A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence effects on job satisfaction mediated by job resources, and a test of moderators

Abstract

This paper examines whether job resources act as a mediator in the emotional intelligence (EI)-job satisfaction relationship, and examines possible moderators, including gender, age, tenure, and job level. We conducted a meta-analysis to explore these relationships. The metaanalysis demonstrated that: First, EI is positively related to job resources (k = 15, N = 4,151; overall EI: ̂ = .27; ability EI: ̂ = .24; self-report EI: ̂ = .27; mixed EI: ̂ = .28). Second, job resources mediate the relationship between EI and job satisfaction. Third, the relationship between EI and job satisfaction does not differ across gender, age, and tenure, meaning that regardless of whether an employee is male or female, young or old, or having short or long tenure, they equally benefit from EI. The moderator effect of job level is only significant for self-report EI-job satisfaction and this relationship is stronger in non-managerial jobs than in managerial jobs. Yet, the moderator effect of job level is not significant for ability EI-job satisfaction and mixed EI-job satisfaction meta-analytic distributions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Psychological Empowerment and Work Engagement as Mediating Roles Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction

“…A substantial body of research has demonstrated that trait EI is essential and important for job-related well being (Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2010;Fu, 2014;Schutte and Loi, 2014;Petrides et al, 2016;Clarke and Mahadi, 2017;Sun et al, 2017). Moreover, a meta-analysis study revealed that EI was positively correlated with job satisfaction (Miao et al, 2016(Miao et al, , 2017. Prior studies have demonstrated that the positive influence of EI on job satisfaction is well proven; however, the deeper mechanism of this association is unclear.…”

Emotional intelligence and its effects on biomarkers of workplace stress

“…Schneider, Lyons and Khazon (2013) found that individuals who scored high in ability-based EI measures reported lower threat appraisals, negative emotions, and physiological stress responses over time in relation to cognitive and social stress. Research also suggests that EI training helps people manage workplace stress better, since several researchers argue that emotional intelligence is a skill that correlates with positive outcomes for workers dealing with stress (Duncan et al, 2013;Eack et al, 2010;Martins, Ramalho & Morin, 2010;Miao, Humphrey & Qian, 2017;Zeidner, Hadar, Matthews & Roberts, 2013;Zeidner & Matthews, 2016;Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012). Ashkanasy and Dorris (2017) and Cotê (2014) argue that EI improves workers' perceptions of and emotional responses to work stress.…”

“…Researchers, business practitioners, and pop psychology authors continue to debate the terms of EI-how it should be defined, operationalised, and measured-and what predictive and incremental properties it possesses beyond extant personality and intelligence measures Côté, 2014Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007;Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016;Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008;Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008;Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2012;Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2004). Despite disparate conceptualisations of EI, a meta-analysis from Miao, Humphrey, & Qian (2017) suggested that consensus has been reached; EI can be categorised into three conceptual streams, differentiated by theory and method . Stream 1 is based on the ability model developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), which categorises EI into four kinds of abilities: a) perceiving emotion in oneself and others, b) integrating emotion to facilitate thought, c) understanding emotion in oneself and others, and d) regulating and managing emotions.…”

“…Although there exist many conceptualisations of EI, Miao et al (2017) Schutte et al, 1998;Wong & Law, 2002). Stream 3 is a mixed model (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000) that encompasses several self-report instruments that assess aspects of cognition, personality, and affect.…”

“…EI has developed substantially over the last two decades and is an important topic of inquiry among mainstream audiences, organisations, managers, and practitioners Hughes, & Terrell, 2011). Despite EI still being criticised in academia (Miao et al, 2017), many organisations believe that EI is a critical component of high performance (Harvard Business Review Emotional Intelligence Collection Series, 2017). An expanding body of evidence suggests that EI has implications for success in various domains, including personal (Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005;Casey, Garrett, Brackett, & Rivers, 2007), social (Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010;Lopes, Salovey, Côté, & Beers, 2005), academic (Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, & Salovey, 2012;Hagelskamp, Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2013), health/clinical (Duncan et al, 2013;Eack et al, 2010;Zeidner & Matthews, 2016), organisational (Parke & Seo, 2013;Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005) and political domains (Caruso et al, 2015).…”