Personality and Individual Differences 65 (2014) 8690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Understanding non-work presenteeism: Relationships between

emotional intelligence, boredom, procrastination and job stress
Howe Chern Wan a, Luke A. Downey a,b, Con Stough a,
a
Centre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
b
Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Wales, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Non-work related presenteeism refers to the behaviour of employees who engage in personal activities
Available online 10 February 2014 instead of work-related activities whilst at work. Currently, limited research exists concerning non-work
related presenteeism, despite the suggestion that it can nancially impact organisations more than
Keywords: absenteeism. The aim of the present study was to examine whether any signicant relationships existed
Presenteeism between non-work related presenteeism and four theoretically linked psychological variables: emotional
Emotional intelligence intelligence (EI), job stress, boredom, and procrastination. Data was collected via an online questionnaire.
Boredom
A sample of 57 male and 127 female full-time employees across several industries and organisations
Procrastination
Job stress
completed the surveys. As hypothesised, a signicant relationship was observed between non-work
EI related presenteeism and EI (r = 0.25), boredom (r = 0.33) and procrastination (r = 0.26). Self-reported
levels of job stress, however, were not signicantly related to non-work related presenteeism. These
results suggest that developing EI and improving job-related engagement may decrease non-work
presenteeism.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It has been suggested that non-work related presenteeism is a
growing cause for concern for organisations, especially in business
environments where global competitiveness demands a highly
efcient and productive workforce (DAbate & Eddy, 2007). Dened
as attending work but engaging in personal activities, presentee-
sim has been estimated to cost organisations in America
US$8875 per employee per year based upon the fraction of lost
productivity from reported salary gures (DAbate & Eddy, 2007).
The total cost of lowered productivity in that study due to non-
work related presenteeism was approximately US$1,020,625 per
annum. Compared to absenteeism, which is dened as not attend-
ing scheduled work (Johns, 2010), presenteeism is becoming a big-
ger nancial problem for organisations (Goetzel et al., 2004; Hertz
& Baker, 2002), accounting for 63% of Bank Ones health-related
costs (US$311.8 million), while absenteeism contributed to 6%
(US$27 million) of the costs (Hemp, 2004). This nding suggests
that employees who attend work, and who are unable to work
effectively due to illness or personal problems, signicantly cost
an organisation in terms of lowered productivity. This lowered
productivity manifests as working slowly, lower quality of work,
Tel.: +61 3 9214 5781; fax: +61 3 9214 5002.
E-mail address: cstough@swin.edu.au (C. Stough).
lower quantity of output, and making more mistakes on the job
(Hemp, 2004).
Non-work related presenteeism is dened in the present study
as attending work, but not performing effectively on the job due to
a lack of concentration (Johns, 2010, 2011; Simpson, 1998) as a re-
sult of the employee engaging in personal activities (DAbate &
Eddy, 2007). The act of engaging in non-work related activities,
such as checking ones personal email, or surng the Internet, are
brief activities that can be discontinued at will, and which are
immediately rewarding (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001). The rationale that
non-work related activities require only a small amount of time
make them popular forms of procrastination (Lavoie & Pychyl,
2001). Currently, there is a lack of literature on non-work related
presenteeism, as most researchers tend to focus their attention
on the medical aspects of presenteeism (Aronsson, Gustafsson, &
Dallner, 2000; Hemp, 2004; Sanderson & Cocker, 2013), otherwise
known as sickness presenteeism, which is dened as an employee
going to work, but not being able to work at full productivity due to
illness or medical conditions (Aronsson et al., 2000; Chatterji &
Tilley, 2002; Hemp, 2004). To date, only limited examination of
the construct of non-work related presenteeism has occurred
(DAbate, 2005; DAbate & Eddy, 2007; Johns, 2010, 2011).
An early study concerning non-work related presenteeism
(DAbate & Eddy, 2007) identied that a positive relationship
existed between levels of employee procrastination and non-work

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.018
0191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.C. Wan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 65 (2014) 8690
related presenteeism. Through procrastination, the employee may
engage in other tasks than those supposed to be completed (Davis,
Flett, & Besser, 2002), and this may occur for variable reasons such
as the employee being either stressed or bored at work (DAbate,
2005). It has been suggested that with regard to illness-related pre-
senteeism that when people dont feel good, they simply dont do
their best work (Hemp, 2004, p. 55). Similarly, when organisations
acknowledge that employees work best when they feel good emo-
tionally (Oosthuizen, Koortzen, & Ramesar, 2009), they reap the
benets in terms of long-term sustainability and protability
through employee productivity (Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fille,
& de Timary, 2007). Employees who are distracted by personal or
non-work related matters tend to be less focused on their work,
which leads to lower productivity and quality of output (DAbate
& Eddy, 2007). There are, however, suggestions that there may be
some benets in letting employees engage in non-work related
activities (Belanger & Van Slyke, 2002; DAbate & Eddy, 2007), with
employees casual browsing of the internet possibly helping them
develop skills that could be utilised by their company in the future
(Blanchard & Henle, 2008) or engender feelings of camaraderie or
appreciation when employees are able to complete or conduct rea-
sonable amounts of personal activities within work hours. This
presents a dilemma for organisations: If non-work related presen-
teeism does not reduce the employees productivity, should it be
ignored? Or encouraged; given it may improve productivity in
some employees by counteracting the effect of common workplace
concerns such as job stress or boredom, or reduce procrastination.
Job stress has been previously related to job satisfaction, moti-
vation, performance and job withdrawal behaviour (Antn, 2009;
Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Duraisingam, Pidd, & Roche, 2009).
Job stress has various contributors such as the employees role,
their physical environment, and social environment stress (Blau,
1981). Role stress in particular occurs when role requirements of
the job outweigh the employees ability to cope with the demands
(Lambert, Hogan, & Tucker, 2009). Further to this, a lack of motiva-
tion to work through job requirements may lead to feelings of
boredom and provide idle time, allowing employees to engage in
non-work related activities (DAbate, 2005).
Boredom within the workplace has been reported to lead to
negative workplace consequences such as turnovers, dissatisfac-
tion, accidents, and performance decrements (Game, 2007; Louki-
dou, Loan-Clarke, & Daniels, 2009). While no unanimous denition
exists on whether it is an emotion, state or trait, boredom has been
described as an emotional state that is a result of low levels of
stimulation (Game, 2007; Loukidou et al., 2009). The lack of stim-
ulation then leads to a search for variety which, if unfullled, re-
sults in an uneasy experience of boredom (Fisher, 1993) Job
monotony has been given much emphasis as the cause of boredom
at work (Smith, 1981). Research has shown that it is not always the
monotonous nature of repetitive work that induces boredom in an
employee (Fisher, 1993; Loukidou et al., 2009), rather, it is the lack
of stimulation in ones work that leads to feelings of boredom
(Klapp, 1986). In contrast, even work that is highly stimulating,
but perceived as meaningless or overwhelming due to a lack of
direction or having too many possibilities, can also result in bore-
dom (Fisher, 1993; Loukidou et al., 2009). Where a task is per-
ceived to be uninteresting or boring, attention levels are
impaired, resulting in errors or non-work related thoughts. In deal-
ing with the boredom experienced at work, individuals may en-
gage in non-work related strategies such as letter writing,
reading, playing games, e-mailing, using the Internet, or smoking
(DAbate, 2005; Fisher, 1993; Game, 2007). This suggests there is
an obvious link between non-work related presenteeism and the
alleviation of boredom (DAbate, 2005).
Similar to boredom, procrastination is a common phenomenon
in society, with most people engaging in it at one time or another
87
(Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001). Procrastination is dened as
delaying a task that is under an individuals control, where the de-
lay itself is under the control of the individual, and the task is one
that needs to be completed (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Ackerman
and Gross suggested that the individual is aware of the work that
needs to be completed, but is unable to nd the self-motivation
to perform within a certain time frame. Studies have suggested
that job characteristics are related to procrastination (Lonergan &
Maher, 2000), and that people tend to procrastinate on tasks that
are not stimulating, unpleasant, difcult, or are imposed upon
them (Blunt & Pychyl, 2005). The effect of procrastination include
negative work outcomes such as lower productivity and poorer
performance (Thatcher, Wretschko, & Fridjhon, 2008). Despite
the negative outcomes of procrastination, it may not be entirely
detrimental to the organisation, and employees may instead obtain
some personal benets from it (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001). By putting
themselves in a time pressured scenario, employees can create a
challenge for themselves when performing easy, routine tasks,
which could lead to faster completion times (Ohly & Fritz, 2010).
It can also create a temporary relief from stress (Ackerman & Gross,
2005; Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001), or alleviate a bad mood temporarily.
The construct of Emotional Intelligence (EI) is dened as the
ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions,
to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide
ones thinking and actions (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). This
ability has been examined in a wide variety of clinical, social,
and workplace capacities. It has been suggested for employees to
be more successful at work, in terms of interpersonal relationships
and managing work-related problems they need to have well
developed EI skills in addition to desirable personality traits and
intellect (Downey, Lee, & Stough, 2011). Recent research suggests
that a positive relationship exists between EI and job performance
(Boyatzis, Good, & Massa, 2012; Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Downey
et al., 2011; OBoyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011),
and that through tailored EI development programs, employees
can improve their own performance directly by improving their le-
vel of EI (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Groves, McEnrue, & Shen, 2008;
Jordan, 2009). More emotionally intelligent workers are suggested
to be more able to maintain positive affective states, and are able to
use their emotions to overcome workplace challenges and enhance
their own and others moods, and handle emotions while motivat-
ing those around them towards a goal (Carmeli & Josman, 2006;
Downey, Papageorgiou, & Stough, 2006; OBoyle et al., 2011).
Employees who are low on EI, however, are thought to be less
effective in managing stress and its negative effects, and less aware
of their emotions (Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002). This may lead to
negative attitudes towards their profession such as isolating or
withdrawing from work altogether, as it is harder for them to
engage in positive coping behaviours. Extant research has also
illustrated that in response to work stressors such as role ambigu-
ity and role overload, poor coping abilities can result in poorer
interpersonal relations and job performance at the individual
employee level and impact upon organisations as a whole in terms
of productivity (Bagozzi, 2003; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009).
With employees EI having been observed to have a positive
relationship with job performance and career commitment, and a
negative relationship with withdrawal intentions, it has also been
suggested that EI may signicantly reduce an employees intention
to withdraw from work because through their ability to regulate
their emotions and cope with stress, persisting in challenging
times and nding creative ways to overcome workplace difculties
(Cartwright & Pappas, 2008; Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey,
2006). Given that higher EI predicts better work outcomes such as
improved job performance, work climate, productivity, and career
success and that boredom, procrastination, and job stress are likely
contributors to non-work presenteeism; the aim of the present
88 H.C. Wan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 65 (2014) 8690
study is to expand on DAbate and Eddys (2007) study by assessing
whether workplace variables (job stress, boredom, and procrasti-
nation) are related to the degree to which employees engage in
non-work related activities. Based on previous literature we
hypothesise that there will be a negative relationship between EI
and non-work related presenteeism; and positive relationships
between job stress, boredom and procrastination and non-work
related presenteeism.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A total of 184 participants completed all questionnaires and
were included for data analysis. There were 57 males whose ages
ranged from 23 to 61 years (M = 38.61, SD = 1.36), and 127 females
whose ages ranged from 22 to 67 years (M = 40.99, SD = 1.02).
2.2. Measures
Participants were required to answer an on-line questionnaire
consisting of ve different self-report measures on EI, procrastina-
tion, boredom, job stress and non-work related presenteeism.
2.2.1. Emotional intelligence (EI)
EI was assessed using the Genos EI Inventory Scale (Gignac,
2010), a revised version of the Swinburne University Emotional
Intelligence Test (SUEIT) (Palmer & Stough, 2001). The Genos EI
Inventory Scale consists of 70 items that provides scores for a gen-
eral factor (Total EI), along with seven sub-factors.
2.2.2. Procrastination
The procrastination scale (Tuckman, 1991) is a 16-item ques-
tionnaire measuring the tendency of an individual to procrastinate
when given a task to complete. Items were rated on a 4-point Lik-
ert scale (1 = Thats me for sure, 2 = Thats my tendency, 3 = Thats
not my tendency, 4 = Thats not me for sure).
2.2.3. Boredom
Boredom was assessed using the Boredom Proneness Scale
(Farmer & Sundberg, 1986), a 28-item questionnaire developed
as a general assessment tool to measure an individuals tendency
to feel bored. Items were rated on a True/False scale, with higher
scores indicating a higher tendency to experience boredom.
2.2.4. Job stress
Job stress was assessed using the Role Stress Measures (Beehr
et al., 1976), which is a 10-item measure, a high score on this scale
indicated a higher level of job stress.
2.2.5. Non-work related presenteeism
The measure developed for non-work related presenteeism was
partly based on two studies related to engaging in personal activ-
ities while at work (DAbate, 2005; DAbate and Eddy, 2007). Items
reect current trends in activities that could be undertaken at
work, with items such as When I am at work, during ofcial work
hours, I surf Facebook. The scale consists of 8 items and is re-
ported to have good internal consistency (DAbate and Eddy, 2007).
3. Results
The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between
presenteeism, boredom, job stress, procrastination and EI appear
in Table 1. As the sample for the present study contained more fe-
male than male participants, an independent samples t-test was
conducted to assess whether any differences between males and
females existed on the assessed variables. There was no signicant
difference in the scores between females and males on all ve out-
come measures.
In regards to the interrelationships between the assessed mea-
sures, signicant relationships were observed between presentee-
ism and EI (r = .25, p < .01), boredom (r = .33, p < .01), and
procrastination (r = .26, p < .01). Additionally, the participants to-
tal EI scores were found to be signicantly negatively related to
levels of reported job stress (r = .39, p < .01), boredom (r = .48,
p < .01) and procrastination (r = .51, p < .01). As expected, positive
relationships were observed between job stress levels and levels of
procrastination (r = .25, p < .01) and boredom (r = .20, p < .01), and
between procrastination activity and boredom (r = .49, p < .01).
Unexpectedly, the relationship between levels of job stress and
presenteeism was not observed to be signicant.
4. Discussion
The aim of this exploratory study was to expand on the existing
literature concerning non-work related presenteeism by examin-
ing the individual relationships between EI, job stress, boredom,
and procrastination with non-work related presenteeism. Results
of the current study support the hypotheses that there is a negative
relationship between EI and non-work related presenteeism, a po-
sitive relationship between boredom and non-work related pre-
senteeism, and a positive relationship between procrastination
and non-work related presenteeism. The hypothesis that there is
a positive relationship between job stress and non-work related
presenteeism, was not supported. Taken together, these ndings
suggest that higher levels of boredom and procrastination lead to
engagement in presenteeism behaviours, and that higher levels
of EI within employees reduce the likelihood of attending work
and not performing effectively. Given the growing identication
of the costs to organisations of employee presenteeism (DAbate
and Eddy, 2007; Johns, 2010, 2011), research concerning the vari-
ous linkages between types of workplace behaviours, mood states,
and the ability to modulate these factors impact upon workplace
performance are required.
The observation of a signicant negative relationship between
EI and non-work related presenteeism is consistent with the nd-
ings of Carmeli and Josman (2006) who identied that employees
levels of EI were negatively related to thoughts of quitting and
withdrawal cognitions and positively related to workplace perfor-
mance (Carmeli & Josman, 2006). Together these ndings suggest
that more emotionally intelligent employees are less likely to en-
gage in non-work related activities during ofce hours and perform
well in work hours. A cause of non-work related presenteeism
noted in DAbate (2005) was stress relief, which may be a conse-
quence of less emotionally intelligent employees (particularly the
regulation of negative emotions) not being able to cope with stress.
Another nding in the present study was the signicant negative
relationship between EI and job stress, suggesting that employees
with higher levels of EI were better at coping with stress, compared
to employees with lower levels of EI. This result is consistent with
extant research where greater levels of EI have been associated
with more favourable responses to work stressors, better interper-
sonal relations and job performance.
The present results suggest that when a employees level of
boredom increases, the tendency to engage in non-work related
presenteeism also increases. Boredom and levels of EI were also
observed to be negatively related. This result may be of interest,
because boredom at the workplace has been suggested to be a
result of performing monotonous or boring tasks (Loukidou et al.,
2009), or carrying out tasks that do not appeal to the employee,
 H.C. Wan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 65 (2014) 8690
Table 1
Means, standard deviations (SD), and bivariate correlations of variables used in analysis.
Mean
1. Non-work related presenteeism 15.54
2. Emotional intelligence (EI) 262.59
3. Job stress 37.81
4. Boredom 7.95
5. Procrastination 34.86
Note: N = 139.
*
p < .01.
who are unable to hold their interest in the tasks for long. One
explanation for this negative relationship between boredom and
EI is that individuals with higher levels of EI can facilitate creativity
(Mayer et al., 1999) to reduce boredom and think up of new ways
and approaches to work. Furthermore, Fisher and Noble (2004)
found a relationship between positive affect and task difculty
and interest, and this can be related to Salovey and Mayers
(1989) view that emotionally intelligent individuals tend to be
more optimistic, and are able to put themselves in positive affec-
tive states, While Carmeli (2003) notes that individuals with high
levels of EI are able to cope with complex and demanding work
which would otherwise lead to high stress levels. In short, individ-
uals with higher levels of EI are able to approach their work in cre-
ative ways to make their work more interesting, while adopting a
positive outlook and not be easily overwhelmed by complex work
which would otherwise discourage them.
The results indicate, as hypothesised, that procrastination is a
predictor of non-work related presenteeism. As such, employees
who engaged in personal activities at work such as surng the
internet for personal use, or who engaged in non-work related con-
versations with colleagues, put off their work that may have
needed immediate attention (Lonergan & Maher, 2000). This is
consistent with previous presenteeism research that has observed
that individuals who engage in personal business on the job were
found to be more likely to do so as part of the procrastination pro-
cess (DAbate and Eddy, 2007; Johns, 2010, 2011). The present
studys focus was on employees engaging in personal activities
over the Internet. As an essential communication tool worldwide,
the Internet has become a medium for employees to engage in
Internet procrastination, or cyberslacking (Lavoie & Pychyl,
2001). With growing number of users every year, the Internet
has also become a platform for non-work related activities to take
place, despite the benets it brings to organisations in terms of
efciency (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001), it can also be a common med-
ium of presenteeism behaviour.
The non-signicant relationship between job stress and non-
work related presenteeism was an unexpected result from the
current study. Based on interview data in DAbate (2005) study,
participants reported that engaging in non-work related activities
at work was a way of seeking respite from the demands of work,
however, this may not be the only way employees may seek respite
from the stress of their jobs. The current study found that the
relationship between job stress and procrastination was signicant
(r = .25), which suggests that the more stressed an employees were
in our sample, the more likely they would procrastinate at work.
While this relationship was not the main focus in the present study,
it is consistent with previous research investigating procrastination
and stress relief (Ackerman & Gross, 2005; Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001).
Additionally, the relationship between job stress and boredom
(r = .20) implies that as stress levels at work increase, so does the
level of boredom. This is consistent with previous research which
found that workers experiencing more stress also reported more
boredom at work (Loukidou et al., 2009). This taken together with
the positive relationship between job stress and procrastination is
surprising, as procrastination suggests engaging in activities that
89
SD 1 2 3 4
4.36
27.64 .25*
9.04 .01 .39*
4.79 .33* .48* .20*
7.90 .26* .51* .25* .49*
delays the individual from actual work (Ackerman & Gross, 2005),
while non-work related presenteeism involves personal activities
while at work, which also delays the individual from work that
needs to be done (DAbate and Eddy, 2007).
Results obtained from the present study are still preliminary;
suggesting that an emotionally intelligent workforce could benet
organisations in terms of worker productivity. EI has been shown
to be related to non-work related presenteeism in the present
study, which highlights an area for organisations to consider:
implementing training programs for employees to be more
emotionally intelligent, or to introduce psychometric testing of EI
for potential employees. Employees high in EI may cope better with
stress, boredom and procrastination, which could lead to higher
productivity, reduced turnovers, absenteeism and non-work
related presenteeism. The present studys ndings could inform
human resource departments in large organisations about ways
to increase staff productivity, and to be aware of factors that could
potentially contribute to non-work related presenteeism, such as
boredom, procrastination and EI. Future studies concerning the cost
of non-work presenteeism, the contribution of individual differ-
ences in EI, or the ability to cope with a stressful, boring, or monot-
onous workplaces should consider that strategies to deal with low
productivity due to engaging in personal activities on the job may
need to be tailored specically to organisations, or to individual
employees.
References
Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: Task
characteristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 513.
Antn, C. (2009). The impact of role stress on workers behaviour through job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Psychology,
44(3), 187194.
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2000). Sick but yet at work. An empirical
study of sickness presenteeism. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
54(7), 502509.
Bagozzi, R. (2003). Positive and negative emotions in organizations. Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 12, 176193.
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually
and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 4147.
Belanger, F., & Van Slyke, C. (2002). Abuse or learning? Communications of the ACM,
45(1), 6465.
Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloang:
The role of norms and external locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior,
24(3), 10671084.
Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service
length, and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(2),
279302.
Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2005). Project systems of procrastinators: A personal
project-analytic and action control perspective. Personality and Individual
Differences, 38(8), 17711780.
Boyatzis, R. E., Good, D., & Massa, R. (2012). Emotional, social, and cognitive
intelligence and personality as predictors of sales leadership performance.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19(2), 191201.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work
attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788813.
Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence,
task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human
Performance, 19(4), 403419.
90 H.C. Wan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 65 (2014) 8690
Cartwright, S., & Pappas, C. (2008). Emotional intelligence, its measurement and
implications for the workplace. International Journal of Management Reviews,
10(2), 149171.
Chatterji, M., & Tilley, C. J. (2002). Sickness, absenteeism, presenteeism, and sick
pay. Oxford Economic Papers, 54(4), 669687.
DAbate, C. P. (2005). Working hard or hardly working: A study of individuals
engaging in personal business on the job. Human Relations, 58(8), 10091032.
DAbate, C. P., & Eddy, E. R. (2007). Engaging in personal business on the job:
Extending the presenteeism construct. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
18(3), 361383.
Davis, R. A., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2002). Validation of a new scale for measuring
problematic internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 5(4), 331345.
Downey, L. A., Lee, B., & Stough, C. (2011). Recruitment consultant revenue:
Relationships with IQ, personality, and emotional intelligence. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(3), 280286.
Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2006). Examining the relationship
between leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in senior female
managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 250264.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004). Can emotional intelligence be developed?
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 95111.
Duraisingam, V., Pidd, K., & Roche, A. M. (2009). The impact of work stress and job
satisfaction on turnover intentions: A study of Australian specialist alcohol and
other drug workers. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 16(3), 217231.
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom pronenessthe development and
correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 417.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3),
395417.
Fisher, C. D., & Noble, C. S. (2004). A Within-Person Examination of Correlates of
Performance and Emotions While Working. Human Performance, 17(2), 145168.
Game, A. M. (2007). Workplace boredom coping: Health, safety, and HR
implications. Personnel Review, 36(5), 701721.
Gignac, G. (2010). Seven-factor model of emotional intelligence as measured by
Genos EI: A conrmatory factor analytic investigation based on self-and rater-
report data. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 309316.
Goetzel, R. Z., Long, S. R., Ozminkowski, R. J., Hawkins, K., Wang, S., & Lynch, W.
(2004). Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain
physical and mental health conditions affecting US employers. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(4), 398412.
Groves, K. S., McEnrue, M. P., & Shen, W. (2008). Developing and measuring the
emotional intelligence of leaders. Journal of Management Development, 27(2),
225250.
Hemp, P. (2004). Presenteeism: At work-but out of it. Harvard Business Review,
82(10), 4958.
Hertz, R., & Baker, C. (2002). The impact of mental disorders on work. Pzer
Outcomes Research.
Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 519542.
Johns, G. (2011). Attendance dynamics at work: The antecedents and correlates of
presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 16(4), 483.
Jordan, P. J. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial
validation of the short version of the workgroup emotional intelligence prole
(WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15(4), 452469.
Kachgal, M. M., Hansen, L. S., & Nutter, K. J. (2001). Academic procrastination
prevention/intervention: Strategies and recommendations. Journal of
Developmental Education, 25(1), 1424.
Klapp, O. E. (1986). Overload and boredom: Essays on the quality of life in the
information society. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc..
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Tucker, K. A. (2009). Problems at work: Exploring
the correlates of role stress among correctional staff. Prison Journal, 89(4),
460481.
Lavoie, J. A. A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2001). Cyberslacking and the procrastination
superhighway: A web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and
emotion. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 431444.
Lonergan, J. M., & Maher, K. J. (2000). The relationship between job characteristics
and workplace procrastination as moderated by locus of control. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 213224.
Lopes, P. N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that
emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at
work. Psicothema, 18(Suppl.1), 132138.
Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: More
than monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4),
381405.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267298.
Mikolajczak, M. R., Roy, E., Luminet, O., Fille, C., & de Timary, P. (2007). The
moderating impact of emotional intelligence on free cortisol responses to stress.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32(810), 10001012.
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace:
Exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327342.
OBoyle, E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011).
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788818.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and
proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31(4), 543565.
Oosthuizen, R. M., Koortzen, P., & Ramesar, S. (2009). The relationship between
emotional intelligence and stress management. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 35(1), 110.
Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2001). Workplace SUEIT: Swinburne university emotional
intelligence test-manual. Organizational Psychology Research Unit, Swinburne
University.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185211.
Sanderson, K., & Cocker, F. (2013). Presenteeism: Implications and health risks.
Australian Family Physician, 42(4), 172175.
Simpson, R. (1998). Presenteeism, power and organizational change: Long hours as
a career barrier and the impact on the working lives of women managers. British
Journal of Management, 9, S37S50 [SPEC. ISS.].
Smith, R. P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 23(3), 329340.
Thatcher, A., Wretschko, G., & Fridjhon, P. (2008). Online ow experiences,
problematic Internet use and Internet procrastination. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24(5), 22362254.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the
procrastination scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2),
473480.
Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive
workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality
moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2),
259295.