• 沒有找到結果。

The Relationships among Emotional Capital, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Cross-Level Analysis

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Relationships among Emotional Capital, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Cross-Level Analysis"

Copied!
24
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)

團體情緒資本、個體情緒資本與工作

滿足及組織公民行為之關聯:跨層級

研究

The Relationships among Emotional Capital, Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A

Cross-Level Analysis

劉仲矩1

Chung-Chu Liu 國立臺北大學 企業管理學系

Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University 陳秀育Shiou-Yu Chen

國立海洋大學 航運管理學系

Department of Shipping and Transportation Management, National Taiwan Ocean University

廖智宏 Chin-Hung Liao 國立臺北大學 企業管理學系

Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University

摘要:員工工作滿意度和組織公民行為會受到個體變數的影響,同時也會受 到群體層次的變數所影響。本研究利用跨層次的方式來探討員工工作滿意度 及組織公民行為。我們首先探討個人情緒資本,之後討論群體情緒資本。利 用階層線性迴歸,研究發現個人情緒資本分別會對工作滿意度及組織公民行 為有顯著的正向影響,組織內的群體情緒資本也會對於員工的工作滿意度及 組織公民行為有顯著的直接效果。而群體情緒資本對個人情緒資本與工作滿 意度有干擾效果。根據實證研究,我們建議企業在徵選員工應挑選具有個人 情緒資本的員工,此外管理團隊也應建立群體情緒資本,加強員工對組織的 向心力,發揮出員工最大的潛力。 關鍵詞:個人情緒資本;群體情緒資本;工作滿意度;組織公民行為;階層 線性模型 1

Corresponding author: Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, New Taipei City, Taiwan, E-mail: gereliu@mail.ntpu.edu.tw

(2)

Abstract: Employee job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior are

affected not only by individual-level variables but also by group-level variables. Hence, this study uses a cross-level approach to investigate the relationships among individual and group emotional capitals with job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. We first explore the individual emotional capital effects, and then group emotional capital effects. Based on hierarchical linear modeling, the study found individual emotional capital has significant positive effects on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, and so does group emotional capital within organizations. In addition, this study also found that group emotional capital has moderate effects on job satisfaction but organizational citizenship behaviors. According to the empirical findings, this study proposes that enterprises should take individual emotional capital into account when recruiting new employees, and then develop and accumulate the group emotional capital to facilitate the cohesive spirits and team work performance.

Keywords : Individual emotional capital; Group emotional capital; Job

satisfaction; Organization citizenship behavior; Hierarchical linear modeling

1. Introduction

Emotional theory has attracted considerable research in recent decades. However, emotional capital has not been given sufficient attention in the management literature. The extant literature related to emotional capital can be divided into two broad categories: individual level (Schweingruber and Berns, 2005; Zembylas, 2007; O'Brien, 2008) and group level (Thomson, 1998). Most of extant individual-level studies have been focused on the fields of education and the family (Reay, 2004; Gillies, 2006; Zembylas, 2007; O'Brien, 2008). In educational research, individual emotional capital is defined as emotionally valued assets and skills; love and affection; and the expenditure of time, attention, care, and concern (Reay, 2004; Zembylas, 2007). Additionally, a number of emotional capital studies have focused on individuals, such as mothers and

(3)

children (Reay, 2004; Gillies, 2006; Zembylas, 2007; O'Brien, 2008). To the authors’ best knowledge, there is little research dealt with individual emotional capital of employees in the workplace. Employees have a higher job performance when they perceive positive well-being (an emotional power) in the workplace (Wright, Cropanzano and Bonett, 2007). Similarly, Cote and Morgan (2002) proposed that pleasant emotions and emotional regulation can increase employees’ job satisfaction.

Group emotion is a type of interpersonal relationship (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). People who have emotional capital can create strong, familiar relationships with others (Gratton and Ghoshal, 2003). Boehm and Lyubomirsky (2008) commented that people with high levels of positive emotion have superior interpersonal skills to those who with lower levels. Fan and Zigang (2004) reported the Chinese preferred to spend time developing and maintaining interpersonal relationship in the interactive process. Pescosolido (2002) also suggested that the interpersonal relationship between a manager and his/her employees is an important factor in forming group emotion. Saavedra and Dyne (1999) stated that emotional investment was a pivotal dimension of group effectiveness defined as mutual caring, group loyalty, and commitment to the group as a whole. Employees’ positive emotions can be strongly related to ethical decision-making in the organization (Connelly, Fauth and Mumford, 2004). Chinese people rely more on groups to make decisions with the core idea that they should emphasize loyalty to the group (Fan and Zigang, 2004). Therefore, a positive emotion among group members can influence individual attitudes, group processes, and group performance (Barsade et al., 2000). Despite the essential impact of group emotion on employees’ attitudes and behaviors, it still received little attention in organizational behavior research.

Previous organizational behavior studies have claimed multi-level effects of contextual factors on employees’ attitudes and behaviors, such as job satisfaction and organizational citizenship (Kelly and Barsade, 2001; Pescosolido, 2002; Renjun and Zigang, 2005). However, they continue to focus on individual levels of analysis and ignore the group level (Cote and Morgan, 2002; Carmeli, 2003; Luthans et al., 2007).

(4)

As discussed above, the theoretical development and practical applications of emotional capital at the individual level have gained enormous research in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet, individual employees are embedded in social relations among groups, teams and organizations (Day, 2000), it should consider both individual and group level factors simultaneously when dealt with employees’ perceptions and behaviors at workplace (West, Patera and Carsten, 2009). When analyzed stable person characteristics, situational factors were typically aggregated to the higher level (e.g., Pugh, 2001). But, in some cases, the aggregation of different level variables may change their true meaning (Morgeson and Hofmann, 1999). To remedy this kind of distortion, we establish models that explicitly acknowledge the existence of different levels and formulate the interactions between cross-levels in the production of the outcome variables. We adopt hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), which allowed us to process and relate variables from different levels. The main purpose of this study was to determine if multilevel effects on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) would be manifested in terms of theoretically relevant individual- and group-level variables. Specifically, we investigate the relationships of group emotional capital with employees’ outcomes and its moderate effect on the relations of individual emotional capital and employees’ outcomes. The conceptual model of this study is depicted in Figure 1. The following, we reviewed several literatures with regard to multi-level research framework of emotional capital and employees’ outcomes.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Individual Emotional Capital and Job Satisfaction,

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Employees with higher levels of individual emotional capital tend to be more satisfied with their job and more willing to help their colleagues. Cote and Morgan (2002) argued the existence of a positive relationship between employees’ positive emotion and their job satisfaction. Organizational citizenship behavior

(5)

comprises four sub-dimensions or facets: helping, cooperating, showing courtesy and consideration, and motivating others (Dudley and Cortina, 2008). People who have high levels of positive emotion are more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (Connelly, Fauth and Mumford, 2004; Messer and White, 2006; Johnson, 2008). Positive emotion affects individuals by leading them to create a good outcome (Saari and Judge, 2004; Efklides and Petkaki, 2005). In general, employees who exhibited higher levels of emotional intelligence demonstrated a positive work attitude, behavior and performance (Carmeli, 2003). Put simply, happy people are more satisfied with their work compared to unhappy people (Boehm and Lyubomirsky, 2008). King, George and Hebl (2005) also suggested that employees who have low levels of positive emotion may not hold enough social confidence to help their coworkers. Thus, based on the arguments above, we propose the following two hypotheses: those employees with high levels of individual emotional capital should be able to demonstrate higher job satisfaction and facilitate organizational citizenship behaviors.

H1: Individual emotional capital will significantly contribute to job

satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.

H1a: Individual emotional capital will significantly contribute to job

satisfaction.

H1b : Individual emotional capital will significantly contribute to

organizational citizenship behavior.

2.2 Group Emotional Capital and Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Over the last decade, a substantial amount of research has verified the consequences of group emotion in organizations (Barsade et al., 2000; Kelly and Barsade, 2001; Seger et al., 2009), and in particular, they emphasized the benefits of group emotion in motivational processes for job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (Kidwell and Mossholder, 1997; Sveinsdottir, Biering and Ramel, 2006; Dimitriades, 2007). Group emotional capital consists of the benefits of group emotion, such as group cohesiveness, group loyalty, an ethical climate,

(6)

and interpersonal relationships. Employees perceived that group emotion would stimulate their own emotion and bring about group synergy of common objectives to boost a team’s potential. Therefore, group emotional capital is related to higher job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (Connelly, Fauth and Mumford, 2004; Ulrich et al., 2007; Tsai and Huang, 2008).

On the basis of this emerging theoretical foundation for group emotional capital, we derive the hypotheses as follows:

H2:Group emotional capital will significantly contribute to job

satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior after individual emotional capital is controlled.

H2a:Group emotional capital will significantly contribute to job

satisfaction after individual emotional capital is controlled.

H2b:Group emotional capital will significantly contribute to

organizational citizenship behavior after individual emotional capital is controlled. Figure 1 A Multilevel Research Framework H2b H2a H3a H3b H 1a H1b Group Level Individual Level Job Satisfaction Organizational Citizenship Behavior Group Emotional Capital C Individual Emotional Capital

(7)

2.3 Contextual Effects and Cross-Level Interaction

The interaction between individual emotional elements and group context has been a critical concern in psychology theories (Griffin, 1997). Group emotional capital is a specific domain, defined as a group emotion phenomenon. Kidwell and Mossholder (1997) argued that group cohesiveness is an interaction pattern among employees and gives rise to the atmosphere that characterizes interactions within a team. Hence, contextual factors may be essential for understanding the consequences of group emotional capital in organizations (Walter and Bruch, 2008). Although group emotion originates within individuals (Barsade et al., 2000; Kelly and Barsade, 2001; Seger et al., 2009), group emotional capital is expected to be shared by individuals within different groups. Moreover, increased social interaction procedures result in a greater similarity of climate perceptions among group members within groups and greater variation across groups (Tse, Dasborough and Ashkansy, 2008). Given that employees with high emotional capital may already possess high levels of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, the additional contribution of group emotional capital is limited. Sy, Tram and O’Hara (2006) contended that employees’ high emotional intelligence leads to high job satisfaction, and the additional contribution of environmental support is restricted. Chen and Francesco (2003) proposed that employees with high levels of positive emotion contribute to organizational citizenship behavior, and extra contribution of group norms is trivial. That is, employees who have high emotional capital that contributes to job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior and then group emotion has only minor influences. But, on the opposite, if employees have low emotional capital, the group emotional capital will have a great impact on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Consequently, we predict that group emotional capital should be conceptualized as a group-level moderator of the relationships among individual emotional capital, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. This leads to our cross-level hypothesis:

(8)

H3:Given higher levels of group emotional capital, employees with lower

individual emotional capital will demonstrate lower job satisfaction and weaker organizational citizenship behavior.

H3a: Given higher levels of group emotional capital, employees with

lower individual emotional capital will demonstrate lower job satisfaction.

H3b: Given higher levels of group emotional capital, employees with

lower individual emotional capital will demonstrate weaker organizational citizenship behavior.

3. Methods

3.1 Sample and Procedures

Prior to collecting the data for this study, a pretest was conducted on a sample of 30 questionnaires. Minor modifications, including the deletion of redundant and unclear items, were made to the survey instrument based on an item analysis and examination of internal consistency reliabilities. In addition, a few respondents were interviewed in order to establish the clarity of the questions, as well as their adequacy in capturing the desired construct.

We used questionnaires and convenience sampling to collect primary data from 25 companies, 3 high-tech companies, 8 financial companies and 2 governmental departments. All participants were told that the purpose of this study was to assess the relationships among emotional capital and job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, and they were all volunteers. In this sample, 42.4% of participants were male, while 57.6% were female. The demographic variables are given in detail in Table 1.

3.2 Measures

The study adapted scales from Vallerand et al. (2008) to measure individual emotional capital. Sample items included “I think that I often feel satisfied with my life,” “I think that I always feel healthy,” “I think that I often feel optimistic about

(9)

the future,” “I have a tough time controlling my need to do my job,” “I have almost an obsessive feeling for my job,” etc. The Cronbach’s alpha for individual emotional capital was 0.87.

Table 1

Demographic Variables of this Study

Demographic Frequency (%)

Gender Male:318(42.4%) Female:432(57.6%)

Age 15~25:72 (9.6%) 26~30:261 (34.8%)

31~35:155 (20.7%) 36~45:167 (22.3%)

46 and above:95 (12.7%)

Education High school or below:132

(17.6%)

College:119 (15.9%)

University:155 (20.7%) Graduate:95 (12.7%)

Occupational Level Senior managers:15 (2.0%) Middle managers:37 (4.9%) First-line managers:105 (14.0%) Employees:561 (51.1%) Temporary workers:32 (4.3%)

Tenure 1~3 years: 313 (41.7%) 3~6 years: 176 (23.5%)

6~9 years: 71 (9.5%) 9 years and above:190 (25.3%)

Organizational citizenship behavior was based on works by Farh, Earley and Lin (1997) and Podsakoff and Mackenzie (1996). Sample items included “Many colleagues are willing to cover works for other colleagues when necessary,” “Many colleagues often use positions of power to pursue selfish personal gain,” and “Many colleagues often use company resources to do personal business” etc. The Cronbach’s alpha for organizational citizenship behavior was 0.74.

The measure of job satisfaction was modified from research by Churchill, Ford and Walker (1974). Sample items were “I think that my work is challenging,” “I think my job is often dull and monotonous,” “I think that my work gives me a sense of accomplishment,” “I think that my opportunities for advancement are very limited,” and “I think of my present job in light of my career expectations” etc. The Cronbach’s alpha for organizational citizenship behavior was 0.73.

(10)

score determined by averaging responses across individual workers of the group (Griffin, 1997; Kelly and Barsade, 2001; Pescosolido, 2002; Seger et al., 2009). Moreover, social interaction thus explains the transition from individual perceptions into a shared measurement, turning an individual-level factor into a group-level factor, that is, the group tone or climate (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). The study combined scales devised by Mollenhorst, Volker and Flap (2008), Segrin and Taylor (2007) to measure group emotional capital. Sample items included, “I enjoy working with my colleague in the company,” “I feel that I am a part of the company,” “At work, people do not cooperate; sometimes they make trouble for me,” “I think that I should do what is right for the customers and public in this company,” and “I think that people protect their own interests above all else in this company” etc. The Cronbach’s alpha for group emotional capital was 0.86.

Previous researchers have indicated that gender, age, education, level, and tenure have effects on organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction (Carmeli, 2003; Chiu and Tsai, 2006; Cole, Harris and Bernerth, 2006; Gadot, 2007; Chughtai, 2008). Accordingly, we included gender, age, education, level and tenure as control variables.

3.3 Data Analysis

We checked the viability of group-level constructs by examining the within-group agreement, intra-class correlation coefficient ICC (1) and reliability of the mean ICC (2) (Castro, 2002; Bliese, Halverson and Schriesheim, 2002; Hui

et al., 2007). We used four hierarchical linear models to test the above hypotheses.

First, we tested the significant difference of within-and between-group variances of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, since they are influenced by both individual and group level variables. Hence, we tested a null model in which there were no variables at either the individual- or group-level to separate the variance in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior into within-group and between-group factors. Second, we examined a random coefficient regression model with group-mean centered individual-level variables (i.e., individual emotional capital) to estimate the relationships among individual emotional capital, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Third,

(11)

we established an intercepts-as-outcomes model to examine the effects of the group-level variable (i.e., group emotional capital) to regress the intercept estimates acquired from level 1 as outcome variables. Finally, we employed a slopes-as-outcomes model to regress the slope estimates acquired from level 1 to estimate cross-level interaction effects. This study also examined the proportion of variance in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior explained by individual-level components (R2within-group) as well as by group-level components

(R2between-group) (Hofmann, 1997). In addition, the choice of centering must be

determined by theory (Hofmann, 1997). All individual predictors were group-mean centered to eliminate any group-level variance from the level 1 predictors. Group-level predictors in the above models were grand-mean centered to reduce potential collinearity between the level 2 intercept and slope terms (Kidwell and Mossholder, 1997).

4. Empirical Results

4.1 Discriminant Validity

We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to examine whether the four-factor model is a better fit than the one-factor model. This four-factor model fit the data better than the one-factor model. As shown in Table 2, four-factor χ2 = 3374.667, CFI = 0.752, AGFI = 0.716, and RMSEA = 0.0987, while one-factor χ2 = 5863.311, CFI = 0.599, AGFI = 0.546, and RMSEA = 0.145.

Table 2

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Measurement Variables

Model χ2 d.f. GFI AGFI RMSEA

Four-factor model 3374.677 490 0.752 0.716 0.0987

One-factor model 5863.311 496 0.599 0.546 0.1450

4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

(12)

variables we researched. At the individual level, individual emotional capital was significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r = 0.600***) and organizational citizenship behavior (r = 0.437***); at the group level, group emotional capital was significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r = 0.425***) and organizational citizenship behavior (r = 0.562***). The correlations among the observed variables provide primary evidence to support our hypotheses. The results supported criterion-related validity evidence for job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Matrix

Correlations Matrix IEC JS GEC OCB

IEC 1.000 JS 0.600*** 1.000 GEC 0.565*** 0.425*** 1.000 OCB 0.437*** 0.404*** 0.562*** 1.000 Mean 4.858 4.321 5.441 4.748 Standard Deviation 0.923 1.016 0.780 0.861 Cronbach’s Alpha 0.878 0.748 0.868 0.731

Note: N = 750, *p < 0.05;** p < 0.01;*** p < 0.0001; IEC: Individual Emotional Capital; GEC: Group Emotional Capital;JS: Job Satisfaction; OCB: Organizational Citizenship Behavior

4.3 Data Aggregation

Because certain variables in the research were higher level variables, we examined the potentiality of the organization-level variables. We therefore computed the value of the within-group agreement (rwg), intra-class correlation (ICC (1)), and the reliability of the mean (ICC (2)). Although all three indices measure group-level characteristics of data, ICC (1) and ICC (2) are indices that are used across all groups, whereas the rwgcoefficient is tested only within a single group; that is, the rwgindex is tested within each group in the sample (Castro, 2002). The rwg was a standard used to confirm the fitness of aggregation data to higher levels of analysis. If the average value of rwg is greater than 0.70, it means good

(13)

agreements within the groups (Kidwell and Mossholder, 1997; Castro, 2002; Mathieu and Schulze, 2006). We obtained average value of 0.95 for group emotional capital that sustains the appropriateness of aggregation data to higher levels (minimum = 0.90, maximum = 0.98). These values suggest that individuals within firms tend to agree with their assessment of group emotional capital. In past research, there were no absolute standards on acceptable values for ICC (1) and

ICC (2) (Bliese, Halverson and Schriesheim, 2002). However, Hui et al. (2007)

suggested that the values of ICC (1) greater than 0.12 can be due to aggregation, whereas if ICC (1) is less than 0.05, then aggregation may be excluded (Castro, 2002). If values of ICC (2) greater than 0.60, then can be due to aggregation (Hui et

al., 2007; Tse, Dasborough and Ashkansy, 2008). Using the model for the

relationship between individual emotional capital and job satisfaction, the values of ICC (1) and ICC (2) on group emotional capital are 0.14 and 0.83 respectively. Similarly, in the model for organizational citizenship behavior, ICC (1) and ICC (2) values to be 0.09 and 0.74 respectively. These results indicate that group emotional capital consisted of individual members and was able to be aggregated as a group-level variable.

4.4 HLM Results for Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior

4.4.1 Null Model

In order to support our hypotheses which predict that both individual and group variables would be significantly related to job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, we used HLM to estimate a null model in which no predictors were specified for either the level1 or level2 function to test the significance at level 1 of the level 2 residual variance of the job satisfaction intercept (25.925, t-ratio = 51.335) and OCB intercept (28.485, t-ratio = 78.946). The ICC (1) was 0.14 and 0.09 respectively, indicating values of 14 and 9 percent of the variance in job satisfaction and organization citizenship behavior between firms.

4.4.2 Random Coefficient Regression Model

H1a and H1b predict that individual emotional capital will be associated with

(14)

individual emotional capital for the prediction, with no variables specified for the level 2 model. The results of this model revealed that individual emotional capital is positively related to job satisfaction (Table 4) and organizational citizenship behavior (Table 5) (γ10 = 0.318, t-ratio = 11.744 and γ10 = 0.218, t-ratio = 9.583). Employees with a higher level of emotional capital have a positive relation to job satisfaction (Cote and Morgan, 2002). The same effects worked for organizational citizenship behaviors, and were consistent with Connelly, Fauth and Mumford (2004), Messer and White (2006) and Johnson (2008). The results also shown that there was significant variance across groups in the level 1 intercepts and slopes (job satisfaction, 00 = 5.794, p < 0.000, 11 = 0.010, p < 0.007 and organizational citizenship behavior, 00 = 2.648, p < 0.000, 11 = 0.004, p < 0.032). Therefore, H1a

and H1b were supported. R2within-group for job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior were 0.45 and 0.24, which meant individual emotional capital accounted for 45 and 24 percent of the within-group variance.

4.4.3 Intercepts-as-Outcomes Model

Results from the random coefficient regression model indicated there was significant variance in the intercept term across firms. In order to test H2a and H2b,

we estimated an HLM model in which individual emotional capital was in the level 1 equation and group emotional capital was a predictor in the level 2 equation. Group emotional capital had a cross-level main effect associated with job satisfaction (Table 4) and organizational citizenship behavior (Table 5) (γ01 = 0.357, t-value = 3.111 and γ01 = 0.451, t-value = 6.587). The results support H2a and H2b;

group emotional capital demonstrated a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior after controlling individual emotional capital. R2between-group were 0.29 and 0.74 indicating group-level variables which accounted for 29 and 74 percent of between-group variance in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior after controlling individual emotional capital.

4.4.4 Slopes-as-Outcomes Model

H3a and H3b suggest that group emotional capital moderates the relationships

among individual emotional capital, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. A necessary precondition was the significant random variance for

(15)

individual emotional capital in the intercepts-as-outcomes models ( 11 = 0.010, p < 0.007 and 11 = 0.004, p < 0.032), because it showed the significant difference in individual emotional capital, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior relationships across firms. With the purpose of confirming the prerequisite, we examined whether this variance could be accounted for by firm-level predictors. The results demonstrated that group emotional capital (γ = -0.017, t-value = -2.179) could negatively moderate the relationship between individual emotional capital and job satisfaction (Table 4). Thus, H3a was

supported.

Table 4

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for Job Satisfaction

Null Random coefficient Intercepts-as- outcomes Slopes-as- outcomes Level 1 Intercept 25.925 25.925*** 25.925*** 25.925*** (51.335) (51.320) (60.102) (59.496) Gender -0.424 -0.386 -0.414 (-1.058) (0.956) (-0.014) Age -0.042 -0.040 -0.062 (-0.179) (-0.170) (-0.255) Education 0.213 0.254 0.258 (0.625) (0.777) (0.789) Level -1.324*** -1.308*** -1.266** (-3.814) (-3.724) (-3.630) Tenure 0.230 0.222 0.263 (0.610) (0.852) (1.000) Individual EC 0.318*** 0.319*** 0.317*** (11.744) (11.833) (11.155) Level 2 Group EC 0.357*** 0.310* (3.111) (2.697) Cross-interaction Individual EC x Group EC -0.017* (-2.179) Within-firm residual variance 32.039 17.573 17.578 17.561 Model deviance 4770.004 4391.476 4391.334 4394.374

Notes: 1. Employees N = 750, firms N = 25. Entries are estimations of the fixed effects (γs) with robust standard errors. t-ratios are in parentheses.

(16)

The results demonstrated that group emotional capital (γ = -0.003, t-value = -0.591) could not moderate the relationship between individual emotional capital and organizational citizenship behavior (Table 5). Thus, H3b was not supported.

The main purpose of H3a is to examine whether group emotional capital will

moderate the main effect between individual emotional capital and job satisfaction. We tested the relationship between individual emotional capital and job satisfaction at a high level of group emotional capital and at a low level of group emotional capital. The slopes shown in Figure 2 illustrate the interaction. Individual emotional capital associates more positively with job satisfaction for employees within low group emotional capital than for high emotional capital.

Figure 2

The Moderate Effect of Group Emotional Capital between Individual Emotional Capital and Job

Satisfaction

23.56

Job Satisfaction

Individual Emotional Capital

33.77 27.99 22.20 16.42 10.64 -37.44 -22.19 -6.94 8.31

Group Emotional Capital = Low

(17)

Table 5

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for OCB

Null Random coefficient Intercepts-as- outcomes Slopes-as- outcomes Level 1 Intercept 28.485*** 28.485*** 28.485*** 28.485*** (79.946) (78.885) (125.853) (125.812) Gender -0.142 -0.077 -0.101 (-0.325) (-0.173) (-0.227) Age -0.099 -0.085 -0.097 (-0.340) (-0.296) (-0.331) Education -0.895** -0.900** -0.909** (-3.611) (-3.541) (-3.550) Level -0.140 -0.170 -0.160 (-0.455) (-0.544) (-0.511) Tenure 0.125 0.115 0.124 (0.578) (0.548) (0.589) Individual EC 0.218*** 0.220*** 0.220*** (9.583) (9.567) (9.506) Level 2 Group EC 0.451*** 0.456*** (6.587) (6.631) Cross-interaction Individual EC x Group EC -0.003 (-0.591) Within-firm residual variance 24.350 18.353 18.254 18.261 Model deviance 4554.894 4390.080 4370.625 4376.653

Notes: 1. Employees N = 750, firms N = 25. Entries are estimations of the fixed effects (γ s) with robust standard errors. t-ratios are in parentheses.

2.* p < 0.05;** p < 0.01;***p < 0 .001

5. Conclusions and Suggestions

5.1 Conclusions

In this paper, we expanded previous research on the development of emotions by building a theory of the dynamics of emotional capital in work groups. Although continued investment in human, social, and intelligence capital is necessary, it may no longer be enough in the global environment. Resources put into cultivating and sustaining employees’ emotional capital would offer substantial returns compared to those offered by other traditional capitals.

(18)

This empirical study provides evidence that individual emotional capital has significant impacts both on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Due to the critical roles of contextual effects of higher level, we further examined the context of group emotional capital and found that group emotional capital enhance both job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Finally, the moderating effect of group emotional capital on individual emotional capital and job satisfaction is significant. We found that individual emotional capital associates more positively with job satisfaction for employees within low group emotional capital than for high emotional capital.

5.2 Managerial Implications

Individual emotional capital is as crucial as other traditional capitals as it becomes a vital predictor for a person’s achievement in life. Managers should be aware of this trend and do whatever is necessary to help employees accumulate and sustain their emotional capital at both the individual and the group level. The evidence in our study shows employees who have greater well-being, passion and optimism may be more likely to confront global environmental contexts than their colleagues with lower emotional capital.

Through understanding group emotional capital, managers should effectively monitor and control its development and application. The contextual effects discussed in this study may offer some suggestions for managers to manage and shape group emotional capital. In sum, managing group emotional capital may allow managers to benefit from group emotion and avoid the negative consequences of group emotion. Group emotional capital will direct their work groups towards effective task achievements.

5.3 Limitations and Future Research

Although individual emotional capital has increasingly been the object of research in recent years, few attempts to establish a conceptual framework contains both individual and group level emotional capital in management research. Our research is a start and hope to induce more similar research to make the emotion-related theory complete. This study is an explorative one and some

(19)

limitations identified as follows.

First, for HLM, it is necessary that each firm contains sufficient employees to reliably examine within-group effects and a larger sample of groups. If the sample of firms is insufficient, this would lead to problems with the testing of HLM models (Hofmann, 1997; Tse, Dasborough, and Ashkansy, 2008). Even our sample contained 750 employees nested within 25 firms, it still left space to enlarge the sample size. Second, we used the method of data aggregation in order to reduce common method variance (Tse, Dasborough, and Ashkansy, 2008) in this study. Fortunately, our data showed the stable features and shared perceptions among employees in a firm regarding their group emotional capital. But if the data is not stable, it is biased to aggregate directly. Third, this study only concerned cross-sectional, and did not examine the dynamic nature of relationships between emotional capital and employees’ behaviors with longitudinal data.

References

Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F. and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000), “To Your Heart’s Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Management Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802-836.

Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R. and Schriesheim, C. A. (2002), “Benchmarking Multilevel Methods in Leadership the Articles, the Model, and the Data Set,”

The Leadership Quarterly,13(1), 3-14.

Boehm, J. K. and Lyubomirsky, S. (2008), “Does Happiness Promote Career Success?” Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 101-116.

Carmeli, A. (2003), “The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Work Attitudes, Behavior and Outcomes: An Examination among Senior Managers,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788-813.

Castro, S. L. (2002), “Data Analytic Methods for the Analysis of Multilevel Questions: A Comparison of Intraclass Correlation Coefficients, rwg(j), Hierarchical Linear Modeling, within-and between-Analysis, and Random Group Resampling,” The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 69-93.

(20)

Components of Commitment and Employee Performance in China,” Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 490-510.

Chiu, S. F. and Tsai, M. C. (2006), “Relationship among Burnout, Job Involvement, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” The Journal of

Psychology, 140(6), 517-530.

Chughtai, A. A. (2008), “Impact of Job Involvement on In-Role Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” Journal of Behavioral and

Applied Management, 9(2), 169-183.

Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M. and Walker, O. C. (1974), “Measuring the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salesmen,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11(3), 254-260.

Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G. and Beneath, J. B. (2006), “Exploring the Implications of Vision, Appropriateness, and Execution of Organizational Change,”

Leadership & Organization, 27(5), 352-367.

Connelly, S., Fauth, W. H. and Mumford, M. D. (2004), “A Managerial In-Basket Study of the Impact of Trait Emotions on Ethical Choice,” Journal of

Business Ethics, 51(3), 245-267.

Cote, S. and Morgan, L. M. (2002), “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Association between Emotion Regulation, Job Satisfaction, and Intentions to Quit,”

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 947-962.

Day, D. V. (2000), “Leadership Development: A Review in Context,” The

Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.

Dimitriades, Z. S. (2007), “The Influence of Service Climate and Job Involvement on Customer-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Greek Service Organizations: A Survey,” Employee Relations, 29(5), 469-491.

Dudley, N. M. and Cortina, J. M. (2008), “Knowledge and Skills that Facilitate the Personal Support Dimension of Citizenship,” Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(6), 1249-1270.

Efklides, A. and Petkaki, C. (2005), “Effects of Mood on Students’ Metacognitive Experience,” Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 415-431.

Fan, P. and Zigang, Z. (2004), “Cross-Cultural Challenges When Doing Business in China,” Singapore Management Review, 26(1), 81-90.

(21)

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C. and Lin, S. C. (1997), “Impetus for Action: A Cultural Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421-444.

Gadot, V. E. (2007), “Redrawing the Boundaries of OCB an Empirical Examination of Compulsory Extra-Role Behavior in the Workplace,”

Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377-405.

Gillies, V. (2006), “Working Class Mothers and School Life: Exploring the Role of Emotional Capital,” Gender and Education, 18(3), 281-293.

Gratton, L. and Ghoshal, S. (2003), “Managing Personal Human Capital: New Ethos for the “Volunteer” Employee,” European Management Journal, 21(1), 1-10.

Griffin, M. A. (1997), “Interaction between Individuals and Situations: Using HLM Procedures to Estimate Reciprocal Relationships,” Journal of

Management, 23(6), 759-773.

Hofmann, D. A. (1997), “An Overview of the Logic and Rationale of Hierarchical Linear Models,” Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744.

Hui, C. H., Chiu, W. C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Cheng, K. and Tse, H. H. M. (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.

Johnson, S. K. (2008), “I Second that Emotion: Effects of Emotional Contagion and Affect at Work on Leader and Follower Outcomes,” Leadership

Quarterly, 19(1), 1-19.

Kelly, J. R. and Barsade, S. G. (2001), “Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99-130.

Kidwell, R. E. and Mossholder, K. W. (1997), “Cohesiveness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis Using Work Groups and Individuals,” Journal of Management, 23(6), 775-793.

King, E. B., George, J. M. and Hebl, M. R. (2005), “Linking Personality to Helping Behavior at Work: An Interactional Perspective,” Journal of

(22)

Personality, 73(3), 585-608.

Luthans, F., Avoid, B. J., Avey, J. B. and Norman, S. M. (2007), “Positive Psychological Capital: Measurement and Relationship with Performance and Satisfaction,” Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541-572.

Mathieu, J. E. and Schulze, W. (2006), “The Influence of Team Knowledge and Formal Plans on Episodic Team Process-Performance Relationships,”

Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 605-619.

Messer, B. A. E. and White, F. A. (2006), “Employees’ Mood, Perceptions of Fairness, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” Journal of Business and

Psychology, 21(1), 65-82.

Mollenhorst, G., Volker, B. and Flap, H. (2008), “Social Contexts and Personal Relationships: The Effect of Meeting Opportunities on Similarity for Relationships of Different Strength,” Social Networks, 30(1), 60-68.

Morgeson, F. P. and Hofmann, D. A. (1999), “The Structure and Function of Collective Constructs: Implications for Multilevel Research and Theory Development,” The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249-265.

O'Brien, M. (2008), “Gendered Capital: Emotional Capital and Mothers’ Care Work in Education,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 137-148.

Pescosolido, A. T. (2002), “Emergent Leaders as Managers of Group Emotion,”

The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 583-599.

Podsakoff, P. M. and Mackenzie, S. B. (1996), “Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,”

Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.

Pugh, S. D. (2001), “Service with a Smile: Emotional Contagion in the Service Encounter,” The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018-1027.

Reay, D. (2004), “Gendering Bourdieu’s Concept of Capitals? Emotional Capital, Women and Social Class,” The Sociological Review, 52(2), 57-74.

Renjun, Q. and Zigang, Z. (2005), “Work Group Emotions in Chinese Culture Settings,” Singapore Management Review, 27(1), 69-86.

(23)

Human Resource Management, 43(4), 395-407.

Saavedra, R. and Dyne, L. V. (1999), “Social Exchange and Emotional Investment in Work Group,” Motivation and Emotion, 23(2), 105-123.

Schweingruber, D. and Berns, N. (2005), “Shaping the Selves of Young Salespeople through Emotion Management,” Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 34(6), 679-706.

Seger, C. R., Smith, E. R., Kinias, Z. and Mackie, D. M. (2009), “Knowing How They Feel: Perceiving Emotions Felt by Outgroups,” Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 45(1), 80-89.

Segrin, C. and Taylor, M. (2007), “Positive Interpersonal Relationships Mediate the Association between Social Skills and Psychological Well-Being,”

Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 637-646.

Sveinsdottir, H., Biering, P. and Ramel, A. (2006), “Occupational Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Working Environment among Icelandic Nurses: An Across-Sectional Questionnaire Survey,” International Journal of Nursing

Studies, 43(7), 875-889.

Sy, T., Tram, S. and O’Hara, L. A. (2006), “Relation of Employee and Manager Emotional Intelligence to Job Satisfaction and Performance,” Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 461-473.

Thomson, K. (1998), Emotional Capital: Maximising the Intangible Assets at the

Heart of Brand and Business Success, 1st ed., Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing Limited.

Tsai, M. C. and Huang, C. C. (2008), “The Relationship among Ethical Climate Types, Facets of Job Satisfaction, and the Three Components of Organizational Commitment: A Study of Nurses in Taiwan,” Journal of

Business Ethics, 80(3), 565-581.

Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T. and Ashkansy, N. M. (2008), “A Multi-Level Analysis of Team Climate and Interpersonal Exchange Relationships at Work,” The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 195-211.

Ulrich, C., O'Donnell, P., Taylor, C., Farrar, A., Danis, M. and Grady, C. (2007), “Ethical Climate, Ethics Stress, and the Job Satisfaction of Nurses and Social Workers in the United States,” Social Science & Medicine, 65(8), 1708-1719.

(24)

Vallerand, R. J., Mageau, G. A., Elliot, A. J., Dumais, A., Demers, M. and Rousseau, F. (2008), “Passion and Performance Attainment in Sport,”

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9(3), 373-392.

Walter, F. and Bruch, H. (2008), “The Positive Group Affect Spiral: A Dynamic Model of the Emergence of Positive Affective Similarity in Work Groups,”

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 239-261.

West, B. J., Patera, J. L. and Carsten, M. K. (2009), “Team Level Positivity: Investigating Positive Psychological Capacities and Team Level Outcomes,”

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 249-267.

Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R. and Bonett D. G. (2007), “The Moderating Role of Employee Positive Well Being on the Relation between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 93-104.

Zembylas, M. (2007), “Emotional Capital and Education Theoretical Insights from Bourdieu,” British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 443-463. Zohar, D. and Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008), “Transformational Leadership and Group

Interaction as Climate Antecedents: A Social Network Analysis,” Journal of

參考文獻

相關文件

Keywords: Financial and Insurance Industry, Work Motivation, Work Pressure, Job Satisfaction, Organizational

The present study explores the relationship between organizational reward system, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and organizational performance to

Thus, emotional intelligence and social support are main elements to reduce teacher stress and interpersonal conflict, as well as to increase job

This study aims to explore whether the service quality and customer satisfaction have a positive impact on the organizational performance of the services and whether the

(1968), “What is Job Satisfaction, Organization Behavior and Human Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, pp. (1976) “The Nature &amp; Cause of Job Satisfaction”,

A model of service quality perceptions and health care consumer behavior. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in

performance of college students, Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) 期刊. Which is a better predictor of job performance: Job satisfaction or

Salary reward and Bonus reward for working attitude is greatly impact by job satisfaction and organizational promise to reach its remarkable standard as significantly in the