Practitioner recommendations There are many reasons why the current literature offers seemingly contrasting views on the relationship between manager EI and employee job satisfaction. One reason is the inherent bias with self-perception tests that are often used to measure both constructs. Goleman et al. (2002) found that the use of two self perception tests (such as the JSS and MSCEIT used in the present study) may create biases and create bias in the research in a way that distorts a perceived relationship between the two variables. Jackson et al., 2007) found that self-reported results are often inflated which further opens the possibility of bias in the research. The various biases that are created in the literature create an environment for disparate findings. Another possible explanation for differences among the current literature may be the various methodologies used to conduct this type of research. Some of the qualitative 68

approaches may provide more insight for why a participant may rate an element of job satisfaction at any data point within a Likert scale. Additionally, due to the myriad of ways to conduct EI research using various tools such as Bar-On (personality based) or MSCEIT (ability based) and the fact that most, if not all of these tools are self perception based tools may create an environment for a variety of outcomes. Here is where the present study sought to fill a gap in the research accounting for a specific tie to each of the four branches of the MSCEIT as opposed to the all encompassing overall EI score. The research presented in this study may benefit managers and leaders of call centers as they look for opportunities to further develop their management staff. Although there was not a strong link found between the four branches of EI and the employee job satisfaction of this sample, the research in the field does suggest improved performance of the team when leadership exhibits strong emotional intelligence skills. Although I would caution any human resources or learning and development leader to focus too much on segmenting EI as a singular competency to develop a management team in order to drive employee satisfaction improvement, researchers such as Goleman (2002) have found a strong link between interpersonal skills and quality work output by their employees. This may suggest that EI is an important element to develop in a strong manager, but may simply be one of several critical elements to the well rounded and effective manager. Who can benefit the most from this research? Perhaps managers themselves would be well served to take inventory of their own EI skill set in order to improve their interpersonal relationships through increased self awareness. While the present research 69

did not find a strong link to employee satisfaction, there may be many ancillary factors that contribute to the overall satisfaction of any individual employee. Golemans (2002) work has found that the EI of a management team can have a significant impact on the work output which may then feed employee satisfaction. Perhaps the link then lies as a precursor to employee satisfaction via improved output, positive morale, and other factors. Recommendations for management teams as a result of these findings include a focus on development of manager competencies such as EI, developing a focus on outside factors that may influence job satisfaction, and a caution for management teams to not limit their thinking when it comes to identifying those factors that may impact employee satisfaction and attrition. As the results of this study imply, there may not be a singular factor that influences the satisfaction of employees or even the relationship between an employee and manager. Thus, it is prudent for management teams who are looking for an improvement in employee satisfaction, or simply want to develop a culture of employee engagement, to take a broad perspective and look at the diversity of factors that may influence an employees perception of satisfaction on the job. Recommendations for Future Research This study examined an identified problem in addressing the satisfaction of employees in call centers. It was hypothesized that the level of emotional intelligence in managers may have an impact on employee satisfaction. This problem led to a series of

70

questions concerning how any of the four branches of emotional intelligence impact employee satisfaction, if at all. In reviewing the existing body of knowledge on the topic, there was an opportunity to focus on a narrow relationship between manager EI and employee satisfaction. Many of the studies that were reviewed focused on EI and other factors such as bottom line results, employee engagement, and leadership effectiveness. What was known at the time of the study was that attrition in call centers is high and that there must be a series of factors related to this fact. Employee satisfaction was identified as a potential factor. To analyze the problem and help answer the research questions that were posed, the study was designed as a quantitative look at assessing employee satisfaction through the measurement tool Job Satisfaction Survey and assessing manager EI using the MSCEIT tool. The results of the MSCEIT for each manager were tested against the JSS results for their employees that participated in the study. The outcomes found that for each of the four branches (perceive use, understand, and manage) there was no statistically significant link. The study concluded that there was no discernable impact of managers EI and the satisfaction of their employees. The limitations within the present study include a small sample size, self report tools used to collect data, and a relatively narrow set of variables. There are several ways to improve on the methodology of the present study. As a suggested improvement to future research design it is recommended that a larger sample be sought. However, the 10 manager sample size could be improved even at that size if more data were collected. 71

Collecting additional data may help answer research questions to examine whether there is a relationship between job satisfaction and tenure or level of education. Both the JSS and MSCEIT are self report tools to collect information. In order to further strengthen this research, perhaps additional tools could be used to collect data from a different perspective. An example would be a 360 degree analysis of manager emotional intelligence to present the employees perception of the managers EI. The opportunity then to triangulate the results of an outside view of managers EI with their self-perception may serve to provide deeper credence to the outcome of a study. Because the tools used in the present study were both self report measures, it is recommended that future research focus on understanding whether there is a relationship between employees perception of manager EI and managers self reported EI. The present study was analyzed quantitatively. There may be an opportunity to improve on the results or at least present a deeper level of understanding by adding a qualitative element to the study and analyze the data using the mixed methods approach. Some of the data elements suggested above such as career aspirations may be best understood through an interview or other qualitative means. Future research may focus on better understanding whether there is a relationship between manager EI and career goals. Additionally, there is an opportunity to consider a longitudinal study that would track managers EI over time through regular checkpoint assessments. These results could then be compared with changes in employee satisfaction overtime. The longitudinal approach, combined with a review of some of the external factors suggested earlier such 72

as macroeconomic factors, tenure, etc. may do well to serve the interests of development of the overall body of research in this field. This research has added value to the existing body of research through improving the overall understanding of how manager EI affects employees job satisfaction. Future research should continue to fill additional gaps in the existing literature. Given the existing literatures apparent disagreement on how manager emotional intelligence impacts their employees on many different levels (engagement, job satisfaction, work output, etc), future research should continue to focus on narrowing down exactly what the impact is, if any. We do know, through the work of Goleman (2002), that manager EI has an impact on employee performance. Ryback (1998) linked manager EI to bottom line results. The present study was unable to find a link between EI and employee job satisfaction. This highlights a need for further evaluation. There is still much that is unknown. It is suggested that future research consider the following open questions. Finally, the present research did find a potential relationship between manager gender and employee job satisfaction. Future research may consider focusing on gender and job satisfaction in order to better understand this relationship. The conclusion of these results suggests that there is further opportunity to develop knowledge in this field. It is suggested that additional variables be added to future studies and that the scope of future studies extend beyond internal factors and look at external factors such as personal factors. Additionally, it is suggested that the body of knowledge may benefit from a longitudinal study that examines and tracks results for manager EI and employee satisfaction over time. 73

REFERENCES Albaum, G. (1987). Do source and anonymity affect mail survey results? Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 15(3), 74-81. Allen, D.R. & Wilburn, M. (2002). Linking customer and employee satisfaction to the bottom line. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press,. Bailar, B., Bailey, L., & Stevens, J. (1977). Measures of interviewer bias and variance. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 337-343. Bailie, K., & Ekermans, G. (2006). An exploration in the utility of a self-report emotional intelligence measure. E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Emotional Intelligence, 2(2), 3-11. Bar-On, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Bar-On, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, description, and summary of psychometric properties. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measurement of emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Barbuto, J.E. & Burbach, M.E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 51-64. Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. Barrow, J. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 231-251. Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. Berlew, D. (1974). Leadership and organizational excitement. California Management Review, 17(2), 21-30. Blanchard, K. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: HarperCollins Business. Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148. 74

Boyd Jr., H.W. & Westfall, R. (1955). Interviewers as a source of error in surveys. Journal of Marketing, 19(4), 311-324. Brackett, M. & Mayer, J.D. (2001). Measures of emotional intelligence. Poster presented at the 3rd Annual Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC. Bradberry, T. & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA: TalentSmart. Brown, F.W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871. Caruso, D.R. & Salovey, P. (2004). The Emotionally intelligent manager. San Francisco, CA: Jolley-Bass. Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 110-126. Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of anelusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015. Day, A.L., & Carroll, S.A. (2008). Faking emotional intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on ability and trait-based measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 761-784. Denova, C. (1968). The Hawthorne Effect. Training and Development Journal, 22(10, 46-50. Durand, D., & Nord, W. (1976). Perceived leader behavior as a function of personality characteristics of supervisors and subordinates. Academy of Management Journal, 19(3), 427-438. Evans, D., Garcia, D.J., Garcia, D.M., & Baron, R.S. (2003). In the privacy of their own homes: Using the internet to assess racial bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 373-284. Fancher, R.E. (1985). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York: Norton. Fiedler, F. (1972). Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(2), 114-119.

75

Fraser, T.M. (1983). Human stress, work and job satisfaction: A critical approach. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office. Frijda, N.H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358. Frunzi, G., & Savini, P. (1997). Supervision: The art of management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Futrell, C. (1979). Measurement of salespeoples job satisfaction: Convergent and discriminant validity of corresponding INDSALES and job descriptive index scales. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 594-597. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Heindel, K. (2009). The relationship between the emotional intelligence of leaders and critical employee engagement factors. Dissertation. Alliant International University, United States- San Francisco Bay, CA. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan development survey manual (2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press. Hui, C.H., Chiu, W., Yu, P., Cheng, K., & Tse, H. (2007). The effects of service climate and the effective leadership behavior of supervisors on frontline employee service quality: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 151-172. Hunt, H. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday. Izard, C.E.(2001). Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Emotion, 1(3), 249-257. Jackson, D.J.R., Stillman, J.A., Burke, S., & Englert, P. (2007). Self versus assessor ratings and their classification in assessment centres: Profiling the self rater. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 93-99. Ketelaar, T. & Clore, G.L. (1997). Emotion and reason: The proximate effects and ultimate functions of emotion. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. 76

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd Ed.). San Fransisco: Jolley-Bass. Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 411-424. Leary, T. (2010). The relationship among dysfunctional leader dispositions and employee engagement. Dissertation.Texas A&M University, United States- TX. Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30. Mayer, J.D, & Bremer, D. (1985). Assessing mood with affect-sensitive tasks. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 95-99. Mayer, J.D., DiPaolo, M.T., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 772-781. Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17(4), 433-442. Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 4, 197-208. Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. 3-27). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2000a). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as personality, and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence (p. 92-117.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., a& Caruso, D.R. (2000b). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 396420). New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2002). Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. 77

McKenzie, K.L. (2010). Leading an organization through change using emotional intelligence. D.M. Dissertation. University of Phoenix, United States- Arizona. Morand, D.A. (2001). The emotional intelligence of managers: Assessing the construct validity of a nonverbal measure of people skills. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1), 21-34. Muyia, H. (2009). Approaches to and instruments for measuring emotional intelligence: A review of selected literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(6), 690-702. Muyia, H., & Kacirek, K. (2009). An empirical study of a leadership development training program and its impact on emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) scores. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(6), 703-718. Phillips, A.P. & Dipboye, R.L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 41-52. Rahim, S.H., & Malik, M.I. (2010). Emotional intelligence & organizational performance: (A case study of banking sector in Pakistan). International Journal of Business & Management, 5(10), 191-197. Rath, K. (2005). The science of talent: The right employee Equals payoff. Multifamilypro, 24-25. Rich, B.L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Dissertation. University of Florida, United States- FL. Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196-231. Rode, J.C., Mooney, C.H., Arthaud-Day, M.L., Near, J., Baldwin, T.T., & Rubin, R.S., Bommer, W.H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and individual performance: evidence of direct and moderated effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 399-421. Ryback, D. (1998). Putting emotional intelligence to work: Successful leadership is more than IQ. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Sala, F. (2000). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI): Technical Manual. Boston: Hay Group, McClelland Center for Research and Innovation. 78

Salovey, P. & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 281-285. Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(3), 185-211. Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-study sample. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293315. Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177. Singer, E., Frankel, M.R., & Glassman, M.B. (1983). The effect of interview characteristics and expectations on response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 6883. Spector, P.E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713. Spector, P.E. (1994). Interpreting satisfaction scores with the job satisfaction survey. Retrieved from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jssinterpretation.html Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232. Stamps, P.L. & Piedmonte, E.B. (1986). Nurses and work satisfaction. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press Perspectives. Stogdill, R.M. (1969). Validity of leader behavior descriptions. Personnel Psychology, 22(2), 153-158. Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harpers Magazine, 227-235. Trochim, W. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampprob.php Van Rooy, D.L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71-95.

79

Weiss, H.M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resources Management Review, 12(2), 173-194. Weschler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams and Winkins. Wildermuth, C. (2008). Engaged to serve: The relationship between employee engagement and the personality of human services professionals and paraprofessionals. Dissertation. Bowling Green State University, United StatesOH.

80

APPENDIX A. JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

Paul E. Spector Department of Psychology University of South Florida
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved. Disagree moderately Disagree very much

Agree moderately

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. I like the people I work with. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. Communications seem good within this organization. Raises are too few and far between. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. My supervisor is unfair to me. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. I like doing the things I do at work. The goals of this organization are not clear to me.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 4 3 4 3

5 5

Agree very much

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT.

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4 5 5

3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4 3 3

4 5 5 4 5 5

3 4

3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4

1 1

2 2

4 5 5

6 6

3 4

81

Disagree moderately

Disagree very mcuh

Agree moderately

Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. The benefit package we have is equitable. There are few rewards for those who work here. I have too much to do at work. I enjoy my coworkers. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. There are benefits we do not have which we should have. I like my supervisor. I have too much paperwork. I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. There is too much bickering and fighting at work. My job is enjoyable. Work assignments are not fully explained.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 4 3

Agree very much

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT.

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4 5 5

3 4 3

4 5 5 5

3 4 3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4 3 3

4 5 4 5 5

3 4 3

4 5 5 5

3 4 3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4 3

4 5 5

3 4

82