This study follows the procedure as illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Identifying research objectives
Reviewing related literature and Formulating research hypotheses
Establishing research model
Questionnaire design
Data collection and analysis
Discussions and suggestions
Figure 1-1 Research Procedure
Chapter Two
Literature Review 2.1 Preamble
This chapter begins introducing relevant literatures and definitions about job stress, job performance, and emotional intelligence. These concepts and findings are importance to offer the theoretical base for the current research.
2.2 Job Stress
Stress is a rising concern in each country, because it is costly (King & Gradner, 2006).
Working in the organization is major part of stress due to job occupying most of individual time. Employer’s demands may affect employee stress which is “an unpleasant emotional experience associated with elements of fear, dread, anxiety, irritation, annoyance, anger, sadness, grief, and depression.” (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986, p. 618)
Lepine, Podskoff, and LePine (2005) suggested “the stressors are the stimuli that evoke the stress process, and the strains are the outcome in the process” (p. 764). Stressors consist of work demand, lack of work control, less person-environment fit and so on (Karasek, 1979;
King & Garder, 2006). Employee confronting similar level of stressors may be different reflection, and it may originate from different work experience. It is generally tend to view job stress is representing stimuli in the workplace that may or may not exceed an individual’s ability to deal (Schaubroeck et al., 1993). Perceived job stress is associated with time pressure and felt anxiety of tasks.
According to Parker and Decotiis (1983) job stress has been “the feeling of a person who is required to deviate from normal or self-desired functioning in the work place as the result of opportunities, constraints, or demands relating to potentially important work-related outcomes” (p. 165). Job stress is a condition where job-related factors affect employee to
change his or her psychological state which deviate from normal functioning (Richardson &
Rothstein, 2008; Newman & Beehr, 1979). Moreover, Beehr and Franz (1987) defined job stress as “the psychological state experienced by an individual when faced with demands, constraints, and/or opportunities that have important but uncertain outcomes.”
Based on above, we defined job stress as unpleasant experience when faced the situation in the workplace deviate from self-desired functioning of demands, constraints, opportunities, and even threatening employee’s immediate situation, causing feeing anxiety, anger, and depression.
Individuals perceived high job stress could waste employee attention, energy, and time to deal with stressors. In stressful environment individuals felt anxiety, lose concentration, stomach disorders, and headaches for physical and mental health (Beehr & Newman, 1978).
Jamal (1984) study nurses to support that job stressors (role ambiguity, overload, conflict, and resource inadequacy) and role performance are negative linear relation. Dyne, Jehn, and Cummings (2002) studied stylists in US to report that work and home strain are negatively related to workers sales performance. Siu (2003) described job stress as dysfunctional functions and decreasing job performance. Beehr and Newman (1978) stated outcomes of job stress would change in quality and quantity of job performance. Job stress also directed effect job satisfaction, absenteeism, and even intention to turnover (Gupta & Beehr, 1979; Chiu et al, 2005; Firth et al, 2004).
In opposition to negative relationships, Selye (1956) said that healthy or the happy pressure is enstress that viewed job stress as challenges and associated with positive effects.
Meglino (1977) observed individual at low level of stress could not perceive challenge, and therefore be impossible to enhance performance. High job stress could lead better performance. A few researches supported that the inverted-U concept (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) integrated negative linear and positive linear concepts, and suggested that
organizations should be maintaining moderate level of job stress to arrive peak employee performance (Tuten & Neidermeyer, 2004). It views stress as challenge before optimal point and after that becomes bad.
The relationship between job stress and job performance is controversy. One of the reasons is that the response of stressor is two dimensions. LePine et al. (2005) through meta-analysis found stressor associated with hindrance-oriented (e.g., role ambiguity and role conflict) are negative to job performance, and second dimension stressors associated with challenge-oriented (e.g., time pressure) are positive to job performance. But Sullivan and Bhagat (1992) argued lack of some concepts is failure to think about individual characteristics and disorder of perceived stress. For individual with high need of achievement in high stressful workplace may improve performance; individual with low need of achievement in high stressful workplace may not improve performance.
2.3 Job Performance
Job performance of employee is an important research because it is essential for organizational success (Dyne, Jehn, & Cumming, 2002; Campbell, 1990). Job performance has been by evaluating “the degree to which organizational and personal goals are reached (Pruden & Reese, 1972).” And job performance indicates quantity and quality of outcomes which individual or group effort attainment (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2005). Robbins (2005) described job performance as “how amount of effort an individual will exert in his or her job” (p254). Moreover, job performance relies on “the demands of the job, the goals and missions of the organization, and beliefs in the organization about which behaviors are most valued.” (Befort & Hattrup, 2003; Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999; Murphy & Shiarella, 1997) According to above, we defined job performance as the degree which the individual effort reaches quantity and quality of missions or goals in the organization.
Performance appraisal tool is important for organizational human management.
Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) described performance appraisal “providing important feedback about how well the individual is getting along in the organization” (p. 79).
Performance appraisals are intended to below aims (Schermerhorn et al., 2005, p. 168-169):
1. Defined the criteria about how to measure their performance.
2. Justice rewards given to employee let them feel confident.
3. Rating strengths and weaknesses of individual performance offers feedback for adjusting employee performance to fit with organizational expected goals.
4. Evaluated promotions and reward increases are based on performance appraisals.
Four functions of performance appraisal tool indicated that is not only supervise and correct employee behaviors but also modified performance to suit goals of organization for individual. Performance appraisal could be an essential guideline to upgrade organizational production.
2.4 Emotional Intelligence
In the early 1980, similar concept of emotional intelligence had begun. Gardner (1983) proposed concept of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence offering the base for later researches. Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used phrase of emotional intelligence and defined emotional intelligence as the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s own thinking and actions” (p. 189). Afterward they redefined emotional intelligence which added the cognitive component as “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thoughts, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth.” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 5) Goleman (1995) published the popular book “Emotional Intelligence” that described concept of emotional intelligence detailed and defined it as an individual ability to understand, deal,
and manage emotions both internally and others. According to above, we defined emotional intelligence as individual competence to aware, regulate, and utilize emotions effectively in self and others.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) proposed that emotional intelligence included three factors:
evaluation and expression of emotions in the self and the other, regulation of emotions in the self and the other, and utilization of emotions. Individuals with evaluation and expression of emotions are ability to know their emotions. They can express accurately their feeling and are also conscious of the other emotions through verbal and non-verbal expression. The second factor is regulations of emotion that people are able to manage and regulate their emotions in order to keep in positive states even though experience negative affective. Emotional intelligence individual not only regulates himself or herself well also care for and appease others' emotions, so could establish good social relationship. The third factor is utilization of emotions included of thinking about more future plans (flexible planning), understanding self emotion well to solve problem creativity (creative thinking), paying attention to more important work (redirected attention), and strengthening ability when facing challenging task (motivation).
The ability of emotional intelligence advantages individual to success in the life and organization. High EI individual tries to understand self emotions and adapts appropriate emotional management instead of avoiding or accusing negative emotions. They tend to use strategies such as social support and disclosure of feelings for keeping emotions on the desired state. The high EI of managers is related positively to managers’ job satisfaction (Carmeli, 2003), job performance (Slaski & Cartwright, 2002; Carmeli, 2003), transformational leadership style (Mandell & Pherwani, 2003), and negatively to managers’
withdrawal intention (Carmeli, 2003).
In many vocations, emotional competencies are essential to facilitate performance
(Stough & De Guara, 2003; King & Gradner, 2006). The higher emotional intelligence employees, the more likely they are satisfied their jobs (Dong & Howard, 2006). Higgs (2004) measured emotional intelligence which adapted EIQ-G (emotional intelligence questionnaire general) developed by Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) and this instrument consists self-awareness, emotional resilience, motivation, inter-personal sensitivity, influence, conscientiousness and integrity, and intuitiveness. They indicated that is strong relationship between emotional intelligence with job performance on UK call centres.
Chapter Three
Research Methodology 3.1 Preamble
Based on review of the previous literature, the principal research conducts how job stress and emotional intelligence affect job performance, and how emotional intelligence influences the relationship between job stress and job performance. This chapter includes research hypotheses, sample process, questionnaire designs, data analysis techniques and pilot test.
3.2 Research Hypotheses
3.2.1 Main effects of job stress on job performance
Most research identified a negative stress-performance relationship, and concluded the effects of role ambiguity and role conflict have negative relationships with job performance (Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; Fried et al., 1998). Siu (2003) explained that job stress was dysfunctional and decreased job performance. Beehr and Newman (1978) stated the outcomes of job stress would be changes in quality and quantity of job performance. Job stress could waste individuals’ time and energy dealing with stressors, so that they could not concentrate on the immediate task and so become less able to drive performance. Therefore, we hypothesized job stress has a negative effect on job performance.
H1：：：There is a negative relationship between job stress and job performance. ：
The literature explores the relationship between stress and performance, and it may be a negative linear, positive linear, or inverted-U relationship. Although theorists prefer to support a curvilinear concept, most empirical research indicates a negative linear relationship between stress and performance (Siu, 2003; Friend, 1982; Jamal, 1984, 1985; Dyne, Jehn, &
Cumming, 2002). However, some empirical research that tests the relationship between stress and performance has shown mixed and inconsistent findings. One of the possible reasons for the failure to find a consistently and statistically significant relationship between stress and performance may be the existing moderator (Jex, 1998). This study proposes emotional intelligence is a moderator of job stress-job performance.
3.2.2 Emotional intelligence as a moderator of the stress-performance relationship Main effects of emotional intelligence on job performance
Emotional intelligence allows an individual to be aware of, regulate, and utilize emotions effectively in self and others (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, 1997; Goleman, 1995).
Goleman (1989, 2001) argued emotional intelligence is a required factor for performance and is positively to correlated successful outcomes of the individual in the organization. Most research studied the effects of emotional intelligence on management leadership skills. The high-emotional-intelligence managers displayed high levels of their job satisfaction, job performance, transformational leadership style, and low levels of intention to leave their job (Carmeli, 2003; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). A few studies were done on the emotional intelligence of employees. Emotional competencies were found to necessary to facilitate performance on many occupations. (Stough & De Guara, 2003; King &
Gradner, 2006). Also, Higgs (2004) indicated that emotional intelligence is strongly correlated with job performance in UK call centres.
High-emotional-intelligence individuals could manage themselves and have the social competence to manage others and advance interpersonal relationships. Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (1986) found that depression had a significant negative effect on performance.
High-emotional-intelligence employees have the ability to be aware of and manage their emotions keeping in positive metal states, leading to good job performance. It is hypothesized that employees with higher emotional intelligence will have better performance than those
with lower emotional intelligence.
H2 ：：：： There is a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance.
The moderator role of emotional intelligence
The relationship between job stress and job performance is inconsistent. Jex (1998) argued that may ignore some major factors and suggested to add broader range of moderators to the relationship of stress-performance. Source of stress does not always induce stress directly, but come from perceive of stress (Siu, 2003). Besides, dispositional variables are associated with stress perceived and some researches argue that they could be moderating the effect of stress outcomes in the organization (Parker & DeCotiis, 1983; Ivancevich &
Matteson, 1980). As Jordan, Ashkanasy, and Hartel (2002) indicated “emotional intelligence as an individual-difference variable that moderates stimulus-behavior linkages” (p. 369).
Furthermore, Carmeli (2003) suggested that future research should further investigate the effect of emotional intelligence may play in the relationship of job stress and job attitudes.
Emotional intelligence influences an individual response and ability to deal effectively with organizational demands (Slaski & Cartwright, 2002). The ability of regulating emotions may facilitate to manage personal resources effectively (Lazarus, 1999; King & Gradner, 2006). High emotional intelligence individuals tend to understand emotions through cognitive reappraisal and use strategies such as social resources and disclosure of feelings in the stressful workplace (King & Gradner, 2006; Siu, 2003). Core ability of emotional intelligence may associate to “resilience and adaptability in stressful environments.” (Matthews, et al., 2006; Bar-On, 2000) Emotional intelligence person is likely able to control some interferences or at least moderate them to an acceptable degree (Carmeli, 2003). This study expects emotional intelligence as moderator of stress-performance, and generates the
following hypothesis.
H3：：：： Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between stress and job performance, such that the negative relationship between job stress and job performance is stronger for employees those who are low emotional intelligence than who are high emotional intelligence.
Figure 3-1 is the research model and describes the relationship between job stress, job performance, and emotional intelligence. The relationship between job stress and job performance is expected to be moderated by emotional intelligence. That included three hypotheses.
Figure 3-1 The Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
3.3 Sample Process
To choose sample well is important in the study. The population of this study selects financial industry, including banks, insurance, securities, and property and casualty insurance and so on. Because the Analysis of Working Employees Tiredness from Council of Labor Affairs revealed that the most tiring occupation is financial institution and insurance. It is reported that employees in these jobs were heavy workloads, time pressure, and anxiety which resulted from sales performance requirements, sample of employees in financial institutions can be used appropriately in this study. This study chooses Taiwan’s Top 100
Job Stress
Emotional Intelligence
H1 H3 H2
Job Performance
financial institutions on May 7, 2008 (No. 396) by CommonWealth Magazine.
3.4 Questionnaire Design
3.4.1 Job Stress
Parker and Decotiis (1983) defined job stress has been “the feeling of a person who is required to deviate from normal or self-desired functioning in the work place as the result of opportunities, constraints, or demands relating to potentially important work-related outcomes” (p. 165). This measure was assessed with 13-item scale developed by Parker and DeCotiis (1983). The content of job stress items has two components, time stress and anxiety.
Feeling of time stress included eight items. Sample items are “Too many people at my level in the company get burned out by job demands” and “I have too much work and too little time to do it in.” Job-related feelings of anxiety included five items. Sample items are “I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job” and “Sometimes when I think about my job L get a tight feeling in my chest.” The literatures usually used this job scale items as overall job stress (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Jamal, Baba, & Riviere, 1998; Jamal, 2004) and that has good psychometric properties (Jamal & Baba, 2000; Baba, Jamal, & Tourigny, 1998). This measure is assessed in five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagreement with the item to 5 strongly agreement with the item. A higher score on this instrument is a higher degree of job stress.
3.4.2 Emotional Intelligence
We defined emotional intelligence as individual competence to aware, regulate, and utilize emotions effectively in self and others (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, 1997; Goleman, 1995). This self-report emotional intelligence test (SREIT) was developed by Schutte et al.
(1998) comprises 33 items. It is one of best-known tests and widely used in the literature (e.g., Carmeli, 2003; Ciarrochi, Deane, & Anderson, 2002). The short form questionnaire
developed as the basis on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) original model of emotional intelligence comprises 62 items. After adapting factor analysis of original 62 items, 33 items were retained which established high internal consistency (α = 0.87) and test-retest reliability (α = 0.78). The existing scales of emotional intelligence about SREIT are designed to suit to the workplace (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Boyatzsis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000). Petrides and Furnham (2000) argued a dimension of SREIT did not map onto original model of Salovey and Mayer (1990) which included three factors and adapted factor analytic research found four provisional factors (optimism and mood regulation, appraisal of emotions, social skills, and utilization of emotions), but they did not offered the reliability and validity of factors (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). So we adapt SREIT which is one factor to measure emotional intelligence.
Sample items are “I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them (evaluation and expression of emotions)”; “when I am faced with obstacles, I remember times I faced similar obstacles and overcame them (regulation of emotions)”; “Some of the major events of my life have led me to re-evaluate what is important (utilization of emotions).” This measure were assessed in five-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagreement, to 5 = strongly agreement). A higher score on this SREIT is a higher degree of emotional intelligence.
3.4.3 Job performance
Job performance is defined the degree about which the individual effort reaches quantity and quality of missions or goals in the organization (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2005;
Robbins, 2005). Job performance was measured adapted by Singh et al. (1996) from Dubinsky and Mattson (1979) original scale and widely used in the literatures (e.g., Kalbers
& Cenker, 2008; Fogarty et al., 2000). This self-appraisal instrument contains six items. One of six self-appraisal questions regarding compared with their coworkers, and the other is the respondent’s own performance. Sample items are “How would you rate yourself in terms of
the quantity of work (e.g., sales) you achieve?” and “How do you rate yourself in terms of your performance potential among coworkers in your company?” The Cronbach’s alpha of the literature for this scale was 0.8 (Singh et al., 1996). It is assessed on five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent. A higher score on this instrument is a higher job performance.
For avoiding possible bias we used self-appraisal method to measure performance. The previous research used self-appraisal performance to overcome the problem of “halo-error”
related to supervisory ratings (Fisher, 2001; Brownell, 1982; Nealy & Owen, 1970). Brownell (1982, p17) noted “halo-error” as the tendency to evaluate “globally” or, in other words, to evaluate on only one cognitive dimension, and a high intercorrelation among separate dimensions is evidence of halo error. Nonetheless self-appraisal performance may exist a leniency bias (Heneman, 1974) and inflate self-evaluation (Mabe & West, 1982), the accuracy of self-appraisal performance was still supported (Tuten & Neidermeyer, 2004; Farh
& Werbel, 1986). Though such inflation may exist, so long as the bias is not systematic of the independent variables, the result will not be affected (Brownell & Mclnnes, 1986).
Performance appraisal methods most include two approaches: comparative and absolute methods (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2005). Comparative methods indicate that individual is better than another in the organization, such as method of force distribution. It used few categories which rate a specific proportion. For example, Baruch (1996) adopted
Performance appraisal methods most include two approaches: comparative and absolute methods (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2005). Comparative methods indicate that individual is better than another in the organization, such as method of force distribution. It used few categories which rate a specific proportion. For example, Baruch (1996) adopted